GETTING THEIR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT

Secure Fence Act Hoax of 2006
In the fall of 2006 when Congress passed and the President signed into law the Secure Fence Act, most Americans thought they understood what they were getting. The plain text of the law states that "the Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide for [at] least 2 layers of reinforced fencing, the installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors" along a specified range of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Act then stipulated the precise regions of the border, covering a total of 854 miles. [Note: using Google Earth, Grassfire has created a short video showing the precise areas that have been mandated by the Secure Fence Act to have double-layer fencing. View here.]

But the very same day that the Senate passed the Secure Fence Act, Senate leaders had already hatched a plan to, in essence, un-do the Act. More precisely stated, Congress passed another law giving the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)discretion over how and where the fence would actually be built. That night, after the Secure Fence Act was passed, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison rose to the floor of the Senate and expressed her concern that the Act was too restrictive and would impose too much of a burden on Texas' border communities. Hutchison then submitted into the record two letters written earlier that day. The first was a letter she had received from Majority Leader Bill Frist earlier in the day addressing Sen. Hutchison's concerns; the second, Frist's letter to House and Senate leaders issuing specific legislative directives related to Hutchison's concerns. The letter made three stipulations:

1. Congress "will work with the Department of Homeland Security" (DHS) to consult with state governments, local governments, and Native American tribes "regarding the exact placement of fencing and other physical infrastructure along the southwest border of the United States."
2. Legislation will give DHS "flexibility to use alternative physical infrastructure" instead of fencing when DHS sees fit.
3. The legislation will "clarify the definition of operational control of the border" to ensure a "workable standard for the Department."

http://www.firesociety.com/article/19253

Well, looks like NO fence for protection of the American public from potential terrorist activity and the illegal immigrant invasion , but .............

WASHINGTON -- After delaying a domestic satellite-surveillance program for more than two months, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff expects to finalize a new charter for it this week, a move that attempts to quell civil-liberties concerns and get the program back on track.

Mr. Chertoff also plans soon to unveil a cyber-security strategy, part of an estimated $15 billion, multiyear program designed to protect the nation's Internet infrastructure. The program has been shrouded in secrecy for months and has also prompted privacy concerns on Capitol Hill because it involves government protection of domestic computer networks.

Both areas put Homeland Security in the middle of a public debate over domestic spy powers, kicked off by the revelation two years ago that the National Security Agency had been eavesdropping on some conversations in the U.S. without a warrant. In the fall, the department put the satellite program on hold after an outcry on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers have also asked Mr. Chertoff to delay the introduction of the cyber-security initiative. "One lesson I've learned is it's not enough to say we know what we're doing is going to be OK," Mr. Chertoff said in an interview. "We've got to really make it clear to the public that we're doing this, but we're not doing that."

The satellite program, which would be run by a new department branch called the National Applications Office, would expand the domestic use of satellite imagery by federal and local authorities.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119812248622741723.html?mod=hps_us_whats_news

.............it seems that the Feds sure can get that Domestic spying system up and operational on time.

How much does the Federal government think the public will take? They blatantly attack our sensibilities and desires, ignoring the American people. It seems that not even drug activity, murders, plots to attack Federal installations, rape of American women and kidnappings can motivate the gov to enforce the border. Why?