Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

President Trump making major border announcement

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

    A piece could easily be written critical of the British leaders.

    Even with a nasty graphic image made of them LOL

    "These stuffy, snobbish and arrogant Brits ...blah blah blah..."

    So what ?
    President Trump has done it again his inspiring words has mobilized another Republican patriot into action. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.1b491372d954

    ?


    • #47
      Nothing in that article (although, admittedly, I could only stomach the opening paragraph) suggest this Coastie Officer is anything but a whack. Son of Sam got his instructions from a dog (according to that irrefutable source, My Cousin Vinny).

      Congratulations to WaPo: They show conclusively that whacks will do whacky things.

      </rolled eyes>

      ?


      • #48
        Originally posted by redrover View Post
        President Trump has done it again his inspiring words has mobilized another Republican patriot into action. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.1b491372d954
        Of course... president Trump did it LOL

        Back in the day, it USED to be "Bush did it."

        Now - big surprise - it's "Trump did it."

        ?


        • #49
          Why we need a wall.

          "Here's the bottom line...500,000 new people settle in the United States illegally each year, (and) 200,000 to 250,000 cross the border successfully. (Another) 200,000 or 250,000 or 300,000 overstay the temporary visa. Those numbers are enormous."

          We can't absorb this assault forever.

          Camerota: Half-Million Settle in US Illegally Every Year

          LIB logic 101: Nope, doesn't sound like a national emergency...

          ... besides, we need the votes !!

          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          A half-million new people settle illegally in the United States each year, marking numbers that are roughly equivalent to the population of Atlanta, Steven Camerota, the research director for the Center for Immigration Studies said Thursday.

          "The 500,000 figure doesn't necessarily mean the border," Camerota told Fox News' "Fox and Friends." "That can include people that overstay a visa. At minimum, 200,000, and more are expected to do it this year successfully, illegally cross the border between the ports of entry."

          He said the figures are based on census data and other sources and there is "no question about it; it is a pretty solid estimate."

          There is some evidence that the level of illegal immigration is not as high now as it was a decade ago, but the last year looks to be "pretty high," said Camerota.

          "We don't have all the complete data for that," he said. "Here's the bottom line...500,000 new people settle in the United States illegally each year, (and) 200,000 to 250,000 cross the border successfully. (Another) 200,000 or 250,000 or 300,000 overstay the temporary visa. Those numbers are enormous."


          https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/il.../21/id/903711/



          On presidential actions, rights and declarations.

          For the record.... also for the record, ...

          ....congress' inability to pull their thumbs from their behinds and accomplish anything


          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Thomas Jefferson seized upon Napoleon's sudden offer to sell the vast Louisiana territory for $15 million in an act of dubious constitutionality by Jefferson's own judgment. History has validated his decision.

          Andrew Jackson "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" shoved aside a Supreme Court ruling denying him the right to transfer the Indians of Florida to the middle of the country.

          Abraham Lincoln arrested Maryland legislators to prevent a secessionist-minded legislature from meeting, violated the habeas corpus rights of thousands, ordered Chief Justice Roger Taney arrested, shut down newspapers, and, in January 1863, declared free all the slaves of every state still in rebellion against the Union.

          "I took Panama!" said Theodore Roosevelt, whose agents helped rebels shear off the province from Colombia to build his canal.

          FDR ordered some 110,000 Japanese, 75,000 of them U.S. citizens, into detention camps in 1942 for the duration of the war.

          Without authorization from Congress, Harry S. Truman ordered U.S. troops into South Korea in 1950 to resist the invasion by North Korea, calling it a police action.

          Though a Republican House voted against attacking Serbia in 1998, Bill Clinton continued his 78-day bombing campaign until Belgrade yielded up its cradle province of Kosovo.

          Yet while presidents have acted decisively, without congressional authorization and sometimes unconstitutionally, Congress has failed to defend, and even surrendered, its legitimate constitutional powers.

          Congress's authority "to regulate commerce with foreign nations" has been largely ceded to the executive branch, with Congress agreeing to confine itself to a "yeah" or "nay" vote on whatever trade treaty the White House negotiates and sends to the Hill.

