Restoring the Constitutional Order
It seems that the only thing the radical left doesn't control these days is the Supreme Court. I guess we have two men to thank for that. One is the Senate Minority leader, who never fell for the nonsense that fairly act as a Supreme Court Justice or defend the Constitution. The other was a former President who demanded loyalty to the Constitution. It was kind of ironic since the Court was the first foothold the radical left gained in government. Thus, this past week we witnessed more than a half century of judicial activism wiped out. That of course included the eternally controversial Roe decision.
Abortion has now been returned to the states and the people.
Regulation has now been returned to the US Congress and the people.
Immigration policy has been returned to the presidency.
For the first time in memory, the Court has completed a term in which it actually did its job.
It didn't come without cost. The Justices were threatened & harassed. For the first time the Court was verbally attacked by a sitting president from abroad. I suppose in another time, the president would have been censured by the Congress. Also of note yesterday was the retirement of one liberal activist judge and the swearing in of a radical activist judge. There still remains a conspicuous silence concerning the so called "investigation" of who leaked the Roe decision.
The Week:
Jan 6th Committee self destructs: In the rush to destroy Donald Trump the Committee ran a surprise witness this past week. She was obviously put in front of the tv cameras based solely on her unvetted damning testimony. That testimony has been contested by two agents charged with protecting the President and a White House attorney who says "hey wait, I wrote those notes that she claims are hers! Obviously the Committee is not going to let those three testify and thus the committee is a sham.
S & P is at it's worst stage in decades: " The S&P 500 posted its worst first half of the year since 1970, hurt by worries about surging inflation and Federal Reserve rate hikes, as well as Russia’s ongoing war on Ukraine and Covid-19 lockdowns in China."
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/29/stock-market-futures-open-to-close-news.html
Horrific tragedy on Biden's open border: "In all, 53 people died in what one Homeland Security Investigations' agent called the deadliest human smuggling incident in US history. Some victims could be younger than 18."
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/29/us/san-antonio-migrant-truck-deaths/index.html
Senate expected to ratify NATO expansion: Two new countries are about to be added to NATO. Our idiot-in-Chief thought Switzerland was one of them. He was in Madrid yesterday attacking the US Supreme Court while trying to follow instructions on the idiot card written for him by his radical handlers.
Woman shot on Upper East Side: "At approximately 8:23 p.m. Wednesday, officers responded to a report of a person shot opposite of 164 E. 95th St. Upon arrival, officers discovered a 20-year-old female who was unconscious with a gunshot wound to her head. EMS responded to the scene and transported the victim to Metropolitan Hospital, where she was pronounced deceased at 9:20 p.m., Sewell said at the most recent press conference. Preliminary investigation revealed the woman was pushing an approximately three-month-old infant in a baby stroller when an unknown person approached her and fired a single shot into her head from a very close range, Sewell said. Immediately after the shooting, the suspect fled the scene on foot, heading Eastbound on E. 95th St.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/suspect-nyc-shooting-woman-pushing-baby-stroller-upper-east-side-at-large
What have we learned?
All things are not equal. In this case it isn't about left vs right...It's about the radical left vs the rest of the country. We are witnessing the usual violence and harassment that comes from the left when they don't get their way. Unfortunately, we no longer have a fair system of justice any more.
This week a point had been made. The truth finally saw the light of day in a certain precinct. The sad part is that late yesterday, we were told that some people must do things a certain way while others could go on doing it anyway they pleased.
Cartoon of the week:
Honorable Mention:
Justice Clarence Thomas
Tags
Who is online
524 visitors
"Apparently, the committee didn't bother to reach out to the Secret Service before it aired the crud about Trump lunging at security. So I guess they're doing that now, which means new witnesses become responsible for repairing other witnesses's hearsay. But maybe they'll find out that Trump didn't just lunge at the Secret Service, he did a double backflip off the trunk of the car and landed squarely in the lap of Abe Lincoln. Who knew Trump can drive an SUV from the backseat? You won't see that in a Bond movie."...Greg Gutfeld
Why do all of those "radical" talking heads on FOX look constipated 24-7?
It's JBS
"Why do all of those "radical" talking heads on FOX look constipated 24-7?"
#45 is firmly up their rectums. Or are they up his?
What lead you to that unfounded conclusion Vic?
Probably a diet of bitter herbs.
Past performances
Which 'performances' Vic?
Please clarify.
What evidence do you have that this Committe has refused to allow witnesses to testify under oath?
As for 'past performances', Ornato is well known for denying that he had conversations. Keith Kellogg and Alyssa Farah can attest to that fact.
I invite you to post a link to Ornato's letter to the Committee requesting to testify. All I have seen is him flapping his gums to Fox et. al. Until Ornato is under oath, his comments are just so much blather.
He has claimed he will testify BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. Let him do it UNDER OATH IN PUBLIC LIKE MS. HUTCHINSON.
They shouldn't have to request a chance to testify.
If your committee had any integrity they would vet witnesses and demand contradictory testimony.
The question really is why hasn't the committee done those things?
Perhaps if Pelosi has allowed for normal protocol, Hutchinson would have been deposed or at the very least cross examined.
That would truly be an undue burden ... /S
Is today a holiday somewhere?
Ornato was ordered to sit for a deposition by the SS. The SS now claims that he will be 'made available' to testify under oath.
