Send A Brick To Congress
Please join in the Send A Brick Campaign!
More on Send A Brick here
The Send-A-Brick Project was created by concerned citizens to send bricks to Washington encouraging our Congressmen to stand tough on border security.
Each brick sends a message to our Senators and Representatives that we want our borders secured before any other action is taken on illegal immigration.
Please Send A Brick to your Congressmen today and let them know that you want a comprehensive border security plan that includes:
- A security wall along the entire southern border
- Better technology for customs and border operations
- More funding and personnel for our Border Patrol
- An overall increased security presence on our southern border.
When our border is secure, only then can we talk about other aspects of illegal immigrationWe are tired of open borders, uncontrolled immigration, terrorist infiltration, the spread of pandemic diseases, criminal alien gangs and all the other horrors that can arise due to our defenseless borders and unenforced immigration laws.
April 17, 2006 - 12:04 PM on April 17th, 2006
I don’t think ANYONE credible enough in this national debate is seriously considering a border-length fence…
give it up guys, it’s just NOT going to happen.
April 17, 2006 - 12:18 PM on April 17th, 2006
Are you suggesting that the posters here are credible?
How about if we plant landmines along the border? That would reduce illegal immigration.
April 17, 2006 - 12:26 PM on April 17th, 2006
I have no problem with landmines.
April 17, 2006 - 01:20 PM on April 17th, 2006
The fact is our non government likes aliens and loves criminal aliens because its big money for the prison system.
the terrorist are part of our government, “wants & needs” to control our life in all areas.
infiltration has happened inside our government from places that are known terrorist counties like Mexico.
respect for the law and the old and young is totally dead inside this third world want-to-be, non nation, once called the “land of the free”.
come on San Fran just wait and you will get what you really want “AZT LAN”, “THE NAZI”, “IDEALS OF THE FUTURE OF THE USA”.
And San Fran someday you can run a camp with really big ovens full of the people who built this nation.:cry:
but you guys will have to come and look for this old beast.
come on boys the deal has been made, “we have been sold down the river to evil doers”.
send a brick to our non government, why? it is a brick!
buy guns, live free or die, long live the ideals of 1776.
April 17, 2006 - 02:51 PM on April 17th, 2006
I hadn’t thought of fencing the entire border, but maybe it’s a good idea.
Of course it will cost money. Pay for it by enacting a tax on Liberals. Call it the “Feelgood Tax”, and since Liberals love taxes, they shouldn’t mind at all!
April 17, 2006 - 02:55 PM on April 17th, 2006
“I have no problem with land mines.”
Why am I not surprised?
April 17, 2006 - 02:56 PM on April 17th, 2006
I’m starting to lean toward landmines…. may be more economical, and certainly a more effective deterrent.
April 17, 2006 - 02:56 PM on April 17th, 2006
What’s wrong with that? We are not allowed to defend our soveriegnty against this invasion?
April 17, 2006 - 03:07 PM on April 17th, 2006
Of course land mines would not be acceptable! Every time a land mine exploded, it would damage the fragile ecosystem of the desert! Species would be endangered! There is a species of sand flea that lives along the border and it would be impacted! This sand flea must be protected at all costs! In fact, we must airlift the guests across the border so that even their footprints will not impact the endangered ecostructure!
[This was brought to you on behalf of the Liberal Eco-whackos]
April 17, 2006 - 03:13 PM on April 17th, 2006
1-I believe if you live in San Francisco, the subject of a fence would seem silly, but the rest of the country is talking about it, and they intend to have it built!
April 17, 2006 - 03:32 PM on April 17th, 2006
:grin:Land mines now that is a great idea.:grin:
April 17, 2006 - 03:52 PM on April 17th, 2006
PEEJZ - “I believe if you live in San Francisco, the subject of a fence would seem silly, but the rest of the country is talking about it, and they intend to have it built!”
And you can talk about till you’re blue in the face, but when people see the price tag for something that silly and ineffective, then we’ll see what we intend to do.
Why spend TENS OF BILLIONS of dollars on something that people can AND WILL tunnel UNDER. (!?)
Treat the disorder itself - not the symptoms !!!
does that make sense?
