Holding Border Patrol Accountable

Border patrol currently assigns a sizable number of agents to monitor interior checkpoints.

|

Earlier this week, John Stossel wrote about patrolmen without borders.

Even as the federal government fails to control the southern border, it sends the Border Patrol farther into the interior, where Americans complain that agents harass people who are already U.S. citizens.

It's legal. The Supreme Court ruled that the Border Patrol can set up "inland" checkpoints anywhere up to 100 miles from an external border of the United States. That's what government now considers a "reasonable distance" from the border.

But that means the zone within which you could be stopped and searched includes much of Florida and California, and all of Maine and New Hampshire. Two-thirds of America's population lives that close to the border.

Border Patrol currently assigns a sizable number of agents to monitor interior checkpoints. Considering today's border crisis, this raises questions of resource allocation, among other civil liberty issues. Reason TV covered the topic back in 2013. Watch "Holding Border Patrol Accountable: Terry Bressi on Recording his 300+ Checkpoint Interactions," produced by Tracy Oppenheimer. About 7 minutes.

Original release date was November 18, 2013 and original write-up is below.

"This is not increasing our security, in fact, it's making us less secure. It's just feeding an empire building, it's feeding agency budgets, and job security for various law enforcement agencies," says the University of Arizona's Terry Bressi of in-country immigration checkpoints.

Bressi sat down with ReasonTV's Tracy Oppenheimer to discuss these checkpoints and their implications for civil liberties. Bressi estimates that he has been stopped by border patrol between 300-350 times. After his first encounter, he started carrying cameras and audio recording equipment, and has since been videotaping his checkpoint interactions. He says this holds officers accountable for their actions, and he hopes that by posting these videos online, citizens will become more aware of their rights.

"A federal agent who is standing in the middle of a public highway, wearing a public uniform, collecting a public paycheck while seizing the public absent reasonable suspicion has no expectation of privacy," says Bressi in regards to filming border patrol agents. "This is something that I like to remind folks of, that the government thinks that we don't have any right to privacy whatsoever, but that's a double-edged sword."

For more of Bressi's checkpoint videos, visit his YouTube channel.

About 7 minutes.

Produced by Tracy Oppenheimer, shot by Zach Weissmueller.

Scroll down for downloadble versions and subscribe to ReasonTV's YouTube channel for notifications when new material goes live.

NEXT: Jay Austin's Beautiful, Illegal Tiny House

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Drugs, terrorism, mandate.

    Boom.

  2. Oh look. Cosmotarians complaining about the unintended consequences of the cosmotarian position on immigration becoming de facto law of the land under BO.

    If you make the Border Patrol unwelcome at the border, they’re going to move inland. They don’t just vanish into thin air leaving only the refreshing scent of pine.

    1. If you make the Border Patrol unwelcome at the border, they’re going to move inland.

      Because they must exist in their current form, and have a free-ranging mandate to grow or shape or expand their own mission. I mean, what can a democracy of limited government with checks and balances do?

      Frankly, I’m not sure why the FDA doesn’t start patrolling the border.

      1. Like the welfare state, it’s not a question of whether they must exist, because they will.

        1. Yes, because the number of Border Patrol agents is some universal constant we are stuck with

          http://www.cbp.gov/sites/defau…..ments/U.S. Border Patrol Fiscal Year Staffing Statistics 1992-2013.pdf

    2. Oh look, a conservative or paleo complaining about libertarians complaining about big government NAP violations.

      1. Not complaining, just pointing and laughing.

      2. Just like the cosmos slipped into bed with the Left on gay marriage, and woke up the next morning to find all they’d accomplished was to create a bevy of anti-discrimination lawsuits and prosecutions against cakemakers and photographers, and a gaggle of leftists out to purge from gainful employment anyone who had opposed their drive for SSM in the past. As the paleos had predicted all along.

        1. Just like how libertarians agreeing with the fight to decriminalize adultery and sodomy has led to forced gay affairs for everyone

          1. Just like how libertarians agreeing with the fight to decriminalize adultery and sodomy has led to forced gay affairs for everyone

            lolwut?