          Congress's authority to "coin money" and "regulate the value thereof" was long ago transferred to the Federal Reserve.

          Congress's power to declare war has been ignored by presidents since Truman.

          Authorizations for the use of military force have replaced declarations of war, with presidents deciding how broadly they may be interpreted.

          In declaring the national emergency Friday, Trump rested his case on authority given the president by Congress in the National Emergencies Act of 1976.

          The Supreme Court has usurped Congress' powers with impunity.

          While the civil rights acts of the 1960s were enacted by Congress, the desegregation of America's public schools was simply ordered by the Warren Court in 1954.

          In the 1960s and 1970s, Congress sat indolent as busing for racial balance was imposed on countless school districts by federal judges.


          As the Supreme Court, for decades, exploited the establishment clause of the First Amendment to de-Christianize all public schools and public places, Congress did nothing.

          A triumphant court then moved on to declare abortion and same-sex marriage constitutional rights.

          Yet Congress had the latent power, in Article III, Section 2, to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and every other federal court.

          But the big stick the founders left for Congress to corral a runaway Supreme Court was never picked up, never used.


          Comment below article;

          "Pat left out two abiding faults of Congressmen, self-interest at the expense of those who elected them & at the expense of the nation and their grotesque laziness."

          https://www.newsmax.com/patrickbucha.../19/id/903255/

          ?


          • #50
            Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
            Why we need a wall.

            "Here's the bottom line...500,000 new people settle in the United States illegally each year, (and) 200,000 to 250,000 cross the border successfully. (Another) 200,000 or 250,000 or 300,000 overstay the temporary visa. Those numbers are enormous."

            We can't absorb this assault forever.

            Camerota: Half-Million Settle in US Illegally Every Year

            LIB logic 101: Nope, doesn't sound like a national emergency...

            ... besides, we need the votes !!

            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            A half-million new people settle illegally in the United States each year, marking numbers that are roughly equivalent to the population of Atlanta, Steven Camerota, the research director for the Center for Immigration Studies said Thursday.

            "The 500,000 figure doesn't necessarily mean the border," Camerota told Fox News' "Fox and Friends." "That can include people that overstay a visa. At minimum, 200,000, and more are expected to do it this year successfully, illegally cross the border between the ports of entry."

            He said the figures are based on census data and other sources and there is "no question about it; it is a pretty solid estimate."

            There is some evidence that the level of illegal immigration is not as high now as it was a decade ago, but the last year looks to be "pretty high," said Camerota.

            "We don't have all the complete data for that," he said. "Here's the bottom line...500,000 new people settle in the United States illegally each year, (and) 200,000 to 250,000 cross the border successfully. (Another) 200,000 or 250,000 or 300,000 overstay the temporary visa. Those numbers are enormous."


            https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/il.../21/id/903711/



            On presidential actions, rights and declarations.

            For the record.... also for the record, ...

            ....congress' inability to pull their thumbs from their behinds and accomplish anything


            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Thomas Jefferson seized upon Napoleon's sudden offer to sell the vast Louisiana territory for $15 million in an act of dubious constitutionality by Jefferson's own judgment. History has validated his decision.

            Andrew Jackson "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" shoved aside a Supreme Court ruling denying him the right to transfer the Indians of Florida to the middle of the country.

            Abraham Lincoln arrested Maryland legislators to prevent a secessionist-minded legislature from meeting, violated the habeas corpus rights of thousands, ordered Chief Justice Roger Taney arrested, shut down newspapers, and, in January 1863, declared free all the slaves of every state still in rebellion against the Union.

            "I took Panama!" said Theodore Roosevelt, whose agents helped rebels shear off the province from Colombia to build his canal.

            FDR ordered some 110,000 Japanese, 75,000 of them U.S. citizens, into detention camps in 1942 for the duration of the war.

            Without authorization from Congress, Harry S. Truman ordered U.S. troops into South Korea in 1950 to resist the invasion by North Korea, calling it a police action.

            Though a Republican House voted against attacking Serbia in 1998, Bill Clinton continued his 78-day bombing campaign until Belgrade yielded up its cradle province of Kosovo.

