PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Dear Leader (De Facto Dictator) - Feds will no longer respond to calls from Arizona!


mikey23545
06-27-2012, 01:18 AM
Der Fuhrer Pronounces That The Federal Government Will No Longer Respond To Calls From Arizona



Just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its ruling and upheld the controversial so-called “show me your papers” provision in Arizona’s immigration law, the Obama administration announced Monday they are suspending a vital program that lets state and local law enforcement agencies enforce federal immigration law, Fox News reports.

Obama administration officials said program 287(g) would be suspended indefinitely. Under the program, local authorities were permitted by the federal government to make immigration-related arrests.

Officials also said Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will not respond to calls from Arizona and other police agencies regarding the immigration status of people they pull over unless they meet a specified criteria. For example, they will respond if the person is wanted for a felony.

The latest move will certainly weaken Arizona’s ability to secure its own borders and appears to be yet another unilateral action taken by President Obama to dictate policy.

The program suspension comes after ICE called the program a “top” initiative and agreed it strengthened “public safety.”

“The 287(g) program, one of ICE’s top partnership initiatives, allows a state and local law enforcement entity to enter into a partnership with ICE, under a joint Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), in order to receive delegated authority for immigration enforcement within their jurisdictions,” ICE’s website reads.

“In 2009, ICE fundamentally reformed the 287(g) delegated authority program, strengthening public safety and ensuring consistency in immigration enforcement across the country by prioritizing the arrest and detention of criminal aliens.”

President Obama released the following statement after the SCOTUS ruling on Monday:

"I am pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona’s immigration law. What this decision makes unmistakably clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform. A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system – it’s part of the problem.

At the same time, I remain concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally. I agree with the Court that individuals cannot be detained solely to verify their immigration status. No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like. Going forward, we must ensure that Arizona law enforcement officials do not enforce this law in a manner that undermines the civil rights of Americans, as the Court’s decision recognizes. Furthermore, we will continue to enforce our immigration laws by focusing on our most important priorities like border security and criminals who endanger our communities."

The high court struck down the three other parts of SB 1070, including the provisions that made it a crime for immigrants to seek work without work permits, to not carry their immigration papers and permitted law enforcement to arrest individuals they suspect committed crimes that would require their deportation.

The “show me your papers provision” is expected to face further legal challenges as the immigration debate still remains largely undecided and highly contentious.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-admin-ends-immigration-enforcement-program-following-high-court-ruling/

mikey23545
06-27-2012, 01:20 AM
It is becoming more and more apparent that if Obama is not defeated in this election we may never have another chance to remove him from office.

Munson
06-27-2012, 02:26 AM
The Dear Leader has struck again. Someone should inform him that the executive branch of the gov't exists to enforce the law, not bypass it.

Maybe he's "testing the water" in Arizona. If the Republicans don't challenge him, he'll spread his defacto amnesty policy state by state if he can't get Congress to pass any comprehensive immigration bills.

|Zach|
06-27-2012, 04:18 AM
It is becoming more and more apparent that if Obama is not defeated in this election we may never have another chance to remove him from office.

Just to be clear. It is your prediction that if Obama wins this next election then the ability to have free elections after that will no longer exist?

RedNeckRaider
06-27-2012, 04:19 AM
It is becoming more and more apparent that if Obama is not defeated in this election we may never have another chance to remove him from office.

:rolleyes:

|Zach|
06-27-2012, 04:25 AM
:rolleyes:

In the days when he was trying to prop up Palin as someone anyone gave a shit about he actually said he thought the last election would be the last free election.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=196037

Poor mikey...nobody is buying the tinfoil flavored fear he is selling.

Congrats to President Barack Obama for preserving our free elections for another 4 years...ya ya...this NEXT time will be the last I tell youzzzzzzz!

LMAO

RedNeckRaider
06-27-2012, 04:35 AM
In the days when he was trying to prop up Palin as someone anyone gave a shit about he actually said he thought the last election would be the last free election.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=196037

Poor mikey...nobody is buying the tinfoil flavored fear he is selling.