April 17, 2006 - 03:54 PM on April 17th, 2006
But you don’t want to treat the disorder, because you just love the idea of Aztlan, instead of Kalifornia. You welcome the day when the Gringos are the minority, don’t you?
April 17, 2006 - 04:01 PM on April 17th, 2006
“You welcome the day when the Gringos are the minority, don’t you?”
I don’t get it. Why should that matter? Who cares if whites are the minority?
Keep in mind, I already live in a city where whites are the minority, so it doesn’t really bother me.
(Except for some of the chinese. I’m sorry, I know I’m supposed to be 100% uber liberal but Mike Kilo can back me up on this one.)
April 17, 2006 - 04:06 PM on April 17th, 2006
Who cares if whites are the minority? I do, because I don’t want Kalifornia to become another Mexico, that’s why.
Have you ever been to Mexico? And no, I don’t mean to Club Med with all the Limousine Liberals, I mean the real Mexico? The places these illegals come from? I have, and I do not want to see Kalifornia become what those places are.
The only reason that we have anything here to make people want to come here is because Kalifornia is not Mexico. Now is that simple fact beyong your comprehension, or wuill you acknowledge the obvious?
April 17, 2006 - 04:25 PM on April 17th, 2006
12- We will get the wall built at a hefty penny, but it will pay itself off…we will also have the proper manpower and technology on the borders to make sure that tunnels are not being utilized…
April 17, 2006 - 04:34 PM on April 17th, 2006
“We will get the wall built at a hefty penny, but it will pay itself off:we will also have the proper manpower and technology on the borders to make sure that tunnels are not being utilized:”
And then maybe Santa Claus will bring me that Transformer I’ve been wanting for 20 years.
Peejz. Come on. You’re smarter than this. I won’t argue that a fence SOUNDS like a great idea…but jebus, think it through! The cost, alone! The ineffectiveness! The stain on our national image!
What happens when flowing water hits resistance? It finds the easiest way around the resistance…
April 17, 2006 - 04:38 PM on April 17th, 2006
“Immigration experts say that — at a cost of at least $2.2 billion — the 700-mile wall would be an expensive boondoggle.”
April 17, 2006 - 04:39 PM on April 17th, 2006
17- I have thought it through as have the majority of Americans..The fence will cost money we are willing to spend and we will man it with technology and manpower..Employers will not be given free passes for hiring illegls either..
As for our image? Can I just walk into any country in the world without id and receive benefits from them? Get jobs there? Please tell me where it is that I can go do this?
April 17, 2006 - 04:41 PM on April 17th, 2006
“The $2.2 billion Hunter estimates the fence would cost could fund almost 2,500 new Border Patrol agents for five years, a 22 percent increase in the force. Or it could increase 15-fold the U.S. Agency for International Development’s spending on economic development in Mexico over the next five years.”
April 17, 2006 - 04:46 PM on April 17th, 2006
Why doesn’t Mexico spend money on economic development in Mexico? They have plenty of oil revenue…
Typical Liberal solution: Give dem welfare!
April 17, 2006 - 04:49 PM on April 17th, 2006
“I have thought it through as have the majority of Americans…”
Yeah, just like a majority of Americans “thought through” the Iraq Invasion in 2003?
Mmm-Hmm. Peoples opinions, when presented with facts and new information, can change over time.
We shall see…
April 17, 2006 - 04:55 PM on April 17th, 2006
“Why doesn’t Mexico spend money on economic development in Mexico? They have plenty of oil revenue:”
Apparently, they do not have more money to spend on economic development.
Have you ever been to Mexico? It’s pretty hit, dude.
April 17, 2006 - 05:00 PM on April 17th, 2006
23- I am sure if they were forced to, they could find the money! As it is, there is nothing forcing them to do anything about the situation in their country. We could always annex it though…
April 17, 2006 - 05:02 PM on April 17th, 2006
“Who cares if whites are the minority? I do, because I don’t want Kalifornia to become another Mexico, that’s why”
Bah. Peoples skin tone shouldn’t matter, my friend.