            Yet while presidents have acted decisively, without congressional authorization and sometimes unconstitutionally, Congress has failed to defend, and even surrendered, its legitimate constitutional powers.

            Congress's authority "to regulate commerce with foreign nations" has been largely ceded to the executive branch, with Congress agreeing to confine itself to a "yeah" or "nay" vote on whatever trade treaty the White House negotiates and sends to the Hill.

            Congress's authority to "coin money" and "regulate the value thereof" was long ago transferred to the Federal Reserve.

            Congress's power to declare war has been ignored by presidents since Truman.

            Authorizations for the use of military force have replaced declarations of war, with presidents deciding how broadly they may be interpreted.

            In declaring the national emergency Friday, Trump rested his case on authority given the president by Congress in the National Emergencies Act of 1976.

            The Supreme Court has usurped Congress' powers with impunity.

            While the civil rights acts of the 1960s were enacted by Congress, the desegregation of America's public schools was simply ordered by the Warren Court in 1954.

            In the 1960s and 1970s, Congress sat indolent as busing for racial balance was imposed on countless school districts by federal judges.


            As the Supreme Court, for decades, exploited the establishment clause of the First Amendment to de-Christianize all public schools and public places, Congress did nothing.

            A triumphant court then moved on to declare abortion and same-sex marriage constitutional rights.

            Yet Congress had the latent power, in Article III, Section 2, to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and every other federal court.

            But the big stick the founders left for Congress to corral a runaway Supreme Court was never picked up, never used.


            Comment below article;

            "Pat left out two abiding faults of Congressmen, self-interest at the expense of those who elected them & at the expense of the nation and their grotesque laziness."

            https://www.newsmax.com/patrickbucha.../19/id/903255/
            Here is one congressman who has done his homework.https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/03/d...ohnson-hitler/

            ?


            • #51
              Originally posted by redrover View Post
              Here is one congressman who has done his homework.https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/03/d...ohnson-hitler/
              Another dummy getting a thrill out of calling the president Hitler *yawns*

              .. which is believed and followed by a few other dummies.

              Anyways, I know you have trouble reading. I'll show you again to help you out.

              Do take the time, read & learn....

              .....

              Why we need a wall.

              "Here's the bottom line...500,000 new people settle in the United States illegally each year, (and) 200,000 to 250,000 cross the border successfully. (Another) 200,000 or 250,000 or 300,000 overstay the temporary visa. Those numbers are enormous."

              We can't absorb this assault forever.

              Camerota: Half-Million Settle in US Illegally Every Year

              LIB logic 101: Nope, doesn't sound like a national emergency...

              ... besides, we need the votes !!

              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              A half-million new people settle illegally in the United States each year, marking numbers that are roughly equivalent to the population of Atlanta, Steven Camerota, the research director for the Center for Immigration Studies said Thursday.

              "The 500,000 figure doesn't necessarily mean the border," Camerota told Fox News' "Fox and Friends." "That can include people that overstay a visa. At minimum, 200,000, and more are expected to do it this year successfully, illegally cross the border between the ports of entry."

              He said the figures are based on census data and other sources and there is "no question about it; it is a pretty solid estimate."

              There is some evidence that the level of illegal immigration is not as high now as it was a decade ago, but the last year looks to be "pretty high," said Camerota.

              "We don't have all the complete data for that," he said. "Here's the bottom line...500,000 new people settle in the United States illegally each year, (and) 200,000 to 250,000 cross the border successfully. (Another) 200,000 or 250,000 or 300,000 overstay the temporary visa. Those numbers are enormous."


              https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/il.../21/id/903711/



              On presidential actions, rights and declarations.

              For the record.... also for the record, ...

              ....congress' inability to pull their thumbs from their behinds and accomplish anything


              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              Thomas Jefferson seized upon Napoleon's sudden offer to sell the vast Louisiana territory for $15 million in an act of dubious constitutionality by Jefferson's own judgment. History has validated his decision.

              Andrew Jackson "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" shoved aside a Supreme Court ruling denying him the right to transfer the Indians of Florida to the middle of the country.