            1. The ‘logic’ is that when we agreed to stand against a NAP violation that the left miraculously also found itself against a parade of horribles the conservatives fighting the left on that issue warned of would follow; my example show how silly that is.

              1. Right, but your example is ludicrous fiction, while NT4U’s example is actually happening.

                You’re actually retarded, do you know that?

                1. Autism, it has has to be autistic.

                2. “your example is ludicrous fiction, while NT4U’s example is actually happening.”

                  Wow, you don’t get that that’s the entire point.

                  Which makes this part “You’re actually retarded” remind me of the verse about motes and beams.

                  1. lolwut?

                    NT4U points out the fact that the courts legalizing SSM with bullshit expansive readings of old amendments has led to some very bad things from a libertarian perspective.

                    You respond with some silly bullshit which makes even less sense then your usual idiocy, and then act as though you’ve made some incisive point.

                    Were you dropped on your head?

                    1. I’ll try to explain this to you.

                      First, he gives immigration as an example of how libertarians siding with liberals on what seems like a liberty issue ended with a net loss to liberty.

                      Second, he gives gay marriage as another example.

                      So I gave an example of the same kind of thing where the result was, no net loss to liberty.

                      That’s called a ‘counterexample’ which is used to derail a silly generalization.

                    2. But your counterexample doesn’t actually rebut his claim.

                      It is a fact that bakers, wedding photographers, etc. are having their rights to free association violated thanks to the courts legalizing SSM via judicial fiat.

                      Now you might think that’s a small price to pay. But you have to make that argument, not pretend that there are no negative consequences to go along with the positive ones.

                      Joining with the progtards to create new categories of thoughtcrime doesn’t exactly strike me as a net gain for liberty.

                      I mean, as far as I know no one has paid a dollar in fines or spent a minute in jail for the “crime” of being in a gay marriage. But Reason has profiled several people who’ve been fined for attempting to exercise their right to refuse to do business with people.

                      So it isn’t insane to suggest that perhaps the courts legalizing SSM has been a net negative from a liberty standpoint.

                    3. Wow, you really don’t get it do you.

                      Counterexamples do not refute a specific example, but the generalization drawn from it.

                      Does that help?

                    4. Counterexamples do not refute a specific example, but the generalization drawn from it.

                      What generalization?

                    5. “that when we agreed to stand against a NAP violation that the left miraculously also found itself against a parade of horribles the conservatives fighting the left on that issue warned of would follow”

                    6. Oh you mean your strawman. Got it. Still having great success in your War on Straw, huh Bo?

                      I’m going to bed. I’d call you a cunt, but cunts serve a useful purpose.

                    7. When a person lists two straight example of the same thing, that’s kind of an implied pattern.

                      The entire purpose of presenting the second one was to bolster his point in the first one (see, this is what happens when you think you are defending liberty that the left agrees with!). First of all, I don’t think we should compromise our principles because we think that later down the road someone may try to extend the principle to places it doesn’t extend. But more importantly, as my counterexample demonstrates, there is no reason to think that any given instance of this situation will turn out like another.

                    8. It is a fact that bakers, wedding photographers, etc. are having their rights to free association violated thanks to the courts legalizing SSM via judicial fiat.

                      Actually, that is bullshit. NM was criminalizing discrimination before SSM.

                      There are states with laws that specifically criminalize gay marriage or officiating one.

                    9. Holy Forests for the Trees.

                    10. There are states with laws that specifically criminalize gay marriage or officiating one.

                      Right and there are states where it’s illegal to eat ice cream on the sidewalk. If there’s a single person in prison or who was forced to pay fines for being married to someone of the same sex, I haven’t heard of it.

                      Actually, that is bullshit. NM was criminalizing discrimination before SSM.

                      No, the courts legalizing SSM allows people to be tried for “discrimination” against gay couples under the so called “civil rights” laws. That’s a new development.

                    11. No, NM already did that beforehand.

                      So what if no one is in prison? The evil is still there. OTOH, if there’s been any statistical increase in anti-discrimination lawsuits after SSM legalization in Canada or any state, I haven’t heard of or seen it. I’d like to see that before I buy into the SoCon persecution complex.

