I’m not sure which is the more egregious of the two, Texas Governor Rick Perry’s soon to be resurrected “virtual border watch” program (resurrected at taxpayers’ expense, I should add), or the Houston Chronicle heralding the news in today’s front page, above-the-fold story by Rosanna Ruiz and replete with a bold-faced, all-caps, eye-catching headline (”WEB CAMERAS ON BORDER A REALITY AGAIN“).

Goodness. Let the joyous news be spread, illegal immigration alas is dead.

Hardly!

This is just another publicity stunt by a governor who, truth be known and despite his self-serving campaign pronouncements to the contrary, is about as interested in stopping the human invasion from the south as George W. Bush was when he was a two-term Texas governor (and as he is now as an open-borders, pro-amnesty, two-term president). And given the Houston Chronicle’s long-standing, editorial board opposition to anything approaching enforcement first vis-a-vis what they persist in characterizing as an immigration issue, it’s more than a bit disengenuous of the newspaper’s editors to play up this kind of nonsense out of Austin.

In the initial, month-long test of a program, presently in abeyance, in which anyone with Internet access could monitor some 200 Web cams along the contiguous Texas - Mexico border, the Chronicle reports that nearly “28 million hits were recorded” and “more than 13,000 e-mails on suspicious activities” were sent to authorities, resulting in (drum roll, please) “the arrests of at least 10 illegal immigrants …”

This from a newspaper that champions the “sanctuary city status” of America’s 4th largest city — a city with an illegal alien population in excess of 400,000 — and this from a governor who publicly opposes the construction of a border fence.

Perry said in Mexico City last month that he is opposed to a border fence. “We know how to deal with border security, and you don’t do it by building a fence; you do it by putting boots on the ground,” he said.

Boots on the ground or Web cameras, Governor?

To be sure, this $3 million program is as preposterous, as it is laughable. More blue smoke and mirrors from elite politicians, if you ask me. Tell you what, readers: if most MSM publications, including the Houston Chronicle, oppose the Minuteman Project, as but one example of citizen vigilance, then do you believe for a minute that if those same Minutemen are watching Web cams it somehow magically transforms itself into a good thing?

If you get past the front page and go deep into the story on the bottom of page 6, you finally find the money quote from staff writer Rosanna Ruiz:

Supporters say this type of “virtual wall” might be more practical and less costly than a 700-mile border fence.

In this context, I agree with The Texas Observer blog:

Why settle for Rick Perry’s tokenism on sealing the border when there are Republican officials out there like soon-to-be ex-Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, a GOP Presidential candidate. At least Tancredo is honest about what he hopes to do to the border. Rick always has you wondering whether he is just catering to the base. Tancredo really means it.

Readers of ACSOL, here me out. You can stand nearby, holding a cell phone, observing Interstate 10 as it passes through the heart of El Paso, Texas, and watch illegals running across the freeway in broad daylight, but placing a call to ICE or the U.S. Border Patrol will not result in an arrest anymore than calling either agency will result in a squad car showing up to arrest illegal alien protestors marching through the streets of downtown Los Angeles carrying Mexico’s flag and anti-U.S. placards.

Frankly, and in the interests of curbing illegal immigration, American citizens with Internet access would be better off if they could monitor Web cams placed in the offices of President Bush, Governor Perry, and El Presidente Felipe Calderon.

Follow-Up: Wouldn’t you think that taxpayers’ dollars could be better spent on the additional staffing of much-needed Border Patrol Agents, than for a mechanism by which citizens can feel like “real live border control (sic) agents.” Disneyland has obviously come to Austin, Texas.

Follow-Up II: Perhaps the Web cams are a way of placating the corrupt government of Mexico and its meddling president, Felipe Calderon, which view a border fence as “medieval.”

Follow-Up III: Here’s more from The Texas Observer blog:

While the border fence was hogging headlines, another item slipped over the wire. It turns out Gov. Rick Perry “has found $3 million dollars in federal grants to install about 200 mobile cameras along the Texas-Mexico border.” We are still tracking down where the money comes from and if it can be spent in more useful ways.