              Abraham Lincoln arrested Maryland legislators to prevent a secessionist-minded legislature from meeting, violated the habeas corpus rights of thousands, ordered Chief Justice Roger Taney arrested, shut down newspapers, and, in January 1863, declared free all the slaves of every state still in rebellion against the Union.

              "I took Panama!" said Theodore Roosevelt, whose agents helped rebels shear off the province from Colombia to build his canal.

              FDR ordered some 110,000 Japanese, 75,000 of them U.S. citizens, into detention camps in 1942 for the duration of the war.

              Without authorization from Congress, Harry S. Truman ordered U.S. troops into South Korea in 1950 to resist the invasion by North Korea, calling it a police action.

              Though a Republican House voted against attacking Serbia in 1998, Bill Clinton continued his 78-day bombing campaign until Belgrade yielded up its cradle province of Kosovo.

              Yet while presidents have acted decisively, without congressional authorization and sometimes unconstitutionally, Congress has failed to defend, and even surrendered, its legitimate constitutional powers.

              Congress's authority "to regulate commerce with foreign nations" has been largely ceded to the executive branch, with Congress agreeing to confine itself to a "yeah" or "nay" vote on whatever trade treaty the White House negotiates and sends to the Hill.

              Congress's authority to "coin money" and "regulate the value thereof" was long ago transferred to the Federal Reserve.

              Congress's power to declare war has been ignored by presidents since Truman.

              Authorizations for the use of military force have replaced declarations of war, with presidents deciding how broadly they may be interpreted.

              In declaring the national emergency Friday, Trump rested his case on authority given the president by Congress in the National Emergencies Act of 1976.

              The Supreme Court has usurped Congress' powers with impunity.

              While the civil rights acts of the 1960s were enacted by Congress, the desegregation of America's public schools was simply ordered by the Warren Court in 1954.

              In the 1960s and 1970s, Congress sat indolent as busing for racial balance was imposed on countless school districts by federal judges.


              As the Supreme Court, for decades, exploited the establishment clause of the First Amendment to de-Christianize all public schools and public places, Congress did nothing.

              A triumphant court then moved on to declare abortion and same-sex marriage constitutional rights.

              Yet Congress had the latent power, in Article III, Section 2, to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and every other federal court.

              But the big stick the founders left for Congress to corral a runaway Supreme Court was never picked up, never used.


              Comment below article;

              "Pat left out two abiding faults of Congressmen, self-interest at the expense of those who elected them & at the expense of the nation and their grotesque laziness."

              https://www.newsmax.com/patrickbucha.../19/id/903255/

              ?


              • #52
                Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                Another dummy getting a thrill out of calling the president Hitler *yawns*

                .. which is believed and followed by a few other dummies.

                Anyways, I know you have trouble reading. I'll show you again to help you out.

                Do take the time, read & learn....

                .....

                Why we need a wall.

                "Here's the bottom line...500,000 new people settle in the United States illegally each year, (and) 200,000 to 250,000 cross the border successfully. (Another) 200,000 or 250,000 or 300,000 overstay the temporary visa. Those numbers are enormous."

                We can't absorb this assault forever.

                Camerota: Half-Million Settle in US Illegally Every Year

                LIB logic 101: Nope, doesn't sound like a national emergency...

                ... besides, we need the votes !!

                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                A half-million new people settle illegally in the United States each year, marking numbers that are roughly equivalent to the population of Atlanta, Steven Camerota, the research director for the Center for Immigration Studies said Thursday.

                "The 500,000 figure doesn't necessarily mean the border," Camerota told Fox News' "Fox and Friends." "That can include people that overstay a visa. At minimum, 200,000, and more are expected to do it this year successfully, illegally cross the border between the ports of entry."

                He said the figures are based on census data and other sources and there is "no question about it; it is a pretty solid estimate."

                There is some evidence that the level of illegal immigration is not as high now as it was a decade ago, but the last year looks to be "pretty high," said Camerota.