                    12. So what if no one is in prison? The evil is still there.

                      You’re a very strange kid. You think nothing of massive wars, but considered laws under which no one actually goes to jail to be evil.

                      OTOH, if there’s been any statistical increase in anti-discrimination lawsuits after SSM legalization in Canada or any state, I haven’t heard of or seen it.

                      There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

                      The Oregon and Colorado cases alone prove my point.

                    13. No, they don’t. STATISTICS would prove your point.

                      You think nothing of massive wars

                      No, you think nothing of massive strawmen. You just went near-Full Botard. You never go Full Botard.

          2. Am I the only one who read this discussion as if it were Golum and Smeagol arguing back and forth?

        2. All that was accomplished was anti-discrimination lawsuits?

          Could’ve sworn that gay people are getting married.

          1. Sorry, in my laser-sharp focus on liberty, I don’t rate the issuance of pieces of paper from the state much of an accomplishment.

            1. That’s as silly as saying that the issuance of pieces of paper from the state that are articles of incorporation or concealed carry permits don’t rate as much of an accomplishment.

    3. “If you make the Border Patrol unwelcome at the border…”

      Is that what ‘reform our immigration system’ means?

      Thats a pretty retarded stretch.

      So is the crowing about how “now we have real Nazis because y’all complained about the Brown Shirts”

      Neither logical nor practical. Its just a lame rhetorical attempt to arbitrarily blame your invisible enemies.

      Which is actually not a lot different than Bo and his Fantasy-Neocons. Its just you want to blame “Cosmos” for… what again? Oh, right – the paleocon overreaction to the invisible reconquista.

    4. What the fuck is this fucking fuck fucking talking about?

  3. Lions vs Browns in Meaningless Preseason Game?. Which team lets down its fans sooner?

    1. You mean the Johhny Manzel Bowl?

    2. It’s not meaningless at all. Someone’s going to have bragging rights to Lake Erie after this game.

      1. Buffalo. At least not embarrassing themselves tonight.

  4. Did they just fucking wipe the comments?

    1. Nope, my mistake – could have sworn there was more here.

  5. ITT: Bo argues with his sock.

    1. This fellows views are a little closer to yours Acomist

      1. Do you keep a list of the REAL LIBERTARIANS bo?

        do share.

        1. Meh, I count paleolibertarians as libertarians, just whiny ones.

          Neocons such as yourself though, don’t need any lists to not count when I run across.

          1. Neocon. right.

            How old were you, by the way, when PNAC was formed in 1997, and what were you doing at the time?

            1. Just. Block.

            2. Neocon: every peacenazi’s favorite strawman! Now more flammable!

          2. oh, and secondly – did you have to look up what PNAC was, because you’re a complete fucking boob and have no idea what “Neoconservative” really even means?

            1. It’s not like neoconservatism started in 1997 Gilmore, unless there’s a time machine in the offices of Commentary.

              1. Thats not what i asked bo, but please, feel free to continue to out yourself as a sniveling, intellectually dishonest twit.

                1. Talk about intellectual dishonesty:

                  “did you have to look up what PNAC was, because you’re a complete fucking boob and have no idea what “Neoconservative” really even means?”

                  And for those like Virginian, I’ll explain this one: Neoconservatism predates and is not defined by the PNAC, but that’s sure what Gilmore implies in that comment.

                  1. Neoconservatism is whatever Bo says it is. He is The One. He is the Grand Arbiter of Political Ideologies.

                    He’s almost finished with law school. He knows the Hidden Mysteries. Gaze at his magnificence.

                    1. Hm, who said “because you’re a complete fucking boob and have no idea what “Neoconservative” really even means?”

                  2. Hallmarks of Intellectual Dishonesty =

                    “2. Handwaving; Putting words in other people’s mouths. Intentionally mis-stating the argument.

                    3. Inconsistency; refusal to acknowledge their own previous statements / pretending they said otherwise

                    4. Ignore direct questions; tries and change the subject when questioned

                    trifecta

                    How old were you, again?

                    1. I am not sure what is more amusing, your list itself (2. Handwaving; Putting words in other people’s mouths…er, those are not the same thing), or that you violate it so much yourself.

                    2. Wow, its bad isn’t it.

                      12?

