Thread: Chertoff Says Fence to Be Finished By 2009

No Neocons are for a one world government, probably Christian or what ever religion is more popular, and destroying our Constitution and they want Cartel business "control" and also despise small business and competition. IMO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
Neoconservative policies

1. Taxes and Federal Budget: "Cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth. This policy was not invented by neocons, and it was not the particularities of tax cuts that interested them, but rather the steady focus on economic growth." In Kristol's view, neocons are and should be less concerned about balancing fiscal budgets than traditional conservatives: "One sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth."

This is a deception to lure in the Libertarian vote! "...neocons are and should be less concerned about balancing fiscal budgets than traditional conservatives..." so they have to expand, such as the NAU and beyond, so citizens will not think about the budget and the taxes their descedents will pay, how convenient for the neocon agenda.

2. Size of Government: Kristol distinguishes between Neoconservatives and the call of traditional conservatives for smaller government. "Neocons do not feel ... alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable."

Cartel "control"!

3. Traditional Moral Values: "The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives". Here Kristol distinguishes between traditional conservatives and libertarian conservatives. He cites the shared interest of Neocons and Religious Conservates in using the government to enforce morality: "Since the Republican party now has a substantial base among the religious, this gives neocons a certain influence and even power."

"Using the government to enforce morality" is unConstitutional and again will be the religion of the majority (not freedom of religion) so as they expand to a one world government expect the Muslims to gain religious "control". The Neocons are just using the Christians and really do not care which religion is in control!

4. Expansionist Foreign Policy: "Statesmen should ... distinguish friends from enemies." And according to Kristol, "with power come responsibilities ... if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you."
5. National Interest: "the United States of today, inevitably ... [will] feel obliged to defend ... a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces ...that is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II ... that is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today."

The do not believe in individual responsibility rather to be in "control". They do not want countries to defend themselves because they want "control"!

IMO

Originally Posted by SicNTiredInSoCal

Your sadly mistaken or you do not know about Neocons, NAFTA is a Neocon agenda! Gooliani is all for NAFTA and the NAU, his law firm is in the mix!
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/grassi/070504

I was under the impression that "neocon" was meant, in part, that someone is ultra conservative. Gooliani is pro choice and in my opinion doesn't meet the neocon sterotype.

However, if I am off base, it won't be the first time!

Most of the neo-conservatives are actually "reformed liberals". These neocons were actually very prominent in their liberal/socialist circles but the war forced them on the republican side for special interest purposes, in my opinion.

they like big government, big spending, intervention <-- nothing conservative about that.

nntrixie wrote:

Anytime our government begins pushing something - we need to look out. We have to realize by now, they are going have to be pushed, kicking and screaming, to any real enforcement.

I wouldn't exactly saying our government is pushing to get the fence built. Actually just the opposite is happening - they're dragging their feet.

nntrixie wrote:

I am just saying we are putting too much effort and emphasis on the fence.

While they, and we, are debating the fence, - then years to plan and build, the 20M+ that are here will either be made legal by our government or will have produced 1 or more anchor babies.

I would be nice to think our government could handle multi-tasking.

Enhancing interior enforcement and building a border fence are two separate issues in some respects. However, they will compliment each other in dealing with the illegal immigrant problem.

Elect Duncan Hunter and I'll bet my first born that the debate on the fence will end immediately. Additionally, I'm sure the planning stage will be expedited to a point of where it's a none issue. With Hunter in office, all that'll be left will be the actual construction phase, and Hunter has a plan to complete that within six months of assuming office. The 854-mile double-layer fence is the law. The only thing slowing down the process at this stage is the Bush administration. Actually, if Hunter does get into office, I'll bet it won't be long before he starts pushing Congress to fence off every last mile of the border. He attempted to do just that in in 2005, however, he failed to gain the support necessary to proceed.

Excerpt:

Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Duncan Hunter proposed building two parallel steel and wire fences running from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Coast. Hunter called for building a reinforced, two-layer 15' fence, separated by a 100-yard gap, along the entire length of the US border with Mexico. It would include additional physical barriers, powerful lighting and sensors to detect illegal border crossers.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/ ... o-wall.htm

Plus, this should speak volumes:

Excerpt:

[quote]On 14 December 2005 Mexican President Vicente Fox denounced as "disgraceful and shameful" a proposal to build a high-tech wall on the US-Mexico border to stop illegal immigrants. Media reports on 21 December 2005 quoted Foreign [b]Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez as saying, " Mexico is not going to bear, it is not going to permit, and it will not allow a stupid thing like this wall.â€

Originally Posted by SecureTheBorder

Originally Posted by SicNTiredInSoCal

I was under the impression that "neocon" was meant, in part, that someone is ultra conservative. Gooliani is pro choice and in my opinion doesn't meet the neocon sterotype.

However, if I am off base, it won't be the first time!

I guess it depends on what you call "conservative". Nowadays, people are described as "neocons" if:

a) They are free-traders.

b) They are "compassionate conservatives" that spend tax payers' money like liberals.

c) They don't want to see Israel wiped off the map.

d) All of the above.