Congrats to President Barack Obama for preserving our free elections for another 4 years...ya ya...this NEXT time will be the last I tell youzzzzzzz!

LMAO

Oh shit, next thing you know, Barry is going to round up all the white people, and put them in camps! The end is near I tell ya!

mikey23545
06-27-2012, 06:14 AM
Wow, next thing you know someone will actually read and respond to the OP...

|Zach|
06-27-2012, 06:19 AM
Wow, next thing you know someone will actually read and respond to the OP...

So is that a yes or no on there not being a free election next time around...

Really interested in you clarifying your crazy.

You have already failed at this once.

|Zach|
06-27-2012, 06:20 AM
Follow up question...on a scale of 1 to 10 how scared are you on a daily basis.

You seem very scared all the time.

mikey23545
06-27-2012, 06:24 AM
WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) – The Obama administration will stop deporting and begin granting work permits to younger illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and have since led law-abiding lives. The election-year initiative addresses a top priority of an influential Latino electorate that has been vocal in its opposition to administration deportation policies.

The policy change, announced Friday by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, will affect as many as 800,000 immigrants who have lived in fear of deportation. It also bypasses Congress and partially achieves the goals of the so-called DREAM Act, a long-sought but never enacted plan to establish a path toward citizenship for young people who came to the United States illegally but who have attended college or served in the military.

Napolitano announcement detailing the new policy comes one week before President Barack Obama plans to address the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials’ annual conference in Orlando, Fla. Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney is scheduled to speak to the group on Thursday.

Obama planned to discuss the new policy Friday afternoon from the White House Rose Garden.

“We are a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants,” Napolitano said during a conference call with reporters Friday. “And as I said [earlier], with respect to these young people, deferred action – the decision announced today – is simply the right thing to do.”


This from a couple of weeks ago...How many times are we going to see this phrase?...

mikey23545
06-27-2012, 06:25 AM
Follow up question...on a scale of 1 to 10 how scared are you on a daily basis.

You seem very scared all the time.


You seem quite adept at slinging shit at me and ignoring the content of the OP...Any particular reason for that?

|Zach|
06-27-2012, 06:27 AM
You seem quite adept at slinging shit at me and ignoring the content of the OP...Any particular reason for that?

I am just trying to hold you to your tinfoil hat views.

Is my cousin going to be able to vote in a presidential election after this upcoming one? It will be the first time he is eligible.

qabbaan
06-27-2012, 06:28 AM
Aside from the above nonsense, I think we have a very real and unprecedented problem here, which is the executive branch in effect repealing laws by refusing to enforce the ones they disagree with politically.

To me this is a very serious issue, it's a huge power grab. The executive branch isn't supposed to be able to just crumple up law they don't like.

Between this sort of government by fiat and the judiciary continually inventing new law out of the air, we are really on a path to losing the separation of powers.

InChiefsHell
06-27-2012, 06:30 AM
Quick aside, how can you serve in the Military and be an illegal alien? How is that possible? Is that really happening??

InChiefsHell
06-27-2012, 06:31 AM
Aside from the above nonsense, I think we have a very real and unprecedented problem here, which is the executive branch in effect repealing laws by refusing to enforce the ones they disagree with politically.

To me this is a very serious issue, it's a huge power grab. The executive branch isn't supposed to be able to just crumple up law they don't like.

Between this sort of government by fiat and the judiciary continually inventing new law out of the air, we are really on a path to losing the separation of powers.

This. It's disturbing to say the least. This goes beyond just having a problem with BO's politics. I wish the OBots could see that.

mikey23545
06-27-2012, 06:37 AM
Aside from the above nonsense, I think we have a very real and unprecedented problem here, which is the executive branch in effect repealing laws by refusing to enforce the ones they disagree with politically.