Perry has been vocal against an actual fence… when he was in Mexico. “It absolutely would not work,” he said on a recent trade trip to our neighbor to the south. One has to wonder if the governor is saying the same thing to the GOP base in New Hampshire and Iowa as he stumps for Rudy Giuliani. Many of Texas’ politicians have a tendency to talk out of both sides of their mouth on this issue.

Follow-Up IV: If Governor Perry wants to fall squarely on the side of enforcement first, then he should take a page out of Arizona’s, Oklahoma’s, and Georgia’s playbook and lead the charge on getting employer sanctions’ legislation passed in Austin. Texas’ taxpayers would no doubt prefer that to Web cams.

Kudos to Buddy Witherspoon for taking the immigration fight directly to the enemy — Senator Lindsey Graham (RINO-SC).

Graham should be deported from office — plain and simple.

You can’t fool all of the people all of the time, Senator Flip-Flop.

Mike Cutler, a Democrat, writing for Family Security Matters, has the “must read” column of the day. He observes:

Put simply: the Democrat Party of my youth, the party my parents had been proud of when I was a young boy growing up in Brooklyn, is gone. The old Democrat Party understood national security and understood the need to support labor. My belief is that by flooding the United States with illegal aliens, the value of labor has been greatly diminished and our nation’s security has been compromised. I do not believe that the old-time “true” Democrats would have tolerated the position of the alleged “leaders” of the Democrat Party we are witnessing today.

He continues:

Those who regularly read my commentaries, listen to me on various radio programs, or see me on a number of television programs know precisely where I stand on the immigration issue. I believe my position runs parallel to the position most Americans have on this extremely important issue: that immigration has, indeed, built this nation. I believe that the United States has been a bit like a big pot of stew where everyone contributes some ingredients. Our diversity has not only given us great strength, but has made ours an exciting and vibrant nation that is the envy of the rest of the world. However, under the current circumstances, our nation is being inundated by millions of illegal aliens whose identities – down to their nationalities – are unknown and unknowable. The massive influx of illegal aliens has created a situation where many Americans feel that they have become strangers in their own country. There is great resentment that our nation has been converted into a bilingual nation to push an agenda that has (as its obvious goal) the elimination of our borders. Why? So that multinational corporations that do not pledge allegiance to the United States (or any other country for that matter) but to the bottom line can entrench themselves here.

Read the whole thing.

And I would add the following. The Democratic Party in particular and the GOP’s pro-Giuliani forces in general would do well to heed the following in contemplating campaign strategy for the 2008 presidential run:

Ohio might be a swing state for next year’s presidential election, but its voters are decidedly less split on the immigration controversy, a new poll indicates.

The latest Quinnipiac University Poll, which surveyed 1,231 Ohio voters between Nov. 6 and 11, found that 84 percent believe the government should not issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, while 86 percent of surveyed voters oppose providing illegal immigrants with government-subsidized health insurance. The strongest majority in the poll, 88 percent, came from support for the government requiring employers to verify the validity of Social Security numbers used to gain employment.

Voters were only slightly less united on issues such as a proposed U.S./Mexican border fence and immigrant education, but results never played out in a dead heat as seen in recent presidential election polls. Sixty-one percent of respondents opposed providing a free public education to the children of illegal immigrants, while 60 percent said they support a fence along the Mexican border to reduce illegal immigration.

Here’s a “heartland” state that played a significant role in the 2004 presidential election and the poll results cited indicate no equivocation among the majority of Ohio voters on where they stand on illegal immigration and border enforcement. Yet, not a single major candidate for the Democratic nomination, including front-runner Hillary Clinton, mirrors the sentiments expressed in this poll.

And a word to the wise in terms of the GOP: Rudy Giuliani, the current front-runner for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination, was a strong proponent of the sanctuary movement for illegal aliens as New York City mayor, and Ohioans may not look askance at that, particularly conservative Ohioans.

