Lying sack of shit has nothing to do with it.
American hater let his mouth overload his ass and now his overloaded ego won't let him admit his error.

Lying sack of shit is american hater on most other threads he dumps on.

 

Reality will not be bullied here.

And I rest my case. Treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republicans can personally attack and name call because they are fair haired boys protected by the the administration. But what they can never so is just answer simple straightforward questions.

And actually treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republicans have already answered that question. Trump is calling for states to send troops to the southern border to kill federal agents that try to cur razor wire. Treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republicans including the ones you see right here are cheering militias heading to the boarder under the name of God to keep the federal government from enforcing a Supreme Cort ruling.

I would ask how they can hate the United States of America that much. But when you are dealing with people that cheer Trump kidnapping innocent migrant children and drowning them with razor wire it would be redundant. Because all they have is hate incommoding hate of humanity.

 

We see desperation set in.
American hater tries to quote the following case to support his lie that unacompanied minors are forced into court without lawyers.
American hater either did not read the case or is counting on no one else reading it.

C.J.L.G., a juvenile male v Jefferson B. Sessions, III
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth District
Argued August 8, 2017
Filed January 29, 2018
No. 16-73801

Fail.
The court happily pointed out that not only was the plaintiff NOT denied counsel, the cout went to great lengths encouraging him to get counsel.

Fail.
Again

Diversion.
Fail.
Again.

American hater loves nothing more than to attack all things American and criticize whatever doesn't fit his agenda of open borders, anti semitism, anti conservative and socialism.
And he has no hesitation about lying when he does it.

"But when you are dealing with people that cheer Trump kidnapping innocent migrant children and drowning them with razor wire it would be redundant. Because all they have is hate incommoding hate of humanity."
​

Fail.
Again

 

Shooter is contemplating challenging American hater to provide one case of:

"Trump kidnapping innocent migrant children and drowning them with razor wire".​

But nah, the coward can run his mouth and spew incredible lies until he's called on them.
Then he spews and bloviates for a couple of days, declares himself winner, and runs more lies out.

Like shooter has said many times before;
Pigeons chess

 

More like traitors vs patriots.


GOP Invokes Nullification In Border Standoff Between The U.S. And Texas
Paul Blumenthal
Fri, January 26, 2024 at 3:37 PM MST·8 min read
706

• 
  

Texas Gov. leaving the page." data-wf-tooltip-position="bottom">Greg Abbott’s defiant statement on Wednesday rejecting the federal government’s authority to enforce immigration law at the U.S.-Mexico border ratcheted up the already tense stand-off between the state and the Biden administration — and signaled how fully the GOP has become the party of the Southern conservatives it was founded to fight.

Abbott’s declaration that that the Biden administration had “broken the compact between the United States and the States” by failing to “fulfill the duties” of protecting Texas from an “invasion” is an eerie echo of the political thought that gave rise to nullification and secession in the 19th century and resistance to desegregation in the 20th.

Prior to the Civil War, the prevailing view among Southern elites was that the Constitution of the United States of America was merely a compact between the states. Under this theory, states could decide which national laws to follow or not. And, in extreme circumstances, states could exit that compact and secede, if they decided the national government or other states had violated it.

While this framework was endorsed in some fashion by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, the political thinker who most influenced Southern secessionists and, later, segregationists was John C. Calhoun.

Calhoun — who held various offices, including South Carolina senator, secretary of state, secretary of war and vice president — embraced a virulent strand of states-rights legal thinking in defense of slavery when he put forward his theory of nullification in 1828. Since the nation was simply a compact created between the states, this thinking went, states had the ultimate authority to reject federal law they deemed unconstitutional. In 1832, Calhoun’s South Carolina declared that it would not follow two national tariff laws, and, if forced to do so, would secede.

Calhoun’s ideas formed the theory behind the sectional crisis of the 1850s over the admission of new states as either free or slave. That compromise ultimately led to the South’s secession, following President Abraham Lincoln’s election in 1860.