                      How old were you, bo. Is it really that embarrassing? No one will think less of you! That’s not likely at all.

                    3. Bo and I are of similar ages. The difference is that I do not consider myself to be the ultimate arbiter of all things.

                    4. Gilmore, do you not get the irony going on here? You are accusing me of intellectual dishonesty via handwaving, trying to change the question, etc., but you are obsessed with how old I am as relevant to, what?

                    5. Answer the question and you’ll find out, won’t you?

                    6. And by the way

                      When you deflect and pretend a question has not been asked, that does not make the person asking the question ‘obsessive’ by asking again.

                      actual lawyers understand this.

                    7. Actual human beings understand differently, and actual lawyers understand that irrelevant questions are directed to be disregarded.

                    8. Do you jack off to your own sophistry Bo?

                    9. “Bo Cara Esq.|8.10.14 @ 12:48AM|#

                      Actual human beings understand differently, and actual lawyers understand…

                      And then there’s you.

                      and i guess chrome will have to do.

                    10. His lawyerly training seems to be effective.

        2. Do you keep a list of the REAL LIBERTARIANS bo?

          He does indeed.

  6. Does anyone know what the fuck the deluge of Re-Runs is about? They’re now digging back as far as a year.

    artificially trying to gin up Mo’Clicks during the slow summer months? Some clever plan by a lazy-ass webmaster?

    I used to think it was just Nick trying to get more Reason.TV pieces circulating on YouTube. Or, rather – i still think that. But why recycle everything here…?

    1. Reason the magazine is run by the Reason Foundation, which has several other projects and likely encourages promotion between them.

      Really Gilmore, perhaps stick to fashion reviews and asking for moments to reflect on what a more ‘realistic libertarian foreign policy might look like.’

      1. Nothing you said provided any insights, bo.

        but thanks for the effort.

  7. McCain Says Limited Airstrikes Not Enough (who saw that coming?)

    “President Obama’s authorization of limited military operations against militants in Iraq is not enough to counter a growing threat to the United States from “the richest, most powerful terrorist organization in history,” Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said on Saturday…

    Mr. McCain said he would favor sending combat air controllers into Iraq to help identify targets for airstrikes. Heavy military equipment should be rushed into Erbil, the Kurdish capital, the senator said. And he said he believed the airstrikes must extend into ISIS-controlled territory in Syria.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08…..-well&_r=0

  8. I grew up in Temecula CA and there was a checkpoint just south of the city on I15. That’s about 60 miles north of San Diego. I don’t think I was ever stopped there. They just check for an American plate and wave you through.

    1. They tend to check to see if you’re pale enough – then they wave you through.

      Stationed at MCA Yuma, had lots of my non-white marines hassled going into San Diego (and back, though they seem to have closed that checkpoint).

    2. Still there. Just past Fallbrook.

      Same as I-5. One day, they back up traffic for 30 miles. The next day, it’s closed. It’s kind of what you would expect.

  9. Charlie Crist: Unprincipled Pol

    “Charlie Crist, who used to be the governor of Florida then quit four years ago to run for Senate and lost, then switched parties (now he’s a Democrat), is running for governor again. Why would someone switch parties to run for a job he just quit? That’s the question two Tampa Bay Times reporters try to answer in a lengthy profile of Crist published today. What they’ve come up with is a tragicomic biography of a charismatic, shallow, completely unprincipled, and very successful politician who comes across less as a human being than he does a Carl Hiaasen/Elmore Leonard caricature who, like a fairy-tale princess in a postmodern children’s movie, has somehow leaped out of a book and into real life.”

  10. in unrelated “OBAMA DOES THIS WAR SHIT BETTER THAN ANYBODY” news =

    The president today had a weekly-address “Clarifying” his earlier comments, ensuring the public understands that =

    – the use of force in Iraq is “narrow in focus”
    – however, it should be part of a “broader strategy”
    – the US would not be forced into the position of becoming “Iraqs Air Force”
    – however, the casus belli here is apparently to ‘help Iraqis’
    (no mention of why this is in US strategic interests)

    (let’s dwell on this a moment – we’re getting involved because we apparently care about *iraqi citizens*… but we are not saying we actually trust or are willing to partner ourselves with the current *iraqi government*? …

    – The actual stated rationale for the initial strikes was to provide ‘urgent help’ to prevent ‘impending genocide’ and to ‘protect Americans in Erbil’

    – however, this process will ‘take more than a few weeks‘… even though we could probably airlift every last ‘endangered’ motherfucker out of there in far less time…

    – and decode this little gem at the end of the NYT coverage =

    “Aides said that Mr. Obama had not committed to years of continuous airstrikes while Iraqis develop a new government…”

    Limited. Focus.
    and stuff.

