The quiver is full ...

... so I''m compelled, neigh honor bound, to post rather then "text."

Response 1:

First off, if you weren't a fan of the most recent Star Trek, then you're a maniac, plain and simple. Fantastically done. Superbly casted. Good story. Compared to the other Trek movies, a home run. It far and away is the best since Kahn (although the TNG Borg movie was a keeper).

Response 2:

Alright ... Father Johnathan. You wrote:

"In short, they will choose to err on the side of charity rather than security." First off, that's fine. By your standard that simply means they have no serious place at the table when discussing specific security issues. But that isn't the point, they don't anyway, not in any practical way I can discern (save PJP II's fight against communism which included hours of personal discussion with Ronald Wilson Reagan). The point here is had Father Johnathan said what you wrote, I would have no beef whatsoever. I would have said, "well they're a church after all, not defense think tank." But he didn't. Just a few nights ago he was asked (I want to say it was on O'Reilly with Juan Williams as guest host), "So you have issue with the AZ law?", and he said bluntly (atypical for him I might add), "The Arizona law is idiotic!" And I include both italics and an explanation point because both are warranted. This obviously infers that its' authors and backers are "idiotic." Not to mention, I doubt (after watching him discuss it) that he even read the law. Which is the same beef I have with you Titus, because you clearly did not follow the provided link, nor read the bill itself either.

"More importantly, though, I want it clear that I am not 100% comfortable with most of the AZ legislation, either... as I have stated in recent posts. I shudder at the thought of an American citizen being REQUIRED to produce proof of citizenship for nothing more than having Latino features or for speaking Spanish as a first language. If a crime has been committed, or there is evidence to suspect that a crime has been committed, then identification can be requested as allowed under current law... but there is no Constitutional grounds for demanding that anyone in this nation that might be suspected of being an illegal alien be able to prove their status without violating both their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights."

The authorities must ALREADY be in "lawful contact" with an individual BEFORE they can request identification. One MAY NOT simply accost a human being in Arizona and demand they provide "their papers." This is the drivel coming out of the main stream press and a point I'm frankly surprised you missed (although I shouldn't be surprised, I suspected you were itching to find a defensible reason as to oppose this law). It's similar (if not identical) to the old Mississippi seat belt law. A police officer couldn't pull you over for not wearing one, he (or she) could only issue it as a companion ticket in the event you were not wearing one when pulled over for speeding (for example). Not to mention, the Arizona law is a mirror image of the federal law, so if you have a problem with the state's law then you have a problem with the federal law, which among other things REQUIRES aliens to maintain legal status documentation on their person at all times in public. The AZ law simply put in place the lawful mechanism to ENFORCE FEDERAL STANDARDS. Weaving in and out of traffic, speeding, drug possession, brawls, public nudity - in any of these cases as a pedestrian, motorist, skater, skate boarder, bicyclist, tricyclist, unicyclist or hover craft the first thing an officer will do upon investigation is ask for I.D. This law simply allows officers, provided a reasonable suspicion that they are here illegally exists, in the employ of the state/city/county, to detain and turn them over to the feds. And why would the feds take them? Because its federal law already to detain those suspected of an illegals status!

Now let me just address this: "I'm all in favor of State's taking the lead in the effort to curb illegal immigration, but as has been said a thousand times right here in this forum, by Ryan himself... we don't need NEW RULES to make us safer, we simply need the rules we have enforced adequately." The feds won't. Plain and simple. They didn't under Bush, sure as hell won't under Obama. So what is a border state with rampant crime, drugs, and exploding social costs to do? That's the question you have to answer if you are to oppose Arizona in this - what do you suggest they do given the feds have proven they will not fufill their sworn duty?

And this: "The cries against illegal immigration in this country are about the cost these illegals are bring to the American tax payer, right? The cost in health care, housing, security risks, crime rates... all paid by the legal citizenry of the USA, and not by the illegals. So why is it alright to make tax paying citizens of this country run even the smallest risk of having their rights violated one iota further? I call this "cutting off the nose to spite the face"... and it never fixes anything."

To be honest., I find this an almost embarrassing point. It is the quintessential "too clever by half" double speak that drives normal Americans, especially normal border state Americans, mad. There are ranchers being murdered out there. Drug cartels snatching American citizens in broad day light and holding them for ransom. Do you know the state of Arizona has the second highest kidnapping rate per capita in the world? Not the US, the WORLD. This isn't some theoretical exercise for them. Not some preponderance a think tank should grapple with in order to find some out of the box "third way." Nor is there time for these type of absolutely shitty little assessments. And that's what that was. There's a CRISIS in that state for God's sake. The fence built on the border with CA is double lined with sensors. It 's construction has worked to tremendously drivedown CA crossings and caused an EXPLOSION in AZ crossings, where there is no fence - not that you believe a real and virtual fence, manned with adequate boots on the ground would work. All data only shows that it will & has, yet your unyielding ideological opposition to the very premise of "fences" is in no danger of waining. Why do you think both US Senators called for 3,000 additional troops be alloted to AZ and put on the border? Not "an expedited federal involvement", they didn't call on the PoTUS to "enforce the laws already on the books", they called for soldiers! My God man, it's a crisis, an emergency. The governor declared a state of emergency along the border - AND THE FEDS DID NOTHING. The AZ law is a symptom of what's wrong with the feds, not a symptom of what's wrong with AZ! And while we are at it I have numerous times provided a measurable and specific "road map" for the "President Ryan" policy on stemming illegal entry via the Southern border (and by the way, they're not "undocumented" nor "non-legals", they are CRIMINALS). Where is yours? How does President Titus effect illegal entry in his "no fence, no ID required" world? And if I sound pissed, it's because I AM. I am so sick of these cute little arguments and feigning civil liberty "concerns" taking place of what should be common sense - fences, patrols, sensors, requiring documentation, hefty fines for employers - IT ALL WORKS and it's all already law! Just nobody, save the great state of Arizona, is bothering to enforce it - Arizona is the only one looking after itself, and I'm damned proud of them. It's about time.