To me this is a very serious issue, it's a huge power grab. The executive branch isn't supposed to be able to just crumple up law they don't like.

Between this sort of government by fiat and the judiciary continually inventing new law out of the air, we are really on a path to losing the separation of powers.

Not only do we see Obama's administration ignoring the legislative branch of government, but with this latest action they are also thumbing their noses at the Supreme Court, since this is obviously a reaction to the court's ruling on the Arizona law.

notorious
06-27-2012, 06:45 AM
The bad thing is that Obama is probably using a trick around the law that the Pubs have used, too.


The piece of shit politicians before Obama are the people that should be blamed, here.


But, as I said in another thread, the people of Arizona need to stop sending in Federal tax money if they aren't getting benefits in return.

patteeu
06-27-2012, 07:04 AM
Aside from the above nonsense, I think we have a very real and unprecedented problem here, which is the executive branch in effect repealing laws by refusing to enforce the ones they disagree with politically.

To me this is a very serious issue, it's a huge power grab. The executive branch isn't supposed to be able to just crumple up law they don't like.

Between this sort of government by fiat and the judiciary continually inventing new law out of the air, we are really on a path to losing the separation of powers.

When the Bush administration announced that it would not enforce parts of laws that it considered unconstitutional through signing statements, many of the people supporting this move by Obama where screaming about the imperial presidency. Now, selective enforcement based on politics is fine.

patteeu
06-27-2012, 07:07 AM
On the other hand, Mitt Romney has promised to do something similar if Obamacare remains in effect when he is elected. He's promised to grant waivers to all 50 states (which only leaves 7 covered by Obama's signature bill, I guess).

Saulbadguy
06-27-2012, 07:08 AM
WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) – The Obama administration will stop deporting and begin granting work permits to younger illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and have since led law-abiding lives. The election-year initiative addresses a top priority of an influential Latino electorate that has been vocal in its opposition to administration deportation policies.

The policy change, announced Friday by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, will affect as many as 800,000 immigrants who have lived in fear of deportation. It also bypasses Congress and partially achieves the goals of the so-called DREAM Act, a long-sought but never enacted plan to establish a path toward citizenship for young people who came to the United States illegally but who have attended college or served in the military.

Napolitano announcement detailing the new policy comes one week before President Barack Obama plans to address the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials’ annual conference in Orlando, Fla. Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney is scheduled to speak to the group on Thursday.

Obama planned to discuss the new policy Friday afternoon from the White House Rose Garden.

“We are a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants,” Napolitano said during a conference call with reporters Friday. “And as I said [earlier], with respect to these young people, deferred action – the decision announced today – is simply the right thing to do.”


This from a couple of weeks ago...How many times are we going to see this phrase?...

I don't get the outrage. This allows people to earn a living and support their families.

patteeu
06-27-2012, 07:11 AM
I don't get the outrage. This allows people to earn a living and support their families.

This doesn't create any jobs, it just expands the legal labor market for the same number of jobs.

qabbaan
06-27-2012, 07:13 AM
On the other hand, Mitt Romney has promised to do something similar if Obamacare remains in effect when he is elected. He's promised to grant waivers to all 50 states (which only leaves 7 covered by Obama's signature bill, I guess).

1. Waivers were written into the law. So long as the prescribed procedures for granting them are followed, they'd just be doing what they see fit in areas where the law was written intentionally to allow for discretion in enforcement.

2. The Obama administration seems to have primarily used these waivers (so far) to reward labor unions and other political allies, so it's not like equity has previously been a concern and this would be ending.

patteeu
06-27-2012, 07:30 AM
1. Waivers were written into the law. So long as the prescribed procedures for granting them are followed, they'd just be doing what they see fit in areas where the law was written intentionally to allow for discretion in enforcement.

2. The Obama administration seems to have primarily used these waivers (so far) to reward labor unions and other political allies, so it's not like equity has previously been a concern and this would be ending.