Texas National Guard soldiers stand guard at an entrance to Shelby Park on Jan. 12, 2024 in Eagle Pass where they are blocking Border Patrol from accessing the Rio Grande River.

One hundred years later, segregationists — then, mostly conservative Southern Democrats — yet again invoked compact theory and nullification in their campaign of “massive resistance” to the Supreme Court’s desegregation order in Brown v. Board of Education.

But with Abbot’s action in Texas, the Republican Party has taken up the old Southern standard of nullification. In refusing to allow Customs and Border Patrol to exercise its authority to enforce federal immigration law at Eagle Pass, Abbott embraced compact theory and nullification. Nearly the entire Republican Party has joined him, with 25 of 26 GOP governors sided with Abbott in a letter, declaring, “Texas has every legal justification to protect the sovereignty of our states and our nation.” There has been little to no protest from other elements of the party.

Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump, the de facto leader of the GOP and frontrunner for its presidential nomination, called on “all willing states to deploy their guards to Texas to prevent the entry of illegals and to remove them back across the border.”

The standoff began after Texas constructed razor wire fencing along the Mexico border, including the placement of razor wire-covered buoys in the Rio Grande River. In order to aid and detain migrants who appeared to be in physical danger after crossing the border, Border Patrol agents had been cutting the razor wire to reach them.

The state of Texas sued in federal court to block Border Patrol from cutting the razor wire fencing. A district court judge ruled against Texas, but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, stacked with hard-right conservatives, issued a preliminary injunction blocking the district court ruling while it heard the case. This meant the Border Patrol could not cut the razor wire to retrieve the migrants, preventing agents from enforcing federal law.

The situation escalated on Jan. 11, when Abbott ordered the Texas National Guard to take control of a park in Eagle Pass, on the state’s border with Mexico. The state guards were ordered to erect concertina wire to prevent Border Patrol officers from accessing the park and aiding and detaining any migrants who might be in physical peril. Subsequently, three migrants — a woman and two children — drowned to death near Eagle Pass.


Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, said that the Biden administration had
Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, said that the Biden administration had "broken the compact between the United States and the states" with it immigration policy.

The Biden administration appealed the 5th Circuit’s preliminary injunction to the Supreme Court. In an unwritten ruling, five justices overruled the appeals court’s injunction, allowing Border Patrol to again cut the wire. This decision also directly covered cover Border Patrol’s access at the park in Eagle Pass.

Following the high court’s decision, Abbott issued a statement claiming that Texas would still not allow Border Patrol into the park. While not explicitly declaring that he would violate the ruling, it was here that Abbott made clear his inheritance of the Southern legacy of nullification and secession.

Texas’ ability to “defend and protect itself” from migrants is “the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary,” Abbott said.

This is effectively a contemporary twist on Calhoun’s nullification. The problem is that states do not have the right to supersede federal statutory authority. This question has been settled three times — in 1832, 1865 and the mid-20th century — each time in favor of the federal government.

Abbott’s constitutional reading is similarly weak. His argument centers on a provision of the Constitution that prevents states from taking actions reserved for the federal government — like engaging in independent foreign policy, entering into compacts with other states or printing their own currency — except in certain situations. One of those exceptions is that states may not “engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

This is why Abbott declared migrant crossings to be an “invasion.” But immigration does not amount to an invasion, and putting up concertina wire is not engaging in war.

This provision was meant to provide states with the ability to “engage in War” if they were invaded by, say, the British or French from Canada, the French from the Louisiana territory or the Spanish from Florida, at a time when the country didn’t have a standing army and mobilization and transportation were limited. James Madison, one of the key architects of the Constitution, said as much in 1800.

In debates over the ability of the government to expel non-citizens from countries the U.S. was not at war with, Madison rebutted the use of the very constitutional provision Abbott cites as an authority enabling such expulsion.

“It is said, that the right of removing aliens