The Committee Chair has stated at the beginning of the hearings that if anyone has information of any kind, they should contact the Committee.
You and I both know that your claim is ridiculous.
Hutchinson was deposed during 4 sittings for over 20 HOURS.
Tell me when Ornato undergoes that much 'vetting'.
NO Congressional Committee has EVER demanded 'contradictory testimony' Vic.
You and yours keep trying to pretend that this is a trial. It isn't.
Oh and BTFW Vic, it isn't MY Committee. Just stop.
It has been established that it was McCarthy that walked away from 'normal protocol'. Even Trump is pissed at McCarthy for fucking it up.
AGAIN, Hutchinson WAS deposed for over 20 HOURS.
There is NO 'cross examination' in a Congressional hearing Vic. NONE. So please, stop with the gaslighting.
Which claim?
The one that Hutchinson should have been vetted or that Pelosi should have followed protocol?
Hutchinson was deposed during 4 sittings for over 20 HOURS.
We should always provide a link on something like that.
Tell me when Ornato undergoes that much 'vetting'.
That needed to be done at the same time.
NO Congressional Committee has EVER demanded 'contradictory testimony' Vic.
Everyone but this one has allowed it.
You and yours keep trying to pretend that this is a trial. It isn't.
It is a political commercial
Oh and BTFW Vic, it isn't MY Committee. Just stop.
Would you say they share your world view?
It has been established that it was McCarthy that walked away from 'normal protocol'.
That's been your interpretation.
AGAIN, Hutchinson WAS deposed for over 20 HOURS.
AGAIN, how about some info?
There is NO 'cross examination' in a Congressional hearing Vic. NONE. So please, stop with the gaslighting.
What went on with the Benghazi hearings? Or the Kavanaugh Hearings?
It is International Joke Day and as such I offer up to our readers 'The Jests of Hierocles and Philagrius' ... t'is the oldest known book of 'jokery'.
Pelosi follow protocol? She don need no stinkin protocol!
I see that you never tire of posting deflective bullshit Vic.
Who the fuck are this 'we' you always pretend to speak for Vic?
Here's a RW source for you:
Meadows told top aide Cassidy Hutchinson January 6 could be 'read, real bad' just days before riot (dailymail.co.uk)
Why? What possible reason can you have fabricated for that demand?
That is utter bullshit Vic.
Staring the 'best and the brightest' from the Republican party.
No. I have no reason to believe that.
But even if I DID, it wouldn't make it MY Committee Vic.
No Vic, it is a statement of FACT, which I have repeated more than once and which you have failed to refute every time.
See the link above Vic.
Oh and BTFW, in the same time it took you to post this, you could have pursued that information for yourself.
NOT 'cross examination'.
Do you SEE the restriction there Vic or do you need me to explain it to you with crayons?
During a Congressional hearing, members are allowed to ask any fucking stupid question they want. Anyone who has seen Jordon or Gaetz or Paul or Gohmert during a hearing knows that.
The denial from some is downright psychopathic
I asked you for a link to the claim you made that Hutchinson had been deposed for 20 hours. You don't have one?
Why? What possible reason can you have fabricated for that demand?
INTEGRITY!
No. I have no reason to believe that.
Lol, of course you don't
No Vic, it is a statement of FACT, which I have repeated more than once
Repeating it doesn't make it so.
See the link above Vic.
Your link only repeats what Hutchinson claims she heard. What about the deposition?
Oh and BTFW, in the same time it took you to post this, you could have pursued that information for yourself.
That's not the way it works here. You make a claim and you have to provide the link.
NOT 'cross examination'.
No? One side didn't ask tough questions, while the offered her cover. That sounds a lot like prosecution and defense to the rest of us. So, your view is that everything should be strictly partisan with far left democrats in total control of committees & investigations?
Do you SEE the restriction there Vic or do you need me to explain it to you with crayons?
What I see there is the TECHNICAL LEGAL TERM that you intend to hide behind. Committees are supposed to be represented by both sides of the aisle, selected by both parties with witnesses questioned just as they would in a courtroom as normally happens in these hearings. Do you need me to draw you a picture with crayons?
During a Congressional hearing, members are allowed to ask any fucking stupid question they want. Anyone who has seen Jordon or Gaetz or Paul or Gohmert during a hearing knows that.
Everything is stupid that you don't like. Thank you for proving my point.
Why ask for a link if you can't be bothered to READ them?
Exactly how does fabricating a baseless demand connote integrity Vic?
You seem to have an ongoing issue with believing truthful answers. Is that one of the lessons you want to teach?
I note that you truncated my comment. Didn't like the fact that I stated that you have failed, over and over again to refute the facts? You had ANOTHER chance to refute it, you FAILED again. Just because YOU deny something over and over again, doesn't mean that it isn't a fact Vic.
Actually, my link states more than once that Hutchinson was deposed for 20 HOURS. Why lie about the content when any member can review it for themselves?
Well gee Vic, I'm just following your 'teachings' of ignoring that obligation.
Oh, and BTFW, I DID provide you with a link and as everyone can see, your comment lies about its content.
NO.
Then the 'rest of' you are ignorant of the process of Congressional hearings.
Strawman. Unworthy.
YOU set the standard by injecting that 'TECHNICAL LEGAL TERM' Vic.
You just keep on making up shit Vic.