                "We don't have all the complete data for that," he said. "Here's the bottom line...500,000 new people settle in the United States illegally each year, (and) 200,000 to 250,000 cross the border successfully. (Another) 200,000 or 250,000 or 300,000 overstay the temporary visa. Those numbers are enormous."


                https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/il.../21/id/903711/



                On presidential actions, rights and declarations.

                For the record.... also for the record, ...

                ....congress' inability to pull their thumbs from their behinds and accomplish anything


                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Thomas Jefferson seized upon Napoleon's sudden offer to sell the vast Louisiana territory for $15 million in an act of dubious constitutionality by Jefferson's own judgment. History has validated his decision.

                Andrew Jackson "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" shoved aside a Supreme Court ruling denying him the right to transfer the Indians of Florida to the middle of the country.

                Abraham Lincoln arrested Maryland legislators to prevent a secessionist-minded legislature from meeting, violated the habeas corpus rights of thousands, ordered Chief Justice Roger Taney arrested, shut down newspapers, and, in January 1863, declared free all the slaves of every state still in rebellion against the Union.

                "I took Panama!" said Theodore Roosevelt, whose agents helped rebels shear off the province from Colombia to build his canal.

                FDR ordered some 110,000 Japanese, 75,000 of them U.S. citizens, into detention camps in 1942 for the duration of the war.

                Without authorization from Congress, Harry S. Truman ordered U.S. troops into South Korea in 1950 to resist the invasion by North Korea, calling it a police action.

                Though a Republican House voted against attacking Serbia in 1998, Bill Clinton continued his 78-day bombing campaign until Belgrade yielded up its cradle province of Kosovo.

                Yet while presidents have acted decisively, without congressional authorization and sometimes unconstitutionally, Congress has failed to defend, and even surrendered, its legitimate constitutional powers.

                Congress's authority "to regulate commerce with foreign nations" has been largely ceded to the executive branch, with Congress agreeing to confine itself to a "yeah" or "nay" vote on whatever trade treaty the White House negotiates and sends to the Hill.

                Congress's authority to "coin money" and "regulate the value thereof" was long ago transferred to the Federal Reserve.

                Congress's power to declare war has been ignored by presidents since Truman.

                Authorizations for the use of military force have replaced declarations of war, with presidents deciding how broadly they may be interpreted.

                In declaring the national emergency Friday, Trump rested his case on authority given the president by Congress in the National Emergencies Act of 1976.

                The Supreme Court has usurped Congress' powers with impunity.

                While the civil rights acts of the 1960s were enacted by Congress, the desegregation of America's public schools was simply ordered by the Warren Court in 1954.

                In the 1960s and 1970s, Congress sat indolent as busing for racial balance was imposed on countless school districts by federal judges.


                As the Supreme Court, for decades, exploited the establishment clause of the First Amendment to de-Christianize all public schools and public places, Congress did nothing.

                A triumphant court then moved on to declare abortion and same-sex marriage constitutional rights.

                Yet Congress had the latent power, in Article III, Section 2, to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and every other federal court.

                But the big stick the founders left for Congress to corral a runaway Supreme Court was never picked up, never used.


                Comment below article;

                "Pat left out two abiding faults of Congressmen, self-interest at the expense of those who elected them & at the expense of the nation and their grotesque laziness."

                https://www.newsmax.com/patrickbucha.../19/id/903255/
                Speaking of laziness I see that no Republicans have come out to condemn the planned terrorist attack on Democrat leadership. Of course Trump is silent about it because he is actively encouraging these kinds of attacks. One can only imagine what he would have to say if the Coast Guard White nationalist officer had been a Muslim. I see he did weigh in on the Jesse Smollett case.

                ?


                • #53
                  Originally posted by redrover View Post
                  Speaking of laziness I see that no Republicans have come out to condemn the planned terrorist attack on Democrat leadership. Of course Trump is silent about it because he is actively encouraging these kinds of attacks. One can only imagine what he would have to say if the Coast Guard White nationalist officer had been a Muslim. I see he did weigh in on the Jesse Smollett case.
                  I pointed that out here;

                  https://www.uspoliticsonline.com/for...563#post560563

                  as I wrote there, this person...