While not written into the law itself, it is well established that the executive can allocate limited resources toward enforcement in the manner he sees fit (absent specific legislative language to the contrary), which is what Obama claims to be doing in the immigration case. Having said that, there is an acceptable level of discretion and an abusive level.

I think it's pretty clear that Obama crosses the line into abusive territory in both the immigration situation and in his selective use of the waiver process. I think it's also clear that waivers to 50 states in order to effect a defacto repeal is also abusive, despite the fact that waivers are written into the health care law.

Comrade Crapski
06-27-2012, 08:35 AM
Like the federal pigs were doing their jobs before. :rolleyes:

qabbaan
06-27-2012, 11:34 AM
While not written into the law itself, it is well established that the executive can allocate limited resources toward enforcement in the manner he sees fit (absent specific legislative language to the contrary), which is what Obama claims to be doing in the immigration case. Having said that, there is an acceptable level of discretion and an abusive level.

I think it's pretty clear that Obama crosses the line into abusive territory in both the immigration situation and in his selective use of the waiver process. I think it's also clear that waivers to 50 states in order to effect a defacto repeal is also abusive, despite the fact that waivers are written into the health care law.

I agree about the 50 state waiver for the most part. I think what Romney means is that he will use the waivers to suspend expense and uncertainty in the business climate while the legislative rollbacks commence.

I don't think they will have any trouble gutting the act through Congress or passing a straight repeal. I don't see anything wrong with suspension in the meantime. Romney understands that obamacare is contributing tithe turbulent business climate and wants to stop the bleeding right away while the mess gets mopped up.

cosmo20002
06-27-2012, 12:17 PM
When the Bush administration announced that it would not enforce parts of laws that it considered unconstitutional through signing statements, many of the people supporting this move by Obama where screaming about the imperial presidency. Now, selective enforcement based on politics is fine.

Yeah, that's not really very accurate.
W used signing statements more than all the preceding presidents combined, so that indicates a bit of abuse just on its face. At some point, you should just veto the bill rather than sign it and say, "But this doesn't apply to me."

Obama isn't using signing statements on these issues. You might disagree with the decisions, but they can be reasonably justified without without coming to the "He's a dictator!"

It is a fact that there are limited resources--such as the number of people available to carry out and prosecute every law, as well as the number of hours in a day. Simply put, not every law on the books is going to be enforced as aggressively as others--and that only makes sense. High-level dangerous crimes and criminals are going to get more attention and resources devoted to them. It is really not an outrageous premise.

FD
06-27-2012, 12:18 PM
It is becoming more and more apparent that if Obama is not defeated in this election we may never have another chance to remove him from office.

Please explain your reasoning here.

cosmo20002
06-27-2012, 12:26 PM
It is becoming more and more apparent that if Obama is not defeated in this election we may never have another chance to remove him from office.

Please explain your reasoning here.

Not sure the word "reasoning" really applies here. What it boils down to is that mikey is a kook. However, it is an improvement from prior statements that Obama is going to cancel the upcoming elections.

mlyonsd
06-27-2012, 12:36 PM
Yeah, that's not really very accurate.
W used signing statements more than all the preceding presidents combined, so that indicates a bit of abuse just on its face. At some point, you should just veto the bill rather than sign it and say, "But this doesn't apply to me."

Obama isn't using signing statements on these issues. You might disagree with the decisions, but they can be reasonably justified without without coming to the "He's a dictator!"

It is a fact that there are limited resources--such as the number of people available to carry out and prosecute every law, as well as the number of hours in a day. Simply put, not every law on the books is going to be enforced as aggressively as others--and that only makes sense. High-level dangerous crimes and criminals are going to get more attention and resources devoted to them. It is really not an outrageous premise.It's outrageous to the state of Arizona. Illegals are costing them a lot resources. Expecting the fed to do its job, especially when the state is doing part of the leg work by apprehending them, is just pure political theater. The administration should be ashamed of itself.