Fact is, the national debate on illegal immigration, including border and port security enforcement (or the lack thereof on George W. Bush’s watch), will be, and appropriately so, wedge issues in the race for the White House. Common sense and the principles of the American Founding and the “rule of law” will be pitted against special interests bent on a continuing supply of cheap, exploitable, illegal immigrant labor and the formation, in time, of a trancendent, polylingual North American Union.

Follow-Up: Noteworthy!

Follow-Up II: Epiphany or rank duplicity? You be the judge (but I’m not buying it).

Reuters reports that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is weighing in on U.S. foreign policy matters and, specifically, the war in Iraq and its impact on U.S. society.

“The dangerous political stalemate in Iraq that blocks national reconciliation finds a parallel in our own nation. We are alarmed by the political and partisan stalemate in Washington,” the bishops said in a statement approved at their semi-annual meeting in Baltimore.

The bishops said the United States should work with Syria and Iran among other nations to bring stability to Iraq and should always try to minimize further Iraqi losses.

Jesus’ admonition to “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” is apparently lost on this august body most noteworthy for its collective wisdom in mismanaging the pedophilia crisis.

I urge you to revisit these two posts of mine (here and here) on what ought to be the consequences for brazen political meddling that, in some instances, borders on sedition.

Follow-Up (11/19/07): Diggers Realm is reluctant to give the Conference of Catholic Bishops absolution for their impolitic political insinuation into the spiritual lives of Roman Catholics, and so am I (and I am a Catholic and disturbed by their politically-tainted pronouncements on my spiritual salvation). Do read his post. And bookmark this important blog!

D.A. King, a former U.S. Marine, writes a compelling piece for the Athens Banner-Herald, on how the federal government bends to the will of the lobbying efforts of illegal aliens and their activist supporters, while short-changing America’s military veterans. It’s disgraceful what’s going on, but indicative of a government and an administration that have their priorities upside down.

Observes Mr. King:

The illegal aliens who are demanding immunity from the equal application of American border, immigration and employment laws have no problem qualifying for free medical treatment.

No means test, no questions asked. No bills.

In 1986, the year the federal government rewarded about three million illegal aliens with a “one-time” amnesty, it also passed into law the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which guarantees no-cost medical treatment in American emergency rooms to anyone, regardless of ability to pay or immigration status. Or both.

The fact that the 1986 amnesty was a miserable failure at its promised goal — stopping illegal immigration and illegal employment — is undeniable. EMTALA, however, is enforced and works quite well. Millions of illegal aliens receive taxpayer-funded health care — emergency or not — in America’s emergency rooms at the lowest possible charge: Zero.

There are about 25 million living vets in today’s America. Most who study illegal immigration understand that we have at least the same number of illegal aliens, notwithstanding the ridiculous estimates from the federal government.

As someone who has thought a lot about the “why” in this sad but true conflict in priorities, the answer is shamefully clear.

The illegal aliens and their employers have a far more well-funded and effective lobby in Congress than the American veterans.

We should all be asking a lot of questions here. This cannot be who we are as a nation. Can it?

I encourage you to read the entire piece and to give what Mr. King has to say a lot of thought. If you’re not already involved politically, become involved. Perhaps the outrage (among many) that Mr. King cites will become a springboard for your personal efforts. A starting point might be to become a member of NumbersUSA (as I have). Additionally, begin reading regularly this blog and those I have listed in my site’s blogroll under the “Illegal Immigration” heading. And do tune in as often as possible to “Lou Dobbs Tonight” for the latest in news coverage and commentary on the impact of illegal immigration on this country, its rule of law, its culture, and your pocketbooks as American taxpayers.

Our veterans deserve proper medical care and the ongoing gratitude of the nation. Illegal alien border-jumpers deserve arrest and deportation, not free medical care, a broad array of taxpayer-funded services, and sanctuary. Let’s chase the politicians who think (and vote) otherwise. Let’s deport them from office!