                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  He "allegedly drafted a letter to known American neo-Nazi leader."

                  I'm unsure how to interpret that.

                  Was he addressing our current president as a known American neo-Nazi leader. ??

                  That would undermine my theory that he's a hard-core right winger.

                  I guess we'll have to wait, as "..this is an open investigation, the Coast Guard has no further details at this time.

                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  We don't yet know ...

                  But if this guy IS a right wing nut, well it happens on all sides or can.

                  Liberals don't have a corner on the market of stupid.

                  Yet.

                  We'll have to see how this one turns out though.

                  We still don't have all the information....

                  ..kind of like with the Jussie smollet deal, too many jumped on the bandwagon of hate for Trump before all the facts came in.

                  ?


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by redrover View Post

                    Speaking of laziness I see that no Republicans have come out to condemn the planned terrorist attack on Democrat leadership. Of course Trump is silent about it because he is actively encouraging these kinds of attacks. One can only imagine what he would have to say if the Coast Guard White nationalist officer had been a Muslim. I see he did weigh in on the Jesse Smollett case.
                    Cite where Trump as uttered the words that has 'actively encouraging these kinds of attacks'. And, no, hyperbole and no, exaggeration doesn't count. You've made a claim, now you have to substantiate that claim.

                    ?


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post

                      Cite where Trump as uttered the words that has 'actively encouraging these kinds of attacks'. And, no, hyperbole and no, exaggeration doesn't count. You've made a claim, now you have to substantiate that claim.
                      Come on, berger...

                      you know you cannot make such a specific demand of these people. Now, all you will get for your request is, he will change the subject.

                      ?


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by DavidSF View Post

                        Come on, berger...

                        you know you cannot make such a specific demand of these people. Now, all you will get for your request is, he will change the subject.
                        That, in and of itself, should tell you something, shouldn't it?

                        ?


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post

                          That, in and of itself, should tell you something, shouldn't it?
                          Now that we are in the middle of a national emergency I've been stockpiling food water and ammunition. I Don't know what I'm going to do with the munition, but my Republican friends say I need a lot of it.

                          ?


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by redrover View Post
                            Now that we are in the middle of a national emergency I've been stockpiling food water and ammunition. I Don't know what I'm going to do with the munition, but my Republican friends say I need a lot of it.
                            So, you CAN follow directions !

                            https://www.uspoliticsonline.com/for...627#post560627

                            You changed the subject just like you were told ... Good rover !

                            ?


                            • #59
                              A yes or no question;

                              " Am I guilty of a crime if I allow a criminal to hide from law enforcement officers in my home ? "

                              What's the difference between what the state of California & its cities are doing and what I would be doing, hiding a criminal in my home ?

                              One of these crimes isn't it ?

                              Hindering Prosecution...Accessory After the Fact....harboring a fugitive from justice.....Aiding and abetting ?

                              The state is guilty of ONE of these !

                              "It was also divulged that the illegal was a repeat offender having returned to California after being deported to Mexico numerous times."

                              When a government entity becomes a criminal enterprise, or supports criminals, what are we to do ?

                              Vote ????

                              None of this makes sense.

                              Are these people in California suicidal ?

                              -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                              Sanctuary state guarded illegal who tried to murder sheriff

                              Rejecting requests from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to take an illegal alien into custody, law enforcement officials in the sanctuary state of California let the criminal alien go before he attempted to slay a sheriffs deputy earlier this week.

                              A number of sanctuary cities in California moved to block the deportation of the illegal alien from Mexico allowing him to wage an attack against an officer, which was caught on camera.

                              Body camera footage from a traffic stop shows Javier Hernandez-Morales rolling down his window, grabbing a handgun and opening fire, according to the Napa County Sheriffs Office, The Washington Times reported. [The] man caught on body camera footage attempting to kill a California sheriffs deputy during a traffic stop this week had been deported three times before, but local officials had shielded him from ICE in recent years.

                              Despite ICEs attempt to subdue the Mexican alien, California law enforcement that abided by its sanctuary state dictates let the criminal go free a common practice in the Golden State, which promotes Democrats pro-immigration open borders agenda.