If I were Romney I'd kick in some hard core ads right now about Obama's failure to protect the borders and point to this specific issue as proof.

Bowser
06-27-2012, 12:40 PM
Obama is acting as though he's already in his second term.

cosmo20002
06-27-2012, 01:03 PM
Aside from the above nonsense, I think we have a very real and unprecedented problem here, which is the executive branch in effect repealing laws by refusing to enforce the ones they disagree with politically.



Definitely not unprecedented. There are a lot of criminal laws, and they all can't be given the same amount of attention. Just like this one, previous presidents prioritized time and resources. No one accused them of 'repealing' the laws they on which they didn't pursue enforcement as aggresively.

cosmo20002
06-27-2012, 01:11 PM
It's outrageous to the state of Arizona. Illegals are costing them a lot resources. Expecting the fed to do its job, especially when the state is doing part of the leg work by apprehending them, is just pure political theater. The administration should be ashamed of itself.

If I were Romney I'd kick in some hard core ads right now about Obama's failure to protect the borders and point to this specific issue as proof.

You're implying they are just doing nothing on immigration issues. Obama has deported more people than any other president. Even the hack job of an article acknowledges they aren't simply ignoring AZ police, but they aren't going to every case the same priority.

mlyonsd
06-27-2012, 01:56 PM
....they aren't simply ignoring AZ police, but they aren't going to every case the same priority.Right, which is something I'd exploit over and over in a campaign ad. Obama has decided to penalize Arizona for doing something the SC decided was constitutional.

This has great political potential. I hope Romney capitalizes.

patteeu
06-27-2012, 01:58 PM
Yeah, that's not really very accurate.
W used signing statements more than all the preceding presidents combined, so that indicates a bit of abuse just on its face. At some point, you should just veto the bill rather than sign it and say, "But this doesn't apply to me."

No, that's not what it indicates at all. In many cases, Bush's signing statements did not indicate that he had any intention to ignore parts of the law. They were just statements. Here's the text of his very first signing statement for example:

March 20, 2001 (http://www.coherentbabble.com/Statements/SSsjr6.pdf)

Today I have signed into law S.J. Res. 6, a measure that repeals an unduly burdensome and overly broad regulation dealing with ergonomics. This is the first time the Congressional Review Act has been put to use. This resolution is a good and proper use of the Act because the different branches of our Government need to be held accountable.

There needs to be a balance between and an understanding of the costs and benefits associated with Federal regulations. In this instance, though, in exchange for uncertain benefits, the ergonomics rule would have cost both large and small employers billions of dollars and presented employers with overwhelming compliance challenges. Also, the rule would have applied a bureaucratic one-size-fits-all solution to a broad range of employers and workers—not good government at work.

The safety and health of our Nation’s workforce is a priority for my Administration. Together we will pursue a comprehensive approach to ergonomics that addresses the concerns surrounding the ergonomics rule repealed today. We will work with the Congress, the business community, and our Nation’s workers to address this important issue.

So to a great degree, Bush's increased use of the signing statement was merely editorial comment about his opinion of the legislation.

In the cases where Bush actually rejected portions of the law as unconstitutional encroachments on Presidential perogatives, the increased activity can be explained by the fact that he was leading a difficult war and facing off against a Congress that was attempting to interfere with the President's constitutional role to lead our country's foreign policy and command our country's military. He often didn't have the luxury to veto the entire law and wait for Congress to pass the vital parts of it without the offending sections.

Obama isn't using signing statements on these issues. You might disagree with the decisions, but they can be reasonably justified without without coming to the "He's a dictator!"

There is nothing special about a signing statement. The issue is whether or not the President is abusing his power. In Bush's case, he wasn't. In Obama's case, he is.

It is a fact that there are limited resources--such as the number of people available to carry out and prosecute every law, as well as the number of hours in a day. Simply put, not every law on the books is going to be enforced as aggressively as others--and that only makes sense. High-level dangerous crimes and criminals are going to get more attention and resources devoted to them. It is really not an outrageous premise.