There is NO rule, process or procedural requirement for questioning witnesses 'just as they would in a courtroom'. NO witness testimony in a Congressional hearing has EVER been conducted like a courtroom. NOT ONE.
Tell you what, you insist "You make a claim and you have to provide the link." So, provide a link that shows a witness being 'cross examined' per the TECHNICAL LEGAL TERM, during the Benghazi or Kavanagh hearings Vic. I'll wait.
No, your words illustrate your fictional posit just fine Vic.
False. I don't like liver but it's not stupid.
You haven't managed to make a point.
It is as if you still believed in Bernie Madoff...
The witnesses have been solid Republicans!
You got conned. Your investments are gone.
The blatant, almost rabid, hatred from some is as well.
That actual rabid hatred comes exclusively from the right/gqp/gop/alleged conservatives
Please define "alleged conservatives".
The least you could have done is thank me for handing you your head.
the only way to restore constitutional order is to try, convict, and execute all those that attempted to disrupt it on 1/6/21.
I'm all for that as well!
if they did that then they wouldn't have any "evidence". They would have seen that their "start witness" (or what ever) was full of shit and was just talking out her ass.
Freaking lying hypocrites! They need to be impeached for lying under oath about their hardline stance on all the issues that they're about to overturn and the one they've overturned - ABORTION. A WOMAN'S RIGHTS TO HER OWN BODY.
I am sure in your infinite wisdom you can point out all of the times the conservative justices lied to Congress? These are highly educated legal professionals who know the law very well; and were all very careful with their answers (the same way the Democrat justices were with their answers to Congress). Just because Democrats are not smart enough to know what they were told- doesn't mean they were lied to.
Maybe Democrats and a couple of moderate Republican Senators should get smarter where it concerns the law; and statements about it.
I don't know why you waste your time because I don't waste my time reading your endless rants which are endless projection, deflection, and denial.
Except when it comes to vaccines.
Please cite the federal vaccine mandate for all Americans Jeremy. I'll wait.
Where did I say is was a federal issue? I'll wait.
Did they really promise to decide cases a certain way?
Should anyone even ask them to?
That makes no freaking sense does it?
What's that?
Brett Kavanaugh was most certainly lied about infinitely worse than he could possibly have lied.
2.1
Nope. Brett 'I LIKE BEER' Kavanaugh is a lying, hypocrite, whiny little bitch .
I'm pretty sure even YOU realize that the SCOTUS overturned a federal protection, Jeremy. Did you want me to ignore the CONTEXT of the comment that you replied to? I decline.
I made a comment showing the hypocrisy between "A WOMAN'S RIGHTS TO HER OWN BODY." and the retarded claims that everybody should get the vaccine.
Run Forrest Run
Is that what they overturned?
Some would disagree....
First, WHY is that in block quote form?
Secondly, I answered your question, I didn't blather about anything.
Since there is NO connection, there is NO hypocrisy.
FAIL.
Please clarify your comment Jim?
Yes.
Technically, all they ever said was that Roe v Wade was settled law. They never said they weren't going to overturn it.
It's Susan Collins and Joe Manchin who lied to us.
Blah! Blah! Blah! Right back at ya kiddo.
Let's use our Democratic non-majority in the Senate to acquit Kavanaugh and Barrrett in their impeachment trial. And so we don't alienate swing voters, maybe we should sit on the trial until they are no longer active justices like we did with Trump.
Wake me up when AOC says something that is actually actionable. Until then, I will make a point of ignoring her tips on how getting a manicure is a small act of resistance.
Because the truth is, some acts of resistance ARE too small.
Actually, you do read his comments and others otherwise you would not be here commenting on them.
Also, from THREE WEEKS AGO:
My impossible to find answer to your question:
I have very politely asked her to define the term that she frequently throws out being "alleged conservatives" on at least three separate occasions and she has ignored and refused to answer my question every time, therefore leading me to conclude she invented the term but has no idea how to use it or what it may mean.
[Deleted]
Yep.
I suspect she means "self-proclaimed conservatives"
So that would mean alleged liberal would be the same thing, but that would be okay right?
This isn't about me Ed. Why do you all always do that?
DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME.
Stop making this 'article' about me.
You reply to a comment from three weeks ago four days ago. You pretend that you answer my questions from before and then lie to your new found little buddies here.
Stop making this about me.
FUCK OFF
You made a statement about "alleged conservatives", as you have done so repeatedly. I have very politely asked you on more than one occasion to define what you mean by alleged conservatives and you have repeatedly ignored and repeatedly refused to answer. That makes it about you. Just answer the question plain and simple.
This isn't the first time the "bombshell" / "smoking gun" / "final nail" has blown up in the Democrats faces. The TDS Committee isn't any different. The witness they coached only gave hearsay "evidence" only to have it rebuked by the driver.
It's telling that the left [deleted] has shown their racist roots with Justice Thomas after the Row v Wade decision.
You're speaking of TT regarding the Honorable mention?
For what?
You know it's Ginni who wears the pants in that family, right?
She was also involved in 1/6/21 so therefore so was TT
[deleted]
What a nice racist statement- what we have come to expect from the left.
And the sad part is, they don't understand what the problem is.
No, you don't.
And just like clockwork....................................Dog whistle??
Oh, I expected to see this dude as soon as I saw Justice Thomas mentioned.
What dude regarding TT?
A bit slow keeping up are we?
Never fails. We can always count on a resident racist to rear an ugly head.