                              U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said they had lodged four separate detainer requests asking local authorities to hold Javier Hernandez-Morales for pickup after hed been booked for local charges at California jails, The Washington Times Stephen Dinan informed. Each request was refused, leaving him out on the streets on Sunday, when he tried to kill Napa County Sheriffs Deputy Riley Jarecki.

                              ICE released a public statement to expose the dangerous sanctuary state policies enforced by California police.

                              This incident may have been prevented if ICE had been notified about any of the multiple times Hernandez-Morales was released from local custody over the last few years, ICE proclaimed in a public statement, according to the Times. This is an impactful, scary example of how public safety is affected by laws or policies limiting local law enforcement agencies ability to cooperate with ICE.

                              The criminal alien lost his life after trying to assault a California officer on a traffic stop.

                              Hernandez-Morales was killed by Deputy Jarecki in Sundays shootout, which was captured on her body camera, Dinan noted. The footage shows her conversing with Hernandez-Morales, who was sitting in the drivers seat of a car. She asks him to roll the window down and he complies then pulls out a gun and opens fire. The deputy drew her gun and fired multiple shots, killing Hernandez-Morales.

                              It was also divulged that the illegal was a repeat offender having returned to California after being deported to Mexico numerous times.

                              California law enforcement officers evidently did not heed an earlier warning a few months ago about what can happen when they do not comply with ICE requests to detain criminal aliens.

                              In December, an illegal alien suspect and seven others were arrested in a fatal shooting of a California police officer an incident that was made possible due to Californias sanctuary state and city laws.

                              The arrest renewed criticism of sanctuary laws with a local sheriff suggesting that the state's efforts to protect undocumented immigrants could have contributed to the killing, The Washington Post divulged in a December 28 report. Gustavo Perez Arriaga a 32-year-old undocumented immigrant was charged with homicide in connection with the shooting death of 33-year-old Newman police officer Ronil Singh, according to law enforcement.

                              Similar to Hernandez-Moraless case, Arriaga was a repeat offender who was not brought to justice by California law enforcement officials.

                              Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson assailed sanctuary laws that limit state and local governments' cooperation with federal immigration agents, but he did not detail how those rules applied to Perezs case or how they would have prevented Singhs death, The Washington Posts Michael Brice-Saddler pointed out at the time. He said Perez Arriaga publicized his gang affiliation and had been arrested twice for driving under the influence, but did not provide additional details about those arrests.

                              Californias ultra-left sanctuary laws were blamed by police for the attack.

                              Law enforcement was prohibited because of sanctuary laws, and that led to the encounter with Officer Singh, Christianson stressed, according to the Post. Im suggesting that the outcome could have been different if law enforcement wasnt restricted, prohibited or had their hands tied because of political interference.

                              When criminal aliens pose a serious threat in California, local law enforcement must cooperate with ICE for tracking purposes.


                              Californias sanctuary laws contain exemptions for serious criminals, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement should receive notification of any arrest as well as fingerprints if an individual is booked and fingerprinted, Brice-Saddler explained.

                              https://onenewsnow.com/national-secu...murder-sheriff

                              ?


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
                                A yes or no question;

                                " Am I guilty of a crime if I allow a criminal to hide from law enforcement officers in my home ? "

                                What's the difference between what the state of California & its cities are doing and what I would be doing, hiding a criminal in my home ?

                                One of these crimes isn't it ?

                                Hindering Prosecution...Accessory After the Fact....harboring a fugitive from justice.....Aiding and abetting ?

                                The state is guilty of ONE of these !

                                "It was also divulged that the illegal was a repeat offender having returned to California after being deported to Mexico numerous times."

                                When a government entity becomes a criminal enterprise, or supports criminals, what are we to do ?

                                Vote ????

                                None of this makes sense.

                                Are these people in California suicidal ?

                                -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                Sanctuary state guarded illegal who tried to murder sheriff

                                Rejecting requests from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to take an illegal alien into custody, law enforcement officials in the sanctuary state of California let the criminal alien go before he attempted to slay a sheriffs deputy earlier this week.