I assume that you expect to see an increased rate of deportation activity for illegals who don't fall into the favored category then, right?

cosmo20002
06-27-2012, 02:03 PM
Right, which is something I'd exploit over and over in a campaign ad. Obama has decided to penalize Arizona for doing something the SC decided was constitutional.

This has great political potential. I hope Romney capitalizes.

That the SC said it was constitutional does not mean that the feds are required to make it a first-priority matter.

RedNeckRaider
06-27-2012, 02:05 PM
In the days when he was trying to prop up Palin as someone anyone gave a shit about he actually said he thought the last election would be the last free election.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=196037

Poor mikey...nobody is buying the tinfoil flavored fear he is selling.

Congrats to President Barack Obama for preserving our free elections for another 4 years...ya ya...this NEXT time will be the last I tell youzzzzzzz!

LMAO

Mikey Camping?

mlyonsd
06-27-2012, 02:06 PM
That the SC said it was constitutional does not mean that the feds are required to make it a first-priority matter.I'm not saying they do.

cosmo20002
06-27-2012, 02:15 PM
So to a great degree, Bush's increased use of the signing statement was merely editorial comment about his opinion of the legislation.


Yeah, just a little 'ol editorial comment. Give me a break...


There is nothing special about a signing statement. The issue is whether or not the President is abusing his power. In Bush's case, he wasn't. In Obama's case, he is.


Obama prioritizing resources is an abuse of power? C'mon pat, you can't be serious. I assume you have this same criticism for all presidents then, because it is pretty much a job requirement. You simply can't go after every breaking of the law with the same aggressiveness.

cosmo20002
06-27-2012, 02:17 PM
I'm not saying they do.

Then if the fed are allowed to prioritize their resources, what is your beef?

mlyonsd
06-27-2012, 02:27 PM
Then if the fed are allowed to prioritize their resources, what is your beef?The idea that an election means more to this president than a state's right to protect itself.

cosmo20002
06-27-2012, 02:30 PM
The idea that an election means more to this president than a state's right to protect itself.

The SC struck down the part that said the state could enforce its own immigration laws. Your beef is with the SC.
Obama has deported more people than anyone ever has. Conventional wisdom would say that if he was all about politics, he wouldn't have done that.

mlyonsd
06-27-2012, 02:33 PM
The SC struck down the part that said the state could enforce its own immigration laws. Your beef is with the SC.
Obama has deported more people than anyone ever has. Conventional wisdom would say that if he was all about politics, he wouldn't have done that.I'd question your conventional wisdom.

patteeu
06-27-2012, 02:36 PM
Yeah, just a little 'ol editorial comment. Give me a break...

Read the signing statement I quoted and tell me what part of it offends you and why.

Obama prioritizing resources is an abuse of power? C'mon pat, you can't be serious. I assume you have this same criticism for all presidents then, because it is pretty much a job requirement. You simply can't go after every breaking of the law with the same aggressiveness.

I criticized my guy's plan to issue Obamacare waivers to all 50 states on day one of his presidency because it would be an abuse of his discretionary power too. "Everyone does it" isn't an excuse.

cosmo20002
06-27-2012, 02:37 PM
I'd question your conventional wisdom.

Well, he is being accused of pandering to Hispanics. Would record numbers of deportations seem to be something that panders to Hispanics?

cosmo20002
06-27-2012, 02:42 PM
Read the signing statement I quoted and tell me what part of it offends you and why.

You picked one of what, hundreds?

I criticized my guy's plan to issue Obamacare waivers to all 50 states on day one of his presidency because it would be an abuse of his discretionary power too. "Everyone does it" isn't an excuse.

What I'm talking about is not an abuse of discretion, it is a necessity. Resources are limited, as are the number of hours in the day. Your argument is essentially that the same effort and resources should be used to go after jaywalkers as murderers.

patteeu
06-27-2012, 02:43 PM
Well, he is being accused of pandering to Hispanics. Would record numbers of deportations seem to be something that panders to Hispanics?