Follow-Up: As near as I can tell, the estimate of the cost for health care services for veterans (made by the Congressional Budget Office) was $28 billion in 2005. NumbersUSA reports costs of $22 billion annually for Medicare, Medicaid, and federally-mandated health care for illegal aliens.

Follow-Up II: Who directs illegal aliens to free, taxpayer-subsidized, health care services? Madeleine Pelner Cosman provides some answers:

Illegal aliens have translators, advocates, and middlemen supplied by immigrants civil rights groups or by Medicaid.

Among the organizations directing illegal aliens into America’s medical systems are the Ford Foundation-funded Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund; the National Immigration Center; the American Immigration’s Lawyers Association; the American Bar Association’s Commission on Immigration Policy, Practice, and Pro Bono; the Immigrant Legal Resource Center; the National Council of La Raza; George Soros’s Open Society Institute; the Migration Policy Institute; the National Network for Immigration and Refugee Rights; and the Southern Poverty Law Center. And there are more.

The National Immigration Law center (NILC) proudly announced that it garnered for immigrants expensive cancer treatments, prenatal care, and critical health services by means of its litigation. Sometimes NILC worked in collaboration with lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Further to my post of this past week on churches that defy federal immigration laws and how their tax-exempt status should accordingly be changed, the following is from a “must-read” Op/Ed piece by Randy Alcorn, published in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

Equal application of the law is one of America’s founding principles — as is separation of church and state. When churches choose to actively engage in secular politics in an effort to impose their religious moralities on society, they breach the wall that separates them from the state. This is not Iran or Saudi Arabia. In America, ecclesiastical law does not supersede secular law. Churches, or anyone, who knowingly shelters criminals should be prosecuted. Additionally, churches that flout the law should lose their tax-exempt status.

Do read the entire column!

You now face a new world, a world of change. The thrust into outer space of the satellite, spheres and missiles marked the beginning of another epoch in the long story of mankind - - the chapter of the space age… And through all this welter of change and development your mission remains fixed, determined, inviolable. It is to win our wars. Everything else in your professional career is but corollary to this vital dedication. All other public purpose, all other public projects, all other public needs, great or small, will find others for their accomplishments; but you are the ones who are trained to fight…

… Others will debate the controversial issues, national and international, which divide men’s minds. But serene, calm, aloof, you stand as the Nation’s war guardians, as its lifeguards from the raging tides of international conflict, as its gladiators in the arena of battle. For a century and a half you have defended, guarded and protected its hallowed traditions of liberty and freedom, of right and justice.

Let civilian voices argue the merits or demerits of our processes of government. Whether our strength is being sapped by deficit financing indulged in too long, by federal paternalism grown too mighty, by power groups grown too arrogant, by politics grown too corrupt, by crime grown too rampant, by morals grown too low.

You are the leaven which binds together the entire fabric of our national system of defense. From your ranks come the great captains who hold the Nation’s destiny in their hands the moment the war tocsin sounds.

The long gray line has never failed us. Were you to do so, a million ghosts in olive drab, in brown khaki, in blue and gray, would rise from their white crosses, thundering those magic words: Duty, Honor, Country…

– General Douglas MacArthur –

The Catholic Church, which has been unconscionably derelect in protecting its parishioners from pedophile priests, is falling all over itself to preserve what has been significant growth in its parishioner base owing to the illegal alien invasion from Mexico and other predominantly Catholic Latin and South American countries. Prominent in lobbying for amnesty-laden comprehensive immigration reform has been the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Singular in his determination to thwart federal immigration law has been the controversial head of the Los Angeles Archdiocese, Cardinal Roger Mahony.

Now we have Bishop James Slattery of Oklahoma taking a page out of Cardinal Mahony’s book, determined as he is to provide sanctuary to illegal immigrants in the wake of the implementation of House Bill 1804, which requires legal documentation for any immigrant to live or work in the state of Oklahoma.

This from Fox News 23.com:

Priests are pledging to go to jail if that’s what it takes to protect illegal immigrants from the immigration crackdown.