                                A number of sanctuary cities in California moved to block the deportation of the illegal alien from Mexico allowing him to wage an attack against an officer, which was caught on camera.

                                Body camera footage from a traffic stop shows Javier Hernandez-Morales rolling down his window, grabbing a handgun and opening fire, according to the Napa County Sheriffs Office, The Washington Times reported. [The] man caught on body camera footage attempting to kill a California sheriffs deputy during a traffic stop this week had been deported three times before, but local officials had shielded him from ICE in recent years.

                                Despite ICEs attempt to subdue the Mexican alien, California law enforcement that abided by its sanctuary state dictates let the criminal go free a common practice in the Golden State, which promotes Democrats pro-immigration open borders agenda.

                                U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said they had lodged four separate detainer requests asking local authorities to hold Javier Hernandez-Morales for pickup after hed been booked for local charges at California jails, The Washington Times Stephen Dinan informed. Each request was refused, leaving him out on the streets on Sunday, when he tried to kill Napa County Sheriffs Deputy Riley Jarecki.

                                ICE released a public statement to expose the dangerous sanctuary state policies enforced by California police.

                                This incident may have been prevented if ICE had been notified about any of the multiple times Hernandez-Morales was released from local custody over the last few years, ICE proclaimed in a public statement, according to the Times. This is an impactful, scary example of how public safety is affected by laws or policies limiting local law enforcement agencies ability to cooperate with ICE.

                                The criminal alien lost his life after trying to assault a California officer on a traffic stop.

                                Hernandez-Morales was killed by Deputy Jarecki in Sundays shootout, which was captured on her body camera, Dinan noted. The footage shows her conversing with Hernandez-Morales, who was sitting in the drivers seat of a car. She asks him to roll the window down and he complies then pulls out a gun and opens fire. The deputy drew her gun and fired multiple shots, killing Hernandez-Morales.

                                It was also divulged that the illegal was a repeat offender having returned to California after being deported to Mexico numerous times.

                                California law enforcement officers evidently did not heed an earlier warning a few months ago about what can happen when they do not comply with ICE requests to detain criminal aliens.

                                In December, an illegal alien suspect and seven others were arrested in a fatal shooting of a California police officer an incident that was made possible due to Californias sanctuary state and city laws.

                                The arrest renewed criticism of sanctuary laws with a local sheriff suggesting that the state's efforts to protect undocumented immigrants could have contributed to the killing, The Washington Post divulged in a December 28 report. Gustavo Perez Arriaga a 32-year-old undocumented immigrant was charged with homicide in connection with the shooting death of 33-year-old Newman police officer Ronil Singh, according to law enforcement.

                                Similar to Hernandez-Moraless case, Arriaga was a repeat offender who was not brought to justice by California law enforcement officials.

                                Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson assailed sanctuary laws that limit state and local governments' cooperation with federal immigration agents, but he did not detail how those rules applied to Perezs case or how they would have prevented Singhs death, The Washington Posts Michael Brice-Saddler pointed out at the time. He said Perez Arriaga publicized his gang affiliation and had been arrested twice for driving under the influence, but did not provide additional details about those arrests.

                                Californias ultra-left sanctuary laws were blamed by police for the attack.

                                Law enforcement was prohibited because of sanctuary laws, and that led to the encounter with Officer Singh, Christianson stressed, according to the Post. Im suggesting that the outcome could have been different if law enforcement wasnt restricted, prohibited or had their hands tied because of political interference.

                                When criminal aliens pose a serious threat in California, local law enforcement must cooperate with ICE for tracking purposes.


                                Californias sanctuary laws contain exemptions for serious criminals, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement should receive notification of any arrest as well as fingerprints if an individual is booked and fingerprinted, Brice-Saddler explained.

                                https://onenewsnow.com/national-secu...murder-sheriff
                                Yeah, sanctuary cities don't make sense to me.
                                It seems illegal to thwart federal law enforcement offices from completing their duties, on the technicality of consumption of resources at the state and local level. <*roll eyes*> Seems like a load of bullshit to me.
                                But the courts have ruled that cities and states can implement those policies.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X