Since this is my state, I have quite a few comments to add and a couple of questions too.

I grew up in rural north-central Pa. You know, "Pennsylvania Guys" territory. But I don't cling to my gun and my Bible. I probably got infected with "Liberalism" when I was living in New Jersey for a couple of years, I guess. Ha ha!

With Pat Toomey being 8 points ahead in Rasmussen's poll less than 77 days until the election, I guess it will take an October surprise in order for him to lose. But I don't think any Dem. surprise will be able to overcome the steady drumbeat coming from the Right. The Toomey supporters are as busy as a group of dung beatles rolling their balls of B.S. up the hill vigorously.

The Captains of the Tea Party Right at FOX--The Republican Broadcast Network--are distracting everyone with their shrill cries of "mosque, Mosque, MOSQUE". And for good measure, all that "repeal or change [re-interpret] the 14th Ammendmant" jabber. As Rasmussen has pointed out, the "illegal immigrant" or (as you have so delicately put it) the "anti-infiltration" movement is a sure winner in Pa. as well as all of the other states. All that Right-Wing ammunition should certainly do the job.

So I'm awarding Pennsylvania to Toomey and the Republics. It is Theirs to lose. If that should happen I'll look forward to reading your explanation as to why. You can inform me as to which dirty trick the Damn-Dems. employed.

Here's my question. I heard Pat Caddell qualify "the Small Businessman" the other day on Neil Cavuto. According to him that's anyone who owns a business that employs less than 500 workers. REALLY!!? My My! How things have changed! A small businessman used to be defined as someone who owned a business that employed less than 50 workers...That's inflation for ya! I guess the new definition of a "small businessman" is anyone who owns a company who doesn't have stock that's being traded publicly on the stock market? It's all his / hers and it's private? Is that it? Could you explain this for me?  

Anyway, I'll be voting for Sestak [the loser]. Us losers stick together, you know. LOL.

Libby has a sever case of Fox Derangement Syndrome. Sad, that.

You got that one right, TV. But sad? That's a matter of perspective.

Getting back to the subject of this blog, when you say "...cities separated by an unpredicitable countryside strewn with farmers and small businessman", i think we both know that those particular Pa. voters aren't unpredictable in the least.  They have always voted Republican and I'm sure they will continue to do so. The only question is will their numbers be sufficient to overcome the large city voting blocks of Dems. I say probably if you also include the rural "hunter-gatherers" who live in the mountains where I came from and the newest demographic addition to the Republican party ranks: The upscale suburban "soccer-moms" element. That upper-middle class element.

About the use of the word "infiltrator" instead of "illegal immigrant": I think that's very clever of you. The general public is getting weary of the ongoing "illegal immigrant" discussion as both sides have dug in and if you want to appeal to anyone who hasn't made up their mind as to where they stand on the issue, the word "inflitrator" has a very sinister connotation and might sway some of those who are ambivalent on the subject. It should draw their attention if their eyes have glazed over and they yawn when they hear someone mention the "illegal immigration" topic--again.

"Infiltrator" is a War term. And if there's one thing I've learned in the past ten years, if you can couch everything in terms of "We Are At War" it really makes people take notice. If you can manipulate people's thinking and get them to believe that everything is a matter of "US against "THEM" it evokes their tribal instincts and they can't wait to JOIN THE CAUSE!

But I'm getting off track and into the weeds and I'm starting to PHILOSOPHIZE here. [Shudder]. Sorry.  

For the record, I'd like to clarify my position on the illegal immigration problem. Time to clear the air: I do not condone illegal immigration. I am for closing the border and putting a stop to it. As far as I'm concerned you can call those people who are breaking the law anything you want. None of the terms you have suggested offends me personally. They are outlaws, illegals, infiltrators, interlopers, trespassers--whatever. So we agree on this issue. I think they should be caught and deported. In other words I wouldn't mind seeing the border closed. Be it through building walls or employing troops or whatever it takes. I think we also agree that the logistics of such an operation would be problematic.

I'm just sorry that the whole subject has become an occasion for political grandstanding and demagogue-ing. Just FYI.

To your first sentence, EXACTLY! We must stop the cartel drug-runners and the coyotes from infiltrating the country. And if we close the border we can also stop the gun-running into Mexico from our side.

I'm not sure you'll agree with me on this, but I think a long-term solution might be issuing those work-permit cards to those who are only coming across to do day labor. But the only way to make it work would involve closing the border first so you could screen those people to make sure they weren't being used as "mules" for the drug traffickers and gun-runners. Just a thought.

Although I understand where the "Left" is coming from with their argument, I do agree with you that comprehensive immigration reform won't fix the immediate problem. It might be a long-term solution. I say this reluctantly and with sadness, but I think we will have to build that wall and put guards along it and screen every person who crosses over at the "check-points". Visions of the Berlin Wall come to mind, but maybe that's the only way to handle it. That and also having guard towers and armed patrols covering every square mile with roving spotlights to light up any possible incursions. Not a pretty picture, IMO.