I'm not a dude.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
And let us never forget the lying liberal Christine Blasey Ford
Perfect example of how low the Democrats will go.
It seems there is no shortage of progressive women ready to take one for the cause!
She was not lying about the whiny little bitch Kavanaugh.
Yet you are lying in your comments below [deleted]
How do you know? Even those she listed as witnesses contradicted her.
That's all some have.
And some here only have their clipboard copy and paste feature so they use it all the time.
"How do you know? Even those she listed as witnesses contradicted her."
Those SS agents are lying.
Trump's Security Detail Was 'Aligned' With Him And 'Personally Cheering For Biden To Fail,' Says Author Of Book On The Secret Service
Two Secret Service agents were close to Trump and seen as his enablers, said Carol Leonnig .
The agents plan to dispute part of Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony regarding Trump, said Leonnig.
Many in Trump's detail cheered the Capitol riot, said Leonnig, whose book covers the Secret Service.
Two top members of former President Donald Trump's personal security detail were "very, very close" to Trump and are "viewed as being aligned" with him, said Carol Leonnig, a long-time investigative reporter at The Washington Post.
Leonnig is the author of the book "Zero Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Secret Service" and co-author of "I Alone Can Fix It," which delves into Trump's final year as president.
Leonnig told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Wednesday evening that many Secret Service agents in Trump's detail were also rooting for President Joe Biden's failure, and used their social media accounts to "cheer on the insurrection" at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
"There was a very large contingent of Donald Trump's detail, who were personally cheering for Biden to fail, and some of them even took to their personal media accounts to cheer on the insurrection and the individuals riding up to the Capitol as patriots," Leonnig said. "That is problematic."
"I'm not saying that Tony Ornato or Bobby Engel did that, but they are viewed as being aligned with Donald Trump, which cuts against them," she added.
"However, if they testify under oath: 'This is what happened,' I think that's going to be important because Cassidy Hutchinson can only say what she heard happened," Leonning continued.
And right on time................................are you clairvoyant?
First of all where is your link?
I'm not sure she lied.
By her own admission, she's under treatment for mental illness. I think it's quite possible she believes the events she described occurred.
I think the real villain here is Diane Feinstein.
Did you hear what her former boyfriend said about her?
Of course
If that is true, then why didn't they take him to the Capital on 6 Jan?
Second of all I was talking about Christine Blassey Ford
Agree, thought that I would challenge our friend to try thinking..
You can't link to imagination.
It is true of course.
I'm not your friend or hers
Google is your friend.
You should find somebody to show you how to use it.
FUCK OFF
Go back to your favorite pastime. See private message.
[deleted]
Do you know what I'm seeing more and more?
Rightwing trolls bullying liberal women online.
Three or four to one as we see in this thread.
[ Deleted ]
Thank you jbb.
I deal with that every day here.
[ Deleted ]
[deleted]
My wife is a very strong and very truthful woman and I love dealing with her.
Sorry but we are all equal here..............................................It works both ways too. Gonna jump into a conversation or make wild assed, uninformed commentary, you will be called on it..............Right, left, male, female, or whatever one identifies as at any particular minute.
[deleted]
What they are doing to you is online bullying!
Notice how quickly bullies claim victimhood?
[deleted]
Now that's a great cover.
Radical? There certainly is a radical use of the term in this 'radical' seed ... makes one wonder if there is a shortage of mirrors.
BINGO!
Bingo Bongo!
NOT!
If the description fits....
Your descriptions are 90% Spandex.
Oh come on, don't let everyone down. You're supposed to be the most well educated man in the world!
As my daughter once opined, boys are stupid throw rocks at them ... I was smart enough to duck and remain a Sophomore Principal. Perrie to my ongoing chagrin has yet to elevate me to Sapphic Sadist.
Perhaps I can make some suggestions. Give her a chance, she just arrived
Please do so, anything along the lines of Tantrum Tyke works for me.
I was thinking along the lines of Head Coach Emeritus of the Yale Debate Association.
How does that sound?
As you have noted, I'm over qualified.
"Tantrum Tyke"
#45 already has that one.
As horrific as this is, if the border was truly open, those people would have just walked across the open border instead have having to be smuggled in.
It is wide open. The only reason Biden isn't offering transportation right now is just a formality.
The ONLY reason he isn't providing transpiration (any more) is that he was caught flying illegals all over the country. Biden Air Lines was put on hold until a big enough distraction or crisis could be politicized.
No it isn't wide open, and the fact that these poor people had to be smuggled in is proof of that fact.
The federal government can fly whoever they want wherever they want and don't need permission from any state, county, city, town, entity or you to do so.
Poor clueless Joe. Rice and Klain leave him holding the bag every time.
It is.
No, it's not.
The president takes an oath to protect the US from invasion.
The president takes an oath to protect the Constitution. We are not being invaded no matter how much you scream, shout, and pout about it.
So they are aiding and abetting law breakers in that case.........................
Are we really going to go back and forth. It's like wanting the last word.
No, they aren't. Seeking asylum is not illegal no matter how much you scream, shout and pout about it.
An oath he, so far has failed to uphold.
Where in the Constitution does it say turning the other cheek and allowing law breakers to be dispersed all over the country is okie dokie?
I think he should be impeached for it, among other things
You are correct, as usual WT.