They come to America for economic opportunity. If they gain wealth from those jobs, and are able to provide for their families and educate their children, I see NO problem in a Brown America.
Careful, guy…
April 17, 2006 - 05:03 PM on April 17th, 2006
“We could always annex it though:”
I think they’ve annexed us!
haha…
April 17, 2006 - 05:33 PM on April 17th, 2006
Re #23: Reread my post #15, then realize that I have been to places in Mexico that you will never see.
But you are right, mexico hasn’t a spare Peso, not one centavo, even! I mean, with oil at $70/barrel and them practically swinmming in oil, and a huge, growing worldwide demand, it is obvious that there simply isn’t enough money to go around, not even for economic development!Welfare from the U.S. is required to give their economy a fighting chance!
Seriously, SF Liberal, this issue and your statement in post #23 may be your most Quixotic undertaking yet. I know you like to be the contrarian, take the opposing position no matter what, but this time you have really stretched.
April 17, 2006 - 05:35 PM on April 17th, 2006
#25: Once again, SF Liberal, the point of my original post has gone zooming right over your head without you even understanding it.
I don’t want the U.S. to become another corrupt, opportunity-less, trashed shithole, okay??? GET it now? Is that CLEAR enough for you?
April 17, 2006 - 05:39 PM on April 17th, 2006
#26: How cute…
If that is the case, then who’s paying for my bennies? My freebies? I wants my gubmint bennies, and I wants them now. Should we apply at the Mexican consulate? Since you are so glib, surely you have the answers.
April 17, 2006 - 05:43 PM on April 17th, 2006
I’m all for building this wall, We must stop these people from coming into the United States. But if this is truly going to happen, how about putting “check-point charlie”up at the wall, with machine guns. If this wall is going to happen, we must first blow up the Statue of Liberty. If everyone is in favor of that, then I’ll be in favor of the wall.
April 17, 2006 - 05:57 PM on April 17th, 2006
30-The border patrol will be armed. We apologise but we are not as familiar with ignorance as you seem to be..why would we blow up The Statute Of Liberty? When the immigrants entered and saw her, they were coming here legally..so what is the point of your stupidity?
April 17, 2006 - 06:09 PM on April 17th, 2006
Yeah, when has the Statue of Liberty, or any law or policy, allowed, encouraged, or enabled uncontrolled, unscreened, unchecked, illegal immigration? NEVER, that’s the answer.
April 17, 2006 - 06:50 PM on April 17th, 2006
[...] (Hat Tip - StoptheACLU) / A Lady’s Ruminations / BIG DOG’s WEBLOG / American and Proud of It / IMAO / Right Voices / Conservative Outpost Popularity: unranked • Permalink [...]
April 17, 2006 - 08:00 PM on April 17th, 2006
Time to declare war on mexico and tell they we dont want them sending us their crinimals anymore its time to declare mexico a outlaw nation:mad:
April 17, 2006 - 08:28 PM on April 17th, 2006
Send A Brick To Senators & Representatives To Begin Building Wall
h/t Michelle Malkin This is a great idea. Send a brick to Washington to clue wake our elected officials up to the fact that we want and need a wall built. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again,…
April 18, 2006 - 12:20 AM on April 18th, 2006
The Border needs to be secured and the only way to effectively do that is a fence. Just like the sensors that beep when you go into a Radio Shack, a “Virtual Fence” will do little more than allow the border patrol to count how many people they aren’t catching. Will the Fence be totally effective? No. Will it be more effective than the absolutely nothing that we are doing now? Yes, infinitely so. Why do I say infinitely so? Because anything divided by nothing equals inifiti.
San Fran, you are right in saying that the smugglers will attempt to bypass the wall and undoubtedly many will succeed. However digging a 75 ft long tunnel is substantially more expensive, difficult, and labor intensive than simply walking or driving across the currently non-existent borderline. A fence has proven effective at reducing crime on both sides of the border where it was built in southern California. It has effectively redirected smuggler traffic around the fence to areas where it would be easier to identify and arrest them.