I've noticed that the dems'/marxists' definition of neocon is increasingly becoming "Jew Lover". There are plenty of reasons to take Israel to task for some of their policies, but there is no excuse for the blatant anti-Semitism coming from the left these days.

I have to disagree. Anytime there is ANY criticsim of Israel/AIPAC it gets labeled as anti-semitism <-- thus closing down ANY debate. I don't think believing that Israels interests are in direct opposition to our own is anti-semitic in as much its Pro-American. If more people knew the truth of the Israel lobby - AIPAC and its association with the Neo-Cons (neo-libs too) and our current foreign policy there would be outrage amongst americans.
(but all of our current MSM promoted candidates are firmly in the bomb middle east camp, so this is a moot point currently as the same agenda will be pushed forward).

WOW! ok....set me straight. Back to my corner now...

Also of note is this: (from twiki)

Distinctions from other conservatives

Most people currently described as "neoconservatives" are members of the Republican Party, but while neoconservatives have generally been in electoral alignment with other conservatives, have served in the same Presidential Administrations, and have often ignored intra-conservative ideological differences in alliance against those to their left, there are notable differences between neoconservative and traditional or "paleoconservative" views. In particular, neoconservatives disagree with the nativist, protectionist, and non-interventionist foreign policy rooted in American history and once exemplified by the ex-Republican "paleoconservative" Pat Buchanan. As compared with traditional conservatism and libertarianism, which also sometimes exhibits a non-interventionist strain, neoconservatism is characterized by an increased emphasis on defense capability, a willingness to challenge regimes deemed hostile to the values and interests of the United States, pressing for free-market policies abroad. Neoconservatives are strong believers in democratic peace theory.

**************

Read it here, as you read it in the propaganda machine - MSM.. "nativist" "protectionist" <--- we have all been labled this for wanting CLOSED BORDERS. There is also the "coincidence" which I have brought up here many times, yet nobody addresses it ---- that neoconservatives love foreign intervention...

So, this is what defines the Bush administration --- OPEN borders and Constant wars.

In essence. WE HAVE BEEN HIJACTED!

Our "government" did not have any problem getting a war going overseas, spending billions, sending thousands of troops.

Our government does not have any problems getting man into space on shuttles missions.

Our government does not have any problems dispatching help all over the world.


If they wanted to build a fence, it would be done by now. Put everyone that is out of work on that fence project and pay them.

We are going to need a fence, law enforcement of laws on the books, and shuttle buses dropping the illegals off at the border, to make a dent in what I believe are 40-60 million illegals here. They keep lying about how many are here. Do you think 20 million voting is enough -- no there are a lot more than that. That is why the candidates that are softies want them to vote.

It can be done. If we are going to continue to allow any kind of immigration, it needs to be the best and the brightest, not the worst of the worst, at least for a while. A lot of criminals and uneducated folks are coming here and burdening our system. We are out of room in prisons for them.

Originally Posted by bootsalinda

Our "government" did not have any problem getting a war going overseas, spending billions, sending thousands of troops.

Our government does not have any problems getting man into space on shuttles missions.

Our government does not have any problems dispatching help all over the world.


If they wanted to build a fence, it would be done by now. Put everyone that is out of work on that fence project and pay them.

We are going to need a fence, law enforcement of laws on the books, and shuttle buses dropping the illegals off at the border, to make a dent in what I believe are 40-60 million illegals here. They keep lying about how many are here. Do you think 20 million voting is enough -- no there are a lot more than that. That is why the candidates that are softies want them to vote.

It can be done. If we are going to continue to allow any kind of immigration, it needs to be the best and the brightest, not the worst of the worst, at least for a while. A lot of criminals and uneducated folks are coming here and burdening our system. We are out of room in prisons for them.

EXACTLY!!!

"IF" they wanted that fence, and "IF" they wanted enforcement it would have been done!

I have been saying this all along. Our government just doesn't let this happen. I mean, they are scaring everybody about the "terrorist/islofascists/bombs" -- yet 20+ million illegals our in our borders?
How does that rhetoric match up with a concern for OUR safety? It doesn't.

This is why I personally believe this open border and war on "terror" is sprouted from the same persons to fullfill the same agenda.

I don't see anyone allowing the fence . I do see more refugees and visa approrvals from iraq, iran and other middle east nations . Plus the ones coming across both north and south borders .

When the last appeasers were in congress, we were stronger as a nation, now most are Honoi Janes and ' shoot em in the back , then call troops baby killers ' Kerrys ' and Ali's .

Now we have the enemy inside and more traitors pulling for them . So it a whole lot worse now than it was when the hippys and the communist were cuddling up to the enemy .

BrightNail wrote:

"IF" they wanted that fence, and "IF" they wanted enforcement it would have been done!

Off course the Bush administration doesn't want the fence, that's a well known fact. That is exactly why we, the American people, must keep screaming at the top of our lungs!

It's certainly not going to happen if we keep bowing our heads and mumbling it's not going to happen. It's up to the American people to make it happen. On occasion the squeaky wheel does actually get the grease.