There is a process for seeking asylum. Crossing the border at points other than authorized locations or in a 53 foot semi trailer is not in that process. That is what makes them ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. They are not asylum seekers, they have no rights under US law.
That you think these people are all, every single fucking one of them, seeking asylum just magnifies the fact that the left side of the aisle is naive as hell. They jumped on a bandwagon once they found out that was a gate opener. How many of them are going to show up for their court date do you think?
Unfortunately, impeachment would put the paid escort as POTUS. Next in like is the Crypt Keeper. We'd have to run 3 simultaneous impeachments.
Wrong again. They are seeking asylum (whether or not they deserve it is another issue) and some are unaccompanied minors. If they don't show for their court date, then a warrant is issued just like a criminal case when the defendant doesn't show. The border is not open and the fact that those poor people had to be smuggled over the border proves it. If the border was wide open (as in the conservative talking point), then they would have walked over the fucking border.
Yes, there is a process for seeking asylum and the fact that these people did not seek asylum and were smuggled in a trailer proves that the border is not wide open otherwise they would have walked across the wide open border and would be alive today (and would be considered illegal immigrants and not asylum seekers).
Potus, AG and Homeland Security?
Again, seeking asylum is not illegal, and illegal immigrants are not being disbursed all over the country. Asylum seekers and unaccompanied minors are. Illegal immigrants don't need to be disbursed all over the country because they disburse themselves all over the country once they sneak in over the boarder while hoping and praying they don't get caught because they are illegal and not asylum seekers. There is a difference, but you have been trained to say they are all illegal.
They are definitely not all seeking asylum.
That's utterly idiotic. Have you ever even been to Texas? It's over 150 miles from Laredo (on the border) to San Antonio? I guarantee you're not walking that if a ride is available. In 105 degree heat? With kids? Just stop.
It's a very valid point that border enforcement is poor, and has been for decades.
The valid counterpoint is that the only reason 99% of illegal immigrants don't come across legally is that we have a batshit antiquated system we haven't updated in 30 years that doesn't allow them to come legally.
Apparently, we are. You can always put me on ignore. That would solve your problem.
Why should I do that?
Especially when you make my case for me.
And again, isn't/wasn't the Remain in Mexico order still in place? If so, they broke the law.
There is nothing idiotic about it. If the border was open, there would be no need to ride in closed in trailer with no air conditioning where the heat inside will soar well above 105.
I did no such thing. The boarder is not wide open or they wouldn't have had to be smuggled in. They would have just walked over the wide open boarder.
They did not break any law if they are seeking asylum.
I thought the illegals were all seeking asylum? See your comment in 5.1.11
Remain in Mexico has to do with waiting for your day in court if I am not mistaken. And I'm not...............
If they are crossing the border at ANY OTHER POINT THAT IS NOT AN AUTHORIZED LOCATION then they are in fact BREAKING THE LAW.
Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?
And yet they are being disbursed all over the country.
Pay no mind. We never make their case for them. They're always putting words in other's mouths.
Projecting. Deflecting. Denying. Lying.
Where did I say all immigrants crossing the border were seeking asylum? Hint: I didn't.
I guess you missed the word "CERTAIN" in your quote. Certain doesn't mean all.
Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that if the border were "wide open" as conservatives claim, then these poor people would not have had to be smuggled in and would not be dead?
He literally invited them to surge the border and than incentivizes them governmental benefits and almost no risk of deportation once they cross into the interior.
Didn't miss it................
Yet, the Post provides no proof that the migrants are illegal and not asylum seekers. They just assume they are illegal migrants.
... the descriptives one uses define what one is selling.
I commented above that whether or not they deserved asylum is another matter.
Historically speaking, most are. Over the past twenty years, most immigrants that received asylum in the US were from Asia, Africa and most from Latin America were from Venezuela, and El Salvador. Those from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras was about 5% each or less than a thousand each per year.
No they can't..
Show me where the border ISN'T wide open. I can show you the Human Fuck Up signed on January 20, 2021 where Biden STOPPED securing the US southern border.
I love the first sentence to it:
Then the Human Fuck Up does exactly the fucking opposite.
Yes, they can.
Would that be considered human trafficking? After all, they are taking them across several borders in most cases and more than likely just dropping them off for the local GovCo to deal with...................
I live 6 blocks from the AZ/Mexico border fence in SE Cochise County, AZ. The border is in fact wide open these days. I have illegals running the alleys behind my house every night seven nights a week 365 days a year. My late wife used to tell me the Southern border in AZ and NM has more holes in it than her favorite pasta strainer and she was right. The Biden administration has the CBP working with one arm tied behind their backs, sometimes both arms! The vacancy sign at the border continues to be brightly lit for all coming across the border into the US. On this Joe can truly say "I did that!".
Douglas AZ?
I remember my first tim driving south on on US 90 to Fort Huachuca, it was mid-Dec at around 2300. About halfway between I-10 and Whetstone, I needed to take a piss. I pulled off of the road and turned off my lights. While standing there, I looked up and never saw such a beautiful sky. I’m envious.
I was just there yesterday making a commissary run for groceries on Ft Huachuca. 45 minute drive Northwest from Douglas.
Yep, some of the best sunsets and night time skies in the country. Being a born and raised desert rat, I never tire of them. You get away from the light pollution and out into the open desert, the stars are incredible.
Oh...it's completely idiotic.
And this is more idiotic. Surely you're not serious.
Because that fantasy only exists in your mind.