There have been over 200 documented incidences of Mexican Military personnel entering this country illegally claiming that they were simply lost on land navigation exercises. You don’t go out on land navigation exercises with loaded automatic weapons, and it’s really hard to get lost when you have a GPS unit with you. I was speaking with a former Military and police trainer this weekend who was on patrol with the border patrol when they captured one of these “Lost” Mexican units. They were given back their weapons and put on a bus back to Mexico. There have been numerous documented cases of Mexican Military assisting drug smugglers including using their weapons to disarm and hold US Border Patrol agents while the smugglers beat a hasty retreat back across the border.
For the safety of the law enforcement officers and land owners on this side of the border a fence is a necessity. Will it be perfect? Like I said before, no. But it will be an improvement. While the drug cartels may be able to afford to build tunnels under it, the average everyday border jumper and Jose Drug runner will not. That should reduce the number of ILLEGAL border crossings substantially.
April 18, 2006 - 08:27 AM on April 18th, 2006
Just ask Israel about their fence…
I remember posting the above last time this issue came up. But the Left doesn’t have an attention span long enough to remember.
April 19, 2006 - 11:18 AM on April 19th, 2006
peejz is right:grin: but who will build the fence? mostly Mexican labors from Mexico, most american will not be allowed the work for our government and its going to be fun to watch the bull.
ask why ask who ask what business will be doing it.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Overview
CQ.com
- Free trial
- Guided tour
CQ Green Sheets
- Free trial
CQ Budget Tracker
- Free trial
- Guided tour
CQ HealthBeat
- Free trial
- Guided tour
CQ Today
- Free trial
CQ Weekly
- Free trial
CQ Homeland Security
- Free trial
- Guided tour
CQ House Action Reports
- Free trial
- Guided tour
CQ Transcripts
- Congressional Hearing Transcripts
- CQ Newsmaker Transcripts
CQ Midday Update
CQPolitics.com
CQ Behind The Lines
CQ Online Store
- CQ Books and Special Supplements
CQ Press
Contact us
CQ.com quick start guide
CQ Homeland Security quick start guide
Media Kit
Mission
Contact us
Press releases
Working at CQ
Executive team
Reprints
Other CQ sites
Privacy policy
Copyright, terms & conditions
508(c) Compliance statement
Masthead
CQ HOMELAND SECURITY – INTELLIGENCE
Oct. 27, 2004 – 8:30 p.m.
Homeland Intelligence Chief Hughes Warned Civil Rights Would Have to Be ‘Abridged’ to Prevent Another Terror Attack
By Justin Rood, CQ Staff
Eight months before the White House appointed him the Homeland Security Department’s top intelligence official, retired U.S. Army Gen. Patrick M. Hughes told a public forum at Harvard last year that the government would have to “abridge individual rights”and take domestic security measures “not in accordance with our values and traditions”to prevent terrorist attacks in the United States.
“What I’m about to say is very arrogant ” arrogant to a fault,”said Hughes, a former chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), in previously unreported remarks at a March 2003 Harvard University forum on “Future Conditions: The Character and Conduct of War, 2010 and 2020.â€
“Set aside what the mass of people think. Some things are so bad for them that you cannot allow them to have them. One of them is war in the context of terrorism in the United States,”Hughes said, according to a transcript obtained by CQ Homeland Security.
“Therefore, we have to abridge individual rights, change the societal conditions, and act in ways that heretofore were not in accordance with our values and traditions, like giving a police officer or security official the right to search you without a judicial finding of probable cause,”said Hughes.
“Things are changing, and this change is happening because things can be brought to us that we cannot afford to absorb. We can’t deal with them, so we’re going to reach out and do something ahead of time to preclude them.
“Is that going to change your lives?”Hughes asked rhetorically. “It already has.â€
Neither the department nor Hughes would comment for the record on whether Hughes stood by his comments in the year he has held the senior DHS intelligence post.
At the time of his remarks, Hughes was a private consultant whose clients included the CIA, the FBI, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DIA, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, Booz Allen Hamilton, Science Applications International Corp., SRI International, Anteon, Boeing, Rand Corp., and others, according to the Web site for his company, PMH Enterprises, LLC.