    1. And lest you think the president is the type who takes use of military force particularly seriously, he made sure to start his vacation at the same time as we begin sending planes over a country armed with AA missles we supplied it.

      and whose government we are openly stating we’re “not 100% happy with”

      Foreign Policy Genius.

      1. ‘a country armed with AA missles we supplied it.’

        ‘we could probably airlift every last ‘endangered’ motherfucker out of there in far less time.’

        Sheesh.

        1. – #8 in “signs of intellectual dishonesty”

          “8. Pretend to engage in ‘critical thinking’ yet restrict themselves to extremely narrow source: cherry pick information, present out of context”

          These two statements are not contradictory, Bo, if you actually read what I said.

          If we were solely engaged in a humanitarian mission, bo, we’d do so by stating as much, and providing the leadership of a country the exact criteria for our ‘in and out’ engagement.

          If we instead, like we are now, pretending to send in the military for ‘humanitarian’ reasons, but leaving open the use of force *to effect change in the actual government of that country*…?

          Well, you might find that someone might ‘accidentally’ start shooting back. its called ‘mixing the message’, and its why actual Humanitarians don’t like it when the Military does Humanitarian missions – too often, they get into ‘mission creep’ a la Somalia 1993, and the goal becomes ‘regime change’

          But of course, you’re sensitive to all these issues, begin an old foreign policy buff since…

          ..wait, how old were you in 1993 bo, and what were you doing with yourself at the time again?

          1. “#8 in “signs of intellectual dishonesty”

            “8. Pretend to engage in ‘critical thinking’ yet restrict themselves to extremely narrow source: cherry pick information, present out of context””

            Is this from one of the You May Like or NewsMax links? 10 signs of intellectual dishonest! right next to 8 Marriage Tips from the Bible Revealed!

            1. We could probably rearrange them to highlight which you engage in the most

              No bo, these were collected and presented after a few months of listening to your horseshit. they were posted here a few weeks ago.

              1. Where is FDA’s quote? It should be in Reasonable as its own function.

                1. Oh, now our resident sociopath shows up…

                  1. What does it say about you that a sociopath recognizes that you’re fucked in the head?

              2. “these were collected and presented after a few months of listening to your horseshit. they were posted here a few weeks ago.”

                Oh my gosh, that is much more sad. You made a little list about and for the guy you disagree with on an internet chat board?

                Wow. You’re like Oswald Patton’s character in that fan movie.

                1. You made a little list about and for the guy you disagree with on an internet chat board?

                  The lack of self-awareness is rather staggering there.

                  1. Watch out. He might call you a neocon, or a sociopath. Or something else. Or he might posses even less self-awareness.

                    1. Cyto, you’re pretty sociopathic. I mean, it’s a pretty common attack here on you that you pleasure yourself to accounts of Muslims being blown up by drones.

                    2. Other idiots say it is so so therefore It Is So!

                      You must be the shittiest lawyer ever or you will be.

    2. US strategic interests? Hahahahaha.

      It’s an election year and the neocons were beating up on BO for not intervening. BO’s pollsters discovered that they were having an effect so he had no choice but to intervene and get the story out of the headlines for the next three months. That’s the only strategic interest that BO gives a shit about.

      1. You think BO is doing this because Pollsters think its a *good idea*?

        That’s even dumber than what you said before.

        Sadly, Obama is actually doing this because he thinks he needs to. and his pollsters are begging him to avoid it like the plague.

        Because the last thing democrats need in November? is to own “Iraq 3.0” on top of everything else.

