 |
General » Impeachment???
|
nav68 1 year, 7 months ago |
I believe, as others do, that Obama is deliberatly withholding strong border security measures in order to coerce support for his immigration reform measures. I think he and his fellow travelers on such reform are going to get badly hurt, politically, for such an abusive attempt to strong arm the American public. It'll be interesting to see how far he's willing to go. If the violence in the border states gets worse, and Obama continues to take inadequate measures to help protect those states, he could be drifting into impeachment territory. If the Dems lose enough of the House and Senate in Nov., it could be a real problem for him. |
|---|---|
|
Heidi 1 year, 7 months ago |
Article 4 section 4 |
|
Heidi 1 year, 7 months ago |
end of story |
|
marnesdad 1 year, 7 months ago |
Yes, the increased funding for border security and more personnel than at any other time in history is 'deliberately withholding'.... LOL. How about we move on to you providing proof that 'border violence' is increasing... ? |
|
Heidi 1 year, 7 months ago |
yes, only one dead rancher just simply isn't enough...what is the magic number from your magic unicorn marnsie? |
|
marnesdad 1 year, 7 months ago |
Yeah, it's Obama's fault that a rancher was killed. And you think I'm the one with the magic unicorn... LOL. |
|
nav68 1 year, 6 months ago |
marnes, increased funding for more agents and "border security" mean squat. They've been increasing funding forever, and the story stays the same. The funding has to be directed to the correct areas of enforcement, and the will of the administration has to be there. You aren't going to find the truth of it in public statements, except Obama's non-stop crap about reformn being the way to security. Why don't you ask His One-ness for proof of that? The answer's simple: no "reform", as he and others want it, has ever been successful. The last reform provided indirect amnesty, killed off farm and ranch checks, provided for employer sanctions for hiring illegals, and it all worked so well didn't it? We got a big boost to the gang community, a stagnant underclass, a quantum leap in the fraudulent documents/stolen I.D. business, virtually no enforcement of marriage fraud laws (which some of the economically deprived man-makers-of-disaster used to get themselves into the U.S. legally). Oh we just SO benefitted in SO many ways. Did I mention that the Dems picked up a sh*tload of votes? As for the increased border violence, it's all over the news. There are reports of a decrease in illegals, but an increase in violence. Different federal agencies have detailed people to the border over the past one to one and a half years specifically due to that. And I still know people in ICE. Believe me, the violence is up. |
|
nav68 1 year, 6 months ago |
BTW, that bullshit law suit against Arizona? Check the most important fact of the suit: it hurts our diplomatic relations. Calderone's border thugs don't hurt them, Obama's butt kissing doesn't hurt them. Arizona's attempt to protect itself hurts them. Good. If it gets decided that Arizona et al can't enforce immigration law, it's going to be real interesting. We could end up with another situation where the tide of events will make the court irrelevant. Unless His One-ness is willing to declare martial law. Sooner or later he's going to learn that he is not, in fact, The Anointed One. He COULD get himself impeached before Arizona et al knuckle under. |
|
marnesdad 1 year, 6 months ago |
Actually, according to an FBI report on Customs and Border Protection, violent attacks against federal officers was down last year for the first time in the past seven years... prompting the US Customs and Border Protection to say that the 'border is safer now than it's ever been'.... |
|
marnesdad 1 year, 6 months ago |
... also, how exactly did the 'Dems [pick] up a sh*tload of votes'? |
|
nav68 1 year, 6 months ago |
violence in the border area in not only, or even mostly, directed at LE officers. The greatest violence has generally perpetrated by smugglers on illegals, then innocent civilians in the border area. The border violence reports also does not account for the increase in gang membership due to illegals' participation, and the violence resulting from that. U.S. Customs and Border Protection may say a lot of things. What does the National Border Patrol Council say? What does the Association of Former Border Patrol Officers say? Further, I can assure you that if border viuolence was down, federal LE agencies would not have gone to the tremendous expense of detailing special agents there for up four months per rotation. What do Sector intelligence officers say? |
|
marnesdad 1 year, 6 months ago |
"What does the National Border Patrol Council say? What does the Association of Former Border Patrol Officers say? What do Sector intelligence officers say? You tell me.... |
|
marnesdad 1 year, 6 months ago |
"I can assure you that if border viuolence was down, federal LE agencies would not have gone to the tremendous expense of detailing special agents there for up four months per rotation." Border violence, at least against federal officers, IS down... |
|
nav68 1 year, 6 months ago |
Yes, as I said violence against officers is not the prevalent violence on the border. As for the others, what I said encompasses what they said (and say). Understand , the violence issue isn't all concerning officers. It is about everyone in the border states. I refer you to some issues in Phoenix with border rats involved in the drug trade. |
|
marnesdad 1 year, 6 months ago |
The most "border" violence is occurring on the Mexican side of the border - drug cartels and related violence. |
|
nav68 1 year, 6 months ago |
Yes, but we don't have jurisdiction there. Which suggests that Calderone should shut his pie hole about Arizona's immigration law and concentrate on controlling the thugs who apparently run his border. |
|
marnesdad 1 year, 6 months ago |
I know we don't have jurisdiction there, but you started this thread by accusing YOUR president of treason, which is odd considering what the CBP said about the border being "safer now than it's ever been"... Do you have any stats at all relating to your argument? Or, is this just a biased feeling you're having...? |
|
AndrewWilkowFan 1 year, 6 months ago |
Can someone quantify the violence here in a spreadsheet? Independently coming in and to strengthen the argument, you'll need to prove it by some metrics. I would suggest that someone capture the amount of deaths by the hands of illegal immigrants in the last two decades from 1990 to now by each state and the amount of deportations of illegal immigrants. I think that's a start. The end all to this will have to be quantified. I don't care who does this. Make sure you cite sources so we can verify with you. |
|
marnesdad 1 year, 6 months ago |
AW, I would imagine that there would have to be more 'deaths by the hands of illegal immigrants' since 1990 -- as there are millions more illegal immigrants in this country now. In fact, 11 million people entered this country illegally from 2001 to 2008... I'll see what I can dig up... |
|
AndrewWilkowFan 1 year, 6 months ago |
I would agree with that there would be more deaths as there is usually a trend of more people coming in. We could be surprised and see a level of data. I think the research could go either way, but an educated guess leads me to believe there is an increase. Gotta prove it though. |
Post a Reply
Please login to post a reply.