http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/5478952.html

So, could this be another case of real UFOs? Many residents of this tiny dairy town in Texas claim they definitely saw a UFO on the night of January 8th. It took nearly 3 weeks for the Air Force to retract their initial statement that there were no planes in the area. The Air Force now claims that there were 10 F-16s in the area on a training mission.

Much like the nuclear weapons flown across country in a huge violation of US law, perhaps they just misplaced the F-16s and didn't find them until later. Or, maybe, the ground crews, pilots, tower control, and everyone on the base with a sense of sight or hearing just forgot about launching and landing 10 F-16s that night. Or, maybe, they're confusing 10 F-16s with 10 "weather balloons" (anyone else remember the story of Roswell?) and they'll issue another retraction in 3 weeks.

Regardless of how bad the Air Force is at lying, I believe those who saw the UFO and I believe the Air Force is either lying or telling half-truths. But perhaps most important of all, the local kids have made a great t-shirt commemorating the event.

"They're here for the milk!" (Good one!)

Texans Won't Back Down

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/17/border.fence/index.html

I a bit torn about this one. One one hand, I can sympathize with them and completely understand their position. Especially the woman who has had the land since before the United States existed. On the other hand, I think these land owners are being selfish for not appreciating something that is CLEARLY for the greater good.

If I were one of these land owners, I'm not sure exactly what my decision would be. "Possession is nine-tenths of the law" in this country and we have always had a proud tradition of "the American dream" being about land ownership. For my own government to try and seize that land can be a big blow to such a notion. One of the issues not addressed in the news article is the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment states that a government (state or federal) can not seize a person's property -even in cases of eminent domain- without just compenstation. Where are the government's offers of "just compensation"? It matters not if you believe the land owners or the government is right in this matter. The bottom line is the Constitution requires the government to pay for the land it seizes. But the media seems to be doing its usual job at being lazy by not addressing this issue. (Way to go Jeanne Meserve!)

In support of the government, it should be made clear that the huge wave of illegal immigrants in this country could lead to the downfall of the United States. Border fencing is very successful in combating illegal immigration, especially the coyotes who smuggle people across open desert, usually resulting in death. This border fence is a necessary step to help defend the United States against Mexico. If you don't believe the fence is a good idea, perhaps you believe we just leave the border open, close the checkpoints, and buy a million piñatas to celebrate the return of Aztlan!

I'm glad the government has finally decided to build this fence, and I look forward to the day when the entire border is fenced. But for now, they seem to be building (pun intended) upon the grand traditions of George W. Bush by not caring about the rights of Americans and running roughshod over the Constitution. The government has a right to claim eminent domain and Americans have a right to just compensation and due process. Let's hope everyone gets what they deserve.