I still didn't catch your response to my earlier question. Since this is about discretionary allocation of resources and since the level of resources for deportation activities hasn't changed, do you expect to see an increase in deportations for illegals who aren't in Obama's favored group?

cosmo20002
06-27-2012, 02:45 PM
I still didn't catch your response to my earlier question. Since this is about discretionary allocation of resources and since the level of resources for deportation activities hasn't changed, do you expect to see an increase in deportations for illegals who aren't in Obama's favored group?

Sure, yes.

patteeu
06-27-2012, 02:46 PM
You picked one of what, hundreds?

Yes, the very first one. So what part of it was offensive to you?

What I'm talking about is not an abuse of discretion, it is a necessity. Resources are limited, as are the number of hours in the day. Your argument is essentially that the same effort and resources should be used to go after jaywalkers as murderers.

I say it's an abuse of discretion that's obviously intended for political purposes. If it was a necessity, it would have happened at the beginning of Obama's term, not just before his re-election.

patteeu
06-27-2012, 02:47 PM
Sure, yes.

OK, well at least we have a measure of merit and we can decide whether this was abusive or just shifting priorities in retrospect.

mlyonsd
06-27-2012, 02:49 PM
Well, he is being accused of pandering to Hispanics. Would record numbers of deportations seem to be something that panders to Hispanics?Could the fed refusing to take illegals off of police hands be considered pandering?

patteeu
06-27-2012, 02:52 PM
Could the fed refusing to take illegals off of police hands be considered pandering?

They don't have the time to process those hand-delivered illegals, what with all the deporting of felonious youth and middle aged folks they've got on their plate. I'm sure that's it.

cosmo20002
06-27-2012, 02:57 PM
Could the fed refusing to take illegals off of police hands be considered pandering?

Could be. It could also be that resources dictate that efforts be directed at illegals that are committing felonies.

mlyonsd
06-27-2012, 04:44 PM
Could be. It could also be that resources dictate that efforts be directed at illegals that are committing felonies.Yes that could be true, but if it were me I'd probably wait until I was overwhelmed by the multitudes of paddy wagons showing up at the fed's door to act. If you did that you might lose some of the votes you're desperately trying to pander to. :p

go bowe
06-27-2012, 07:40 PM
The idea that an election means more to this president than a state's right to protect itself.

or

the idea that an election (defeat of obama) means more to this minority leader of the senate than our right to have the business of the country get done in congress...

go bowe
06-27-2012, 07:42 PM
this is also true to a greater or lesser extent of the majority leader in the senate...

Mr. Kotter
06-27-2012, 09:21 PM
this is also true to a greater or lesser extent of the majority leader in the senate...

SSssss-HHhhhh, Mikey and the Tea Party are poised to dance on O'Marxist's grave....don't spoil their moment in the sun.

You don't wanna be that dude...

Garcia Bronco
06-28-2012, 08:19 AM
Aside from the above nonsense, I think we have a very real and unprecedented problem here, which is the executive branch in effect repealing laws by refusing to enforce the ones they disagree with politically.

To me this is a very serious issue, it's a huge power grab. The executive branch isn't supposed to be able to just crumple up law they don't like.

Between this sort of government by fiat and the judiciary continually inventing new law out of the air, we are really on a path to losing the separation of powers.

It's an impeachable offense. And if Obama does win and continues on tihs way...I can see him getting the boot while in office,

cosmo20002
06-28-2012, 08:34 AM
It's an impeachable offense. And if Obama does win and continues on tihs way...I can see him getting the boot while in office,

You very clearly have not a clue what you are talking about.