I’ll never forget that moment, looking up in awe at the beauty of the sky. You are very fortunate my friend, treasure your geography.
Interesting how it seems that some folks who obviously live nowhere on or even near our Southern borders, as opposed to those of us that do, think they know so much more because they got spoonfed by CNN, MSNBC, and other manner of blatantly leftist liberal MSM outlets. Living in a small rural border town with a CBP crossing point with a very large Border Patrol facility and a large number of agents living in the community that are my neighbors as well. Said agents are disgusted that illegals that are caught are rounded up, then bussed to the CBP sector headquarters in Tucson 2 hours away for processing and trans-shipment to points North, East, and West wherever they want to go. one has to love the waste of taxpayer dollars spent to molly coddle illegals and increase the potential voter base of leftist liberal Democrat politicians in DC. Pathetic and disgusting!
Where does Mike Kelly stand in his Senate campaign on border enforcement/
Mark Kelley pays only lip service to border issues. He could really care less about border issues as it affects those of us who live down on or near the border. He has history of making statements of concern about border issues, but then votes in lockstep with the leftist liberal Democrats of his party! The man is retired U.S. Navy Captain (0-6) who flew the Grumman A-6E Intruder attack jet in combat in the 1st Gulf War. I am retired U.S. Navy myself and greatly respect his Naval and NASA accomplishments, but that is as far as my respect for the man goes. I detest his politics and would not trust him to walk my dog! My feeling is that man sold his soul to the CCP and the leftist liberals in his party. I actually trust Sinema far more than I trust Kelley. Enough said.
Thanks, I wondered what the ground truth was.
Well, you got Doc's truth.
Exactly, what is Dulay's truth?
I'd be curious to know that as well.
I would trust him to walk my dog.
Doc has me on ignore so he can't be that curious.
I do every single day!
Exactly, I’m sure that Mark Kelley could handle that well.
Not idiotic at all.
Not a fantasy at all. If borders were open, they wouldn't have HAD TO BE SMUGGLED IN.
Those migrants that have been "released into America" have been vetted and are not considered "illegal".
Past idiotic at this point. Moving toward senile.
Your repeating this idiocy verifies emphatically that you have less than zero familiarity with the situation.
If there were no border patrol of any kind, they're still not walking from Laredo to San Antonio. To put that in perspective, that distance is almost exactly equal to the north-south distance across the entire state of Pennsylvania.
I don't care that you didn't qualify what you stated. I'm qualified my comment and my comment stands as is. You don't have to like it too bad. You can just move on.
I keep repeating myself, because you keep replying to me. My comments are not idiotic at all and if the border was open, they would not have had to have been smuggled in. They would have just crossed the wide open border with or without a vehicle, would not have been stopped by Border Patrol (because you know the border is open and according to you people, border patrol is useless), and they would not be dead. Period. End of Story.
He let in close to 500 in Eagle Pass just today alone. There's no vetting -- merely processing (many don't have a passport, birth certificate, or other legit ID), given clean clothes, shoes, an IPhone, and put on a bus to get dropped off somewhere in the US.
What need was there to qualify? What do you call them?
Again, I don't care what you think of my comment. You can fuck off and move along.
Well you should pay attention to the comments prior to what you are commenting on. Then you wouldn't have to ask questions about what has already been said.
I think that I have. In 5.1.73 you called them migrants, you didn't qualify the term. What distinction do you see between migrants and aliens in this context?
Read the rest of the comment. Geez.
I read, "Those migrants that have been "released into America" have been vetted and are not considered "illegal".
So neither you nor Texan called them illegal but you didn't like his use of the term "alien", you felt he should have qualified it. I then asked you what qualification was needed and what you referred to them as. I might have expected 'asylum seekers', but you preferred snark. Oh well.
Although more than 90% of illegal aliens don't qualify for that status.
I don't disagree, just thought that might have been Wt's response.
Yet 100% of asylum seekers qualify to have their case adjudicated.
Again, I don't care what you think about my comment. Move along and fuck off.
Only if they show up on their court dates for adjudication, and the majority are no-shows.
Citation?
I see you are unable to provide proof of your allegation.
Why would you say that? I don't live on NT waiting for comments/replies. I also do not reply to everyone's comments. When I want verification to someone's comments, I look for it on the Internet.
Because I said it.
Thanks, Texan! More ...
I didn't ask her.
You really have zero clue about immigration in this country. Have you actually ever met an illegal immigrant?
And you have zero clue about what I know, and yes, I have met illegal immigrants and I have met legal immigrants. So what.
And no one owes you an audience to spew [Deleted.] So, I'll repeat myself again, [Deleted.] I don't owe you shit.
If you won't fuck off, then I'll put you on ignore. Bye bye [Deleted]
the ignore thingy works well. Especially if you turn off Private Notes. You don't know what kind of horseshit you get from the people you ignore.
And maybe that's why I only had 2 tickets last month instead of my usual 10
Thanks for the information. I appreciate it.
Prove that the majority are no shows Jasper. I'll wait.
I already did. See comment 5.1.99 .
Oh my bad Jasper, I thought you were claiming that the majority of ALL asylum seekers are no shows.
Your 2019 link states:
I certainly hope that the Trump Administration scrapped that failed 'pilot program' because it's obvious that either their design or their implementation sucked.