The sides here are not "pro immigrant" or "anti immigrant." It's not even pro and anti illegal immigrant. It's pro-crime or pro-law, plain and simple.

Response 3: (your "One More Thing Post")

"I recall vivid and very animated discussions with Ryan on his back patio in MS concerning a topic that touches on this same issue (in my opinion) and that is the hot-topic term "racial profiling". Expecting any Latino-looking American to be able to produce proof of citizenship and/or residency status with no reasonable suspicion of participation or involvement in a crime is nothing more than abridging the rights and freedoms of any American that might be considered "Latino" in appearance. That, it seems to me, is the big problem with the AZ legislation. It was also the root of my problem with the issue of racial profiling during the heightened security checks at airports across the land in the post-9/11 world."

"If Obama/Reid/Pelosi are wrong for compelling all Americans to carry the mandated amount of government-approved health insurance, why is it okay to mandate that Americans of Latino origins in AZ be required to "prove" their status as Americans without reasonable suspicion of having committed a crime?"

I think I've embarrassed you enough on this, so this won't be long. Law enforcement must already be in "lawful contact" over a (suspected) criminal matter (which yes, includes traffic, it's a crime to speed). In addition there must also be a "reasonable suspicion" that the individual is illegal - and I think 20 guys that don't speak English in the back of a sweaty van with no ID qualifies as "suspicious." But in addition to that the AZ legislature further tweaked the law by expressly forbidding the stopping of individuals within Arizona on the basis of race or ethnicity. I know stopping people based on race just to ask them for their papers fits your template for what type of people advocate fence building (namely the racist, homophobic, white robe wearing, cross burning unenlightened masses), but you are shockingly in error here.

And the rest of it, the "lecture" on how we might "lose our freedoms" and that being a fate worse than the terrorists winning (or at least as bad), I'm sorry. I've passed the stage where I find your lectures and musings on this insightful - they're bogus. We are not and have not as a society decided on a course of racial profiling. YES, race is a factor in determining a potential terrorist. They are in general of a certain ethnic background, a certain age, and a certain gender. To ignore such facts to satisfy your civil liberty concerns doesn't help me sleep at night, nor the US effectively protect her citizens. Using race as ONE tool among others is not just necessary, it's common sense. If a person in a Santa Clause outfit robbed a series of banks 3 days before Christmas I think Bloomingdale Santas would need to understand if detectives questioned them when they were in line attempting to cash their pay check. I have every confidence that our law enforcement officials will use race as one tool among many, less you think an 85 year old Swiss woman in a wheel chair should send off as many red flags when paying cash for a one way airline ticket from Brussels as would 25 year old Moustafa Aziz from Yemen.

If I'm coming off with an attitude, sorry. It's just this conversation is so sophomoric - it's settled. Race can and must be used as one tool among others. And our law enforcement community has been doing exactly that, less there was some massive round up of random Arabs within the US I missed, or a flat ban on airline travel for all Mid Easterners.

"Why is the marginalization of those holding a "conservative" political view in modern American politics "wrong", but the marginalization of anyone in this nation because of "less-than-ordinary" appearances (for lack of a better term), be they ethnic, linguistic, religious or otherwise, perfectly acceptable in the eyes of those that feel safety and security are more important than basic and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution?"

Again, this above is just idiotic, to quote Father Johnathan. No one is advocating this. This is not a mainstream conservative view. Our law enforcement isn't doing this. The AZ law forbids it - find another sad story, ok?

"It all boils down to this (for me, anyway): There simply MUST be another way for us to secure our borders and/or fix the immigration issues that DOES NOT cause the nation to risk even ONE incident of civil rights abuse or neglect ..."

I think this statement demonstrates more than any other that your well is dry on this issue. A law, any law, that restricts even a single incident of civil rights violations? Do I get a Harry Potter wand with that? There is a plethora of groups that will claim anything short of amnesty has caused civil rights violations, and they'll file suit accordingly on specific incidents whether they are legitimate or not. Again, I have measurable specifics, you have a wish upon a star. It is clear to me you have gone as far as you care to on this issue, bankrupt of solutions, feeling there are no "good" answers. Mean time officials from the governor on down in AZ don't have the luxury of not answering the question. Decapitated heads are being rolled into Arizona night clubs whose offenders flea back across the border. Ranchers, the salt of the earth, are being blasted in the chest at point blank range with double barrel shot guns. Hospitals aren't going bankrupt, they are bankrupt and shutting down. Brewer's citizens are being kidnapped at the rate of second highest in the world ... so as soon as you want to join us in the real world here Alice, where clear and present security threats derserve real answers, you let me know Ace.

Response 4:

Your gun post was perfectly presented. I particularly like the fire extinguisher analogy. Funny how when you pass gun laws, criminals don't obey them.

Response 5:

Jambo, your post on who is responsible for damages is a fair question, but to what were you referring to in I Did Make An Error: "I said casino work, and I should have said tourism. The two sources I read lumped casino work with tourism. Being that well over 60% of our guests are from out of town, I have no issue with that." I don't see the post nor paragraph to which you are referring.

Response 6:

You got one thing right in your AZ op ed there Titus - you pissed me off enough to post.