In his current position, Hughes heads up DHS’ intelligence analysis efforts and coordinates with the other members of the intelligence community, as well as with such interagency intelligence efforts as the Terrorist Threat Integration Center.
Conspiracy Theories
Roger Cressey, who ran the Transnational Threats unit of the National Security Council in the Clinton administration, took issue with Hughes’ remarks.
“It’s a little surreal. I don’t agree with that,”Cressey said. They “fuel the conspiracy theorists and those on the extreme left and right who believe the government is only out for one thing: to screw with the American people. I don’t think it’s a helpful way of advancing the discourse.â€
An official with the 9/11 Public Discourse Project ” the lobbying effort created by the former members of the 9/11 commission ” drew a stark contrast between Hughes’ reflections and the 9/11 commission’s position.
“The choice between security and liberty is a false one,”said the official, who agreed to talk only on condition of anonymity to protect the project’s efforts from charges of partisanship.
“Our history has shown us that insecurity threatens liberty. Yet if our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values that we are struggling to defend,”the official said.
“The Fourth Amendment is pretty clear, said Timothy Edgar, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, when asked about Hughes’ comments. “In general, the rule is that you do need a warrant and probable cause”to search someone.
Edgar said there are numerous exceptions to that requirement, but it was not clear that those were what Hughes was referring to.
” ‘We have to abridge individual rights’ ” that’s a very disturbing thing, coming from the head of intelligence at the Homeland Security Department,”Edgar said.
Former Democratic Sen. Gary Hart (1974-86) of Colorado, co-chairman of the U.S. Commission on National Security in the 21st Century ” which first called for the creation of a homeland security department ” called Hughes’ remarks “a dangerous misunderstanding of the United States Constitution, our history and our political culture.â€
“It’s the same kind of thinking that caused Abu Ghraib,”Hart said, referring to the recent scandal in which U.S. Army personnel abused Iraqi prisoners. “This thinking applied to this country will cause Abu Ghraibs in the United States.â€
Since taking his position with DHS last November, Hughes appears to have tempered his comments.
In May, he told the Associated Press that “we are trying to make ourselves more secure in a way that is palatable and constitutionally right.â€
The White House did not return calls seeking comment.
Justin Rood can be reached via jrood@cq.com
© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • Congressional Quarterly Inc.
1255 22nd Street N.W. • Washington, D.C. 20037 • 202-419-8500
Contact CQ | Privacy Policy | Masthead | Terms, Conditions & Copyright
May 30, 2006 - 04:53 PM on May 30th, 2006
[...] A while back, I posted this about the send a brick to congress campaign. Today, it appears that the bricks are being delivered! Sometimes, mail call hits Congress like a ton of bricks - literally. One by one, opponents of illegal immigration have been sending lawmakers real, red bricks with angry messages written on the side: “Build a wall. Deport them all.” [...]
June 1, 2006 - 08:12 AM on June 1st, 2006
Hey, how about a solid wall of Automobile factories along the border? They can still have their jobs and go home at 5.
June 1, 2006 - 08:55 AM on June 1st, 2006
SF Lib,
I wouldn’t care if it was a bunch of Norwegians illegally crossing the border. So give up on that racism spin.
A wall ineffective? Maybe. But so is most of what the government does. How about Simpson/Mazzoli 1986? That was a real masterpiece of legislation. David Copperfield is the last person I remember seeing walk through a wall.
Stain on our national image? Gimme a break, man. Everybody hates us. They hated us even before Bush. But worse than that… no one respects us. We’ve become a society of apathetic, litigious, spoiled brats. We will never be firm. We’re too busy trying to appease and be politically correct.
When one of you libs has just ONE good idea that is positive and constructive… I’ll be the first to let you know… But you have become the “anti-everything” movement. Do you have any ideas besides maintaining the status quo? It’s not good enough for me. I don’t know how it is in Californ-I-A, but on the border in Texas the drug cartels are running the show. Murder, kidnappings, and other crime per capita is higher than anywhere else in the state. You strike me as someone who thinks they are always the smartest person in the room… so give us your sollution.
May 12, 2007 - 07:26 AM on May 12th, 2007
Why do you only talk about Mexicans, not all illegal people are Mexicans!!