You are absolutely right. Mexico won't lift a finger to help us stop the flow of illegals into the country because they stand to lose to much [money]. But they sure would like to see us stop the flow of guns into their country. Damn hard to get rid of the drug cartels when your police have to fight criminals who have state-of-the-art weapons, right? But not at the expense of losing all those U.S. dineros flowing their way...And they also don't like the idea of closing the border because it cuts down on all that U.S. "tourista" traffic spending much U.S. dinero in Juarez and Tijuana...So I guess they love all that "comprehensive immigration reform" talk. (1) It will take years to implement. (2) And it still provides for lots of dinero flowing their way.

Speaking as a Liberal--but not one of those you are obviously referring to--I don't want amnesty for illegals. But I'm not in favor of rounding them all up and shipping them back across the border either. Because I don't think the old "black and white" approach is practical or will work. I thought you agreed with me on this. I guess not.

As far as conservatives not believing liberals, you are right there. On the other hand, Liberals ((if I may speak for them) do trust conservatives and believe they will do exactly what they say they will do. And for us, that's a scarey proposition! LOL.

So you support the new Arizona law. I figured you would. Likewise, I guess you don't have a problem with the question of it's Constitutionality. No conflict with State's rights vs Federal rights. But that would be a subject for another blog, wouldn't it?

Unconstitutional... Libby, I suspect that like the members of the party you support, you have no clue what is in the constitution.

However, I'll give you the benefit of a doubt. Please show me what part(s) of the Arizona law conflicts with what part(s) of the United States Constitution?

TV, I didn't suggest that I thought the Arizona law was unconstitutional. You are assuming that I think it is because of the stance of my party. I merely asked EW if he thought that there was a constitutional conflict with the law. I am neutral on the question and will wait for the court to sort out the conflicting opinions. I am not and have never claimed to be an "authority" on the Constitution. Whatever the court decide I will yield to their authority on the matter. And I will not question their decision if it doesn't turn out the way I think it should. FYI.  

Then I misunderstood what you wrote. And if what you say about accepting their decision is true it makes you part of a very tiny fraction of liberals.

EW: I hate to keep banging away on this, but I have another question for you (who I DO consider a Constitutional authority):

If the Arizona law does not conflict with the Federal law but reinforces it, why bother going to the trouble of writing and passing it? Why not just use the Federal law and enforce it as you as a state see fit? Why not just go about your business and make the Federal Attorney General's office challenge you on your method of enforcement? Put the onus on the Feds? This is a mystery to me.

I guess you are right. It has become a game of one-upsmanship. Arizona is screaming, "Pay attention to us and our problem!". So they write their own law which they knew the Feds had to challenge through the courts.

So let's say that Arizona wins their case. They get to enforce their law as written. Will that then force the Feds to send more help? More soldiers? More drones? Which I assume and they claim was the point in the first place? I don't think it will. I think the Feds will do just what they are doing right now: Yawn. Some "token" National guardsmen. Some monies for training and hiring more border patrol guards. That kind of thing...And in the meantime, you can bet the Feds will keep an eagle eye out for any sign of "racial profiling' with the enforcement of the law. Paying particularly close attention to sheriff Joe Arpaio...

In the end I'd say Arizona has accomplished what they set out to do no matter how the court rulings go. They have focused the nation's and the world's attention on the [their] border problem. They have focused everyone's attention on the issue and in effect they are making everyone take a side. And they have made a great case against approaching solving the problem with comprehensive immigration reform. They are demanding that closing the border to illegal immigration must happen first. Kudos to Arizona. They win--hands down. I don't have a problem with that.

From a purely personal political standpoint, I wish they hadn't chosen to make their case right now with the current Administration in office. It certainly makes the current Administration look bad. Ahh well, that's politics...Now I'll shut up about Arizona and their law. PHEW!...FINALLY!

Libby, This is simple. State and local authorities cannot enforce or prosecute federal law. An additional local law is required to allow locals to check for illegals and hold those they find for the feds.

TV:

I see. But I must admit I am confused by what you say. Because here in Pa. and I assume throughout the U.S., when the police discover illegal immigrants being transported across the state, they apprehend them and hold them for ICE. They don't just release them and send them on their way or whatever. So in effect they are arresting them. Or at least detaining them.  I guess what Arizona wants to do is have the power to legally "arrest" them and charge them. Is that it? Either way, won't the result be the same as only the Federal Govt. has the power to deport them? I guess I'm missing something here.

The difference is that in your state establishing immigration status and holding illegals is optional.

The Arizona law requires officers to establish the immigration status of all persons in official contact with law enforcement. It further requires that anyone who's status is in question be held until their immigration status is established. Illegals are to be held for ICE.

I see. Thank you, TV.