Curious that you only chose 2019. Let's see what my March, 2021 link states:
YOU are the one who chose to block quote AND link the 2019 article Jasper.
FAIL.
I don't give any credence to a website funded and run by white nationalists.
You mean like you routinely do?
We are one quota increase away from a 95% cut in illegal immigration and immigrant trafficking.
Tis a sad day for autocrats defending democracy.
And all the talk about "our democracy!"
'Our democracy' is being required to confront a crisis of leadership. And no one with elected authority knows what to do.
It seems that only the SCOTUS has found some fortitude.
Or simply stepped away from the whipping post. SCOTUS has certainly spawned a tectonic shift in our politics. Promises seem rather inadequate now.
It was like a big festering problem that kept getting kicked down the road. This Court stood tall. What a session they had!
Yes. And SCOTUS is being pilloried for not siding with autocratic government. Tis a sad day for autocrats defending democracy.
Let us hope that such days are numbered
More like a crisis of total lack of leadership.
But the Supreme Court is fascist because it told the elected representatives of the people to legislate instead of unelected bureaucrats.
Like Liz Warren asked "What are we to do?"
Starting with that asshole they should do the work they were elected to do.
In her dissenting opinion as SCOTUS blocks the EPA from claiming an enormously consequential powers, Justice Kaga wrote, “The majority today overrides that legislative choice... In so doing, it deprives EPA of the power needed and the power granted to curb the emission of greenhouse gases.”
She forgets that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to other entities. In A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), the Supreme Court held that "Congress is not permitted to abdicate or to transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it is thus vested."
Well done Sir!
It's a 'tad' more complex than that:
Of course it frequently is, which is why their Opinion runs so many pages.
Justice Roberts couldn't find the language in the Clean Air Act language, that Congress tasked the EPA, “and it alone, with balancing the many vital considerations of national policy implicated in deciding how Americans will get their energy.”
How was the EPA legislating?
I have never read legislation in which the Congress 'enumerated' the regulations, processes and procedures required to meet its mandate. The Congress empowers the Secretaries, Directors and Administrators of Agencies to propose, authorize and implement them.
Congress did not grant EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan.
That's a lot of words that don't state how the EPA legislated.
BTW, the SCOTUS didn't claim that they legislated either.
Right, the actual meaning of words is meaningless. /s
Wow, you're really determined to make ridiculous comments.
“On EPA’s view of Section 111(d), Congress implicitly tasked it, and it alone, with balancing the many vital considerations of national policy implicated in the basic regulation of how Americans get their energy,” Roberts wrote. “There is little reason to think Congress did so.” In instances like this, he said, “[a] decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.”
MORE words that don't state how the EPA legislated.
I'm sorry that Justice Roberts didn't write more clearly for you. Maybe Gorsuch can help you:
"When Congress seems slow to solve problems, it may be only natural that those in the Executive Branch might seek to take matters into their own hands. But the Constitution does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regulations as substitutes for laws passed by the people’s representatives. In our Republic, “[i]t is the peculiar province of the legislature to prescribe general rules for the government of society.” Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 136 (1810). Because today’s decision helps safeguard that foundational constitutional promise, I am pleased to concur."
Strike three.
Are you a baseball fan?
I see that you've chosen to eliminate all doubt.
"Eye of the beholder, or beholden ......whichever."
Or the beerholder.
"Former President Donald Trump, denying the House Jan. 6 Committee hearing claims of Cassidy Hutchinson, is now calling out the Justice Department to investigate her for "lying under oath."
"Social climber Hutchinson lied about my attack on our great Secret Service, lied about her writing the White House note, lied about my throwing food at a wall in the Oval Office, & lied about my wanting to be surrounded by 'people with guns' during my 'Go Peacefully and Patriotically' speech (how crazy is that?), yet no guns were found in the Capitol," Trump wrote Thursday night on Truth Social.
"These lies, among others, were made under oath. What is the Justice Department going to do about this? Do we have a two tiered system of justice?"
It won't happen.
Aesop would have had fun with Donald's fabrications.
Aesop would have driven huge holes through the Hutchinson testimony.
Probably why Pelosi didn't allow any cross examination.
What cross examination? This isn't a trial.
Had Pelosi allowed for McCarthy's members there would have been such questioning.
Point of order
Oh Lord, there you go bringing up Lars Thorwald again.
That was a tough role for him. He didn't have many lines in that one.
It takes time for American producers to recognize Canadian talent.
It wasn't American producer's fault that Norm Macdonald's first comedy special was televised during earth hour. (When everyone is supposed to shut off everything electrical.)
I would not know about that, I was blasting Terry Riley's in C from my balcony in some vague form of protest against organizers of all stripes.
What cross examination?
This isn't a trial.
The biggest fucking liar in the world is calling someone else a liar
Yes, we now know there were Trump loyalists in the Capitol Police and Secret Service willing to assist Trump's insurrection, and the coverup!
Yes and we now know that they weren't driving him on 6 Jan, wonder why?
Do we really know that?
They're lying for the trumpturd.
I think you underestimate the way that the Secret Service is protocol driven.
There were probably protocols that were disregarded the day Kennedy was shot and that is a mistake that will not be repeated.
EDIT: Except of course when they are partying with Russian hookers.
That's fucking hilarious Vic.