        1. You have a lot more confidence in the American electorate than I do. I hope you’re right.

          The MSM is going to push the Obama-saves-the-world-from-genocide angle, as MSNBC has already busted out of the gates doing. Totally ridiculous and fallacious? Absolutely. 2012 proves that doesn’t matter, though. Obama is helping people and that’s enough for most low-info voters.

          1. I think the “Yazidis at risk” angle is already old.

            Now the admin and insiders are making clear that Genocide is just the excuse they use to start airstrikes which have wider aims than simply ‘protecting a tiny minority’

            “But he and other U.S. officials made clear that more comprehensive U.S. engagement in the battle against the militants will not happen unless feuding politicians in Baghdad establish a more inclusive government capable of resolving Sunni grievances that facilitated the Islamic State’s rapid expansion.

            The Iraqi parliament is scheduled to choose a new prime minister, perhaps as early as Sunday, according to U.S. officials who have made clear their preference that Maliki stand down.”

            IOW, the US is giving the Iraqi government an ultimatum that unless they form a ‘unity government’ that the US approves of, they’re not going to use more than token force against ISIS. BUT they are implying that if the Iraqis do remove Makiki…. that the target list will suddenly ‘expand’.

            See, by ‘limited focus’, they mean, ‘this is our set of reasons for *today*. Within 2-3 weeks, the set of reasons will be different.

    3. The anti-ISIS airstrikes can help a critical new ally-Kurdistan-and the limited goal of blunting ISIS’s advance-which likely would never have been a serious threat to Irbil anyway-is totally realistic and achievable. This is probably the correct course of action. I just want to make sure it’s legal and brief. I’m sure Obama will take this easy op and totally fuck it up.

      1. Oh, and you know what would be better than just these airstrikes? BUYING KURDISTAN’S OIL and not being total chodes in applying pressure on companies to not buy that oil. Also, ending restrictions on weapons exports to Kurdistan.

  11. lol, The Border Patrol is about as useless as the TSA!

    http://www.AnonGalaxy.tk

  12. Andrew Leonard at Salon is alarmed at GOP support for Uber because, well, it’s the sharing economy and Republicans hate sharing! They’re just doing this to bash Liberals! WAH

    http://www.salon.com/2014/08/0…..lly_about/

    Salon or Salondotcom: you decide!

    Israel has broken my heart: I’m a rabbi in mourning for a Judaism being murdered by Israel

    Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback on his growing unpopularity: It’s Obama’s fault!

    Conservatives get their Obamacare wish — and now condemn their own sabotage

    Conservatives get their Obamacare wish — and now condemn their own sabotage

    How one man destroyed the Food Network: Guy Fieri has made culinary TV into a viewer’s hell

    “Dr. Internet is always dangerous”: How the Internet has altered health, journalism, education

    1. Well, they do have a point about Fieri. And the “Republican Wreckers destroyed Obamacare” is going to be the talking point for pretty much the rest of the century.

      1. Eh. I find Diners, Drive-Ins, and Dives pretty useful for planning motorcycle trips. His persona is kind of grating, but he does exhibit some great, and surprisingly eclectic, food joints.

        Food Network always kinda sucked. Good Eats is the only show on the network that was worth a shit, learning about what ingredients do greatly increased my cooking ability and made me willing to be a little more adventurous with my creations. What really killed Food Network was when they went fucking Iron Chef. Cooking competition shows suck monkey ass. But people apparently watch them…

        The best cooking network is Create, but it doesn’t just feature cooking shows. America’s Test Kitchen is the heat.

        1. My wife watches Next Food Network Star. My God that is a train wreck. Out of ten contestants only two of them could actually cook. The other eight were just clowns.

          The only good thing about Food Network is the competitive cooking shows. Those are a guilty pleasure of mine. The cooking shows are nearly all worthless. Good Eats was good, but it is not on anymore. Beyond that, Ina Garten and Bobby Flay are the only people on that network who seem to have any real cooking skills. The rest are either carnival barkers (Fiery and Irvine) or got on TV for their boobs (Sandra Lee and Giada). I think both Lee and Giada are hot as hell. Lee is a total lush and probably one hell of a good time after you get a couple of her wacky cocktails in her, but neither of them are particularly good cooks.