Mr. Laz
06-28-2012, 09:02 AM
It is becoming more and more apparent that if Obama is not defeated in this election we may never have another chance to remove him from office.
ROFL

You're an idiot


http://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/tin-foil-hat.jpg

in 4 1/2 years Obama will be gone no matter happens in the upcoming election.

crazy,tinfoil hat motherfuckers

Obama is taking over the world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Brock
06-28-2012, 02:01 PM
It's an impeachable offense. And if Obama does win and continues on tihs way...I can see him getting the boot while in office,

LMAO

RedNeckRaider
06-28-2012, 03:23 PM
ROFL

You're an idiot


http://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/tin-foil-hat.jpg

in 4 1/2 years Obama will be gone no matter happens in the upcoming election.

crazy,tinfoil hat mother****ers

Obama is taking over the world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LMAO this clown accused me of reading fringe websites. I guess he got this batshit conclusion from a reputable website LMAO

ThatRaceCardGuy
06-29-2012, 06:32 AM
It is becoming more and more apparent that if Obama is not defeated in this election we may never have another chance to remove him from office.

Are you a fucking idiot? I bet you didnt feel that way about Bush..

Amnorix
06-29-2012, 04:17 PM
It is becoming more and more apparent that if Obama is not defeated in this election we may never have another chance to remove him from office.

ROFL

Dylan
06-29-2012, 04:23 PM
Welcome to Local 2544 National Border Patrol Council

Homeland Security: Border Patrol Agents Taught to "Run Away" and "Hide" when Encountering a Shooter

06-20-12 In another nauseating series of "Virtual Learning Center" brainwashing courses that Border Patrol agents are forced to sit behind a computer for hours and endure, we are now taught in an "Active Shooter" course that if we encounter a shooter in a public place we are to "run away" and "hide". If we are cornered by such a shooter we are to (only as a last resort) become "aggressive" and "throw things" at him or her. We are then advised to "call law enforcement" and wait for their arrival (presumably, while more innocent victims are slaughtered). Shooting incidents cited in the course are Columbine, the Giffords shooting and the Virginia Tech shooting.

These types of mandatory brainwashing courses and the idiocy that accompanies them are simply stunning when they are force-fed to law enforcement officers. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that any three of the above shootings would have been stopped cold by an off-duty law enforcement officer or a law abiding citizen with a gun.

The Fort Hood shooting would have been stopped cold by someone with a gun as well. The shooters in these situations depend on unarmed and scared victims. It gives them the power they seek. We could go on and on with examples of shootings that could have been stopped by someone with a firearm. One of the videos in this course actually shows a terrified female hiding behind a desk as an example of how to "hide" from some deranged shooter.

Multiple quizzes throughout the course and a final test ensure repeatedly that we know that we only have three options when encountering some murderous thug in a public place.

"Active Shooter" training course

Evacuate: If there is an accessible escape path, attempt to evacuate the premises.
Hide out: If evacuation is not possible, find a place to hide where the active shooter is less likely to find you.
Take action: As a last resort, and only when your life is in imminent danger, attempt to disrupt and/or incapacitate the active shooter


Telling law enforcement officers that in all instances they are to run away and hide from some thug while innocent victims are butchered is simply inexcusable and pathetic.

It is always comforting to know that for those of us who carry a weapon when we are off-duty, if we should encounter such a situation, stop a shooter and save countless lives, we can look forward to being disciplined or fired by the Border Patrol because we should have run away to hide and then maybe thrown objects at the deranged killer instead of taking action and stopping him with a firearm.

This, in addition to the scrutiny and second-guessing that will come from local authorities and the inevitable possibility of lawsuits and criminal conviction.

Welcome to the New Patrol.

http://www.local2544.org/


Here is the training film and course:

http://emilms.fema.gov/IS907/index.htm

Dylan
06-29-2012, 04:40 PM
Where's the gun thread?

You better stock up on ammunition now before the Federation of Tax Administrators increase sales tax 1,000%

RedNeckRaider
06-29-2012, 04:46 PM
ROFL

Ask him for a link to the websites he has been checking out to come to this conclusion LMAO