To PROVE that Hutchinson lied, the DOJ would have to interview the Secret Service detail, have a forensic handwriting expert check out the note, interview WH stewards that served Trump for 4 years AND interview everyone that was around Trump in the tent before his speech [including Meadows, Conway, Don Jr. and his girlfriend, Ivanka, Eric et. al.]. Of course, they'll have to interview Trump too. The DOJ already KNOWS that guns WERE 'found in the Capitol'.
More deep thoughts from AOC:
We have to restrain the Court from giving too much power to elected representatives. It's a judicial coup to let the legislature do its job!
No tip for the waitress that brings nothing to the table.
How misogynistic of you.
[deleted]
She doesn't have a masters yet.
Who knows your Representative's name?
That comment is lame even by your standard!
This may come in handy....................................
Gerry Connolly at the federal level, my state delegate is Eileen Filler-Corn.
Exactly, I have never heard of either one...
[DELETED]
Some people make the cardinal mistake of equating education with common sense.
Indeed.
If Bundy had been a card carrying liberal Democrat, that probably would not have been a problem to some./sarc
"Tonight, 68 White House journalists asked @PressSec to end the mysterious prescreening of reporters let into President Biden's events, calling it 'antithetical to the concept of a free press' https:// nypost.com/2022/06/30
The constitutional order is done IMO. It was struggling since Newt and the 90s, but Trump was really the nail in the coffin. Our institutions are broken, poisoned, including the SCOTUS.
Trump's house of cards has completely collapsed.
Not by a longshot. They have only built the base. Wait for the SCOTUS to rule that state legislatures can do whatever they want with electors, election rules and whatnot, and boom, American Democracy is done. Trump won.
Ladies, unless you vote en mass Democrat in a few months, you all will lose the most. Well, aside from anyone not straight and white.
Shit, they may even become bold enough to go flat out after us atheists.
They are both important but the economy is probably going to sway more votes in November.
The sad thing for Democrats with the abortion issue is that it probably isn't going to flip many places. All these states that are banning abortion are deeply red and doing what their people want them to do.
Another sad thing is that the GOP doesn't have any good ideas about inflation. They will run against it but they won't fix it.
EDIT: since I wrote this comment I have read an article pointing out that the abortion issue is in fact hurting the GOP in a quite a few places. Whether that is enough to keep the House from flipping is another matter.
There's the social part of the court's attack and the business part of the attack. At the end of the day both aspects of the court's attack are going to hurt a lot of people.
This is a mean, nasty court.
I agree.
What are the differences between the Republicans and Democrats on economic policy that will sway voters?
What are the economic differences between the Democrats and Republicans that will make a difference to the average voter?
Is Roe v Wade ruling a way to provide a distraction because neither party has a clue on how to develop and implement an economic policy that does not involve waging endless war in other countries?
I am asking a sincere nonpartisan question.
Sure you are!
Among the harassment and threats, a petition has been put out there for the removal Justice Thomas because the way he voted to overturn Roe v. Wade . The racism of the left come out in full force on this issue with celebrities and many others referring to Justice Thomas as "Token Thomas", "Uncle Thomas", etc. And the fact that none of the other Justices who voted with Justice Thomas aren't mentioned.
Given the POTUS is supported by the Democrats he won't be censured. It is pathetic that the President's criticism of the SCOTUS would do this while out of the country.
It's amazing how many people on the left refuse to accept that the problems at the border are Biden's responsibility. There is no blaming any previous administration when there is an EO signed on January 20, 2021 stopping activity to secure the border.
Links?
Thomas wrote a separate concurrence which is being addressed SEPARATELY.
Since you and yours are so fond of whataboutism, I offer you this: Helsinki.
Please post a block quote of Biden's EO that states that the US is "stopping activity to secure the border." I'll wait.
Wow, it's amazing that the left 'came out on the issue' months to YEARS before it happened.
Your humanevents link is from April 2022 and your dailybeast link is from 2014.
Now there's the issue of ignoring the meaning of quotation marks and the requirement to post a link that actually states what is quoted. Your nypost link doesn't quote anyone calling Thomas:
So that's a fail too.
You forget how the "reply" function works on this site?
Lets start with one of the NT racists - 1.1
You should really pay attention to what's going on around you.
You should really work on your comprehension skills. The link I provided for the petition states why he is being singled out.
There is no whataboutism in the censuring of the POTUS. Yet, you do bring about a whataboutism.
That's gonna leave a mark LOL
It's amazing how blissfully ignorant these people are about what goes on around them.
"Plausible deniability is the ability of people, typically senior officials in a formal or informal chain of command, to deny knowledge of or responsibility for any damnable actions committed by members of their organizational hierarchy."
They don't even try that. It's just flat out ignorance.
Let's. How does that link prove your claim? Be specific.
So you have a link to ONE celebrity who didn't say what you cited. Where is the link to the 'many others' Jeremy?
You should stop trying to pretend that I don't.
You should really work on your cogency skills.
Yes, it does, and those reasons have NOTHING to do with racism, as you implied.
WTF does Helsinki have to do with censuring ANYONE? AGAIN, be specific.
How so?
Now, posting a link to the EO FAILS to fulfill my request for you to block quote where the EO that states that the US is " stopping activity to secure the border."
Care to try again?
Swing and a miss.
Delusional.
Relevance? Hint: NONE.
Who are 'they' Jeremy?
You shouldn't be so hard yourself. You can always put in the time to educate yourself.
I didn't know I was a celebrity!
[deleted]