    2. Conservatives get their Obamacare wish — and now condemn their own sabotage

      Definitely Salon

      Conservatives get their Obamacare wish — and now condemn their own sabotage

      Definitely Salondotcom.

      1. Is your decision to buy a new 3d TV, racist?

  13. The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the student march that night;
    The quads were filled with rent-a-cops and not a picket sign in sight;
    With Cooney busted for possession, and Barrows, the riot laws;
    A sickly silence fell upon the supporters of The Cause.

    A straggling few got up to go, in deep despair. The rest
    Clung to that hope which “springs eternal in the human breast;”
    They thought, If only Bo Cara could be rallying that mob,
    We’d put up even money now, with Bo Cara at the quads.

    But Flynn preceded Bo Cara, as did also Jimmy Blake,
    And the former was a no-good and the latter was a fake;
    Forlorn, that stricken multitude discouraged by the odds,
    For there seemed but little chance of Bo Cara’s getting to the quads.

    But Flynn let fly a bottle, to the wonderment of all,
    And Blake, the much despised, set a bomb off in the hall,
    And when the dust had lifted and men saw what had occurred,
    Jimmy beaned the Dean of Students, while the bombed out library burned.

    Then from five thousand throats and more there rose a lusty yell,
    It rumbled through the valley, it rattled in the dell,
    A Harley roared up from the street, and was tearing up the sod,
    And Bo Cara, Gay Bo Cara, was advancing through the quads.

    There was ease in Bo Cara’s manner as he wheeled into his place;
    There was pride in Bo Cara’s bearing and a smile on Bo Cara’s face,
    And when, responding to the cheers, he lightly gave a nod,
    No stranger in the crowd could doubt `twas Bo Cara at the quads.

  14. Ten thousand eyes were on him as he gunned the throttle loud;
    Five thousand tongues applauded as he signaled to the crowd.
    And while the nervous officers grabbed the night sticks from their hips,
    Defiance gleamed in Bo Cara’s eye, a sneer curled Bo Cara’s lip.

    And now a can of tear gas came hurtling through the air,
    And Bo Cara stood a-watching it in haughty grandeur there,
    Close by the haughty Bo Cara , the can unheeded sped —
    “That ain’t my style,” said Bo Cara . “Break it up!” the coppers said.

    From the streets, black with people, there went up a muffled roar,
    Like the beating of the storm waves on a stern and distant shore.
    “Kill them; kill the pigs!” shouted someone from the mob;–
    And Bo Cara guns his engine, and wipes-out on the lawn.

    With a fist of protest shaking, Bo Cara’s visage shone;
    He jumped back on his Harley; he bade the march go on;
    The Harley takes off through the quads, ’till it hits a vicious bump;
    And Bo Cara sails through the air, landing smack upon his rump.

  15. “Fascists!” he screeched, “Capitalist, Imperialist, Racist, Sexist pigs!”
    “If I must I’ll ride a tricycle, but we’ll have this march – you dig?”
    They saw his face grow stern and cold; they saw his muscles strain,
    And they knew that Gay Bo Cara wouldn’t lose that bike again!

    The sneer is gone from Bo Cara’s lip; his teeth are clenched in hate;
    He sniffs with cruel derision as he lets go of the brake.
    And now he throws it into first, the clutch he now he lets go,
    And now the air is shattered as the bike takes off – alone.

    Oh! somewhere there’s a campus town where they drum and chant all night.
    They protest for the rain forest, and demand the polar bear’s rights.
    And somewhere bongs are being passed, and somewhere radicals shout;
    But there is no joy at Old State U — Bo Cara has Wiped Out!

    1. Definitely Patton Oswald’s character

  16. The territorial boundary of the US is 12 miles offshore – that should also apply to this SCOTUS border patrol range nonsense.

    1. That is good point. Since when is a hundred miles “reasonable”? Where did that number come from other than it being a nice round number? Twelve miles at least as a basis in maritime law.

    2. 12 miles offshore – 12 miles into MX or CA. Good place for them.

    3. How about 35 feet?

    4. Be careful with that idea – we have a 200 *nm* EEZ offshore too.

  17. “This is not increasing our security–“

    Who said it had anything to do with security?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.