Last Thursday House Bill 1804 went into effect, requiring legal documentation for any immigrant to live or work in the state.

About half of the Eastern Oklahoma Catholic Diocese is Hispanic, that’s about 60,000 Catholic parishioners.

Bishop James Slattery tells FOX23 News it doesn’t matter how many are legal or illegal, he doesn’t know because the church doesn’t ask. He says the Catholic Church will help protect all of them from the new law.

Bishop Slattery and others of his ilk, such as Cardinal Mahony, ought to be charged with sedition. Furthermore, Catholic parishes and/or dioceses which knowingly harbor illegal aliens should lose their tax-free status.

NOTE: In the interest of full disclosure, the author of this blog post is a Catholic.

That, of course, is the oft-repeated mantra of President George W. Bush — the author of Mexico’s feast and the principal countervailing force in America’s long overdue need to secure its land borders and maritime ports.

Well, the Associated Press (AP) reports that illegal aliens have been working in critical security areas of Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport. (Do read the AP story in full). That should be reassuring to busy air travelers!

I presume from this story that just as fruits and vegetables are rotting in the fields for lack of “undocumented workers” to harvest them that more raids like this one will soon result in commercial jets being grounded all across the country. Goodness, even former El Presidente Vicente Fox may be hard-pressed to continue his flying around the American countryside to lobby for open borders and amnesty-laden immigration reform.

I’ve got an idea. How about kicking this one around the block? Why not elect illegal aliens in 2008 to fill the Oval Office and a slew of Congressional seats, and let these “undocumented servants of the people” do the work that President Bush and a mired-in-infighting U.S. Congress are obviously unwilling to do! Don’t you think that it’s high time that Washington D.C. no longer remains a “Sanctuary City” for do-nothing political incumbents?

Hey, maybe then we could get the fence built.

Follow-Up: The above-referenced AP story is buried on page 17 of today’s Houston Chronicle print edition, as, after all, what’s big news about security breeches by illegal aliens at a major domestic airport?! The “root causes” of the 9/11 terrorist attacks have undoubtedly long since been forgotten, even by the nation’s crack, Chertoff-led Department of Homeland Security, which continues to insist on removing my 86-year-old mother-in-law’s shoes every time she flies, but cannot keep illegal aliens from accessing airport tarmacs 6+ years after the worst terrorist attack in American history. Not ironically, however, given the long-standing proclivities of the Houston Chronicle’s editorial board, a story earlier this week by the Chronicle’s James Pinkerton was prominently displayed, rather than buried. It led off as follows:

It’s become a Saturday morning ritual on a street corner in Spring.

Two dozen U.S. Border Watch volunteers, some wearing combat boots and military-style garb, face off with Hispanic day laborers and a half-dozen of their supporters.

FOLLOW-UP II: If this can happen at O’Hare International Airport, is there any doubt in anyone’s mind that America is still hugely vulnerable to terrorist attacks from within 6+ years after the ghastly attacks of 9/11? I urge you to read Patrick Briley’s column of August 6, 2007, published at NewsWithViews.com (excerpts follow):

FBI and US intelligence officials have told the national news media that AlQaeda is bringing Iraqi insurgents to attack inside the US. The FBI also has now said it is investigating Iraqis being smuggled into the US from Mexico for over a year.

So why aren’t Bush and Chertoff enforcing the borders against illegal aliens that include AlQaeda and Taliban suicide terrorists and Iraqi insurgents that AlQaeda says they want to use to attack the US?

Bush’s and Chertoff’s inaction and their diminishing US border protection capabilities against these most recent credible and known threats from AlQaeda and Taliban terrorists and Iraqis insurgents is further indication that Bush is intentionally not adequately protecting the US and instead is allowing the potential for terrorism to blackmail US citizens for more police state powers and to advance world government and the NAU.

Read it all, if you read nothing else today.

That’s the good news.

The bad news: self-serving political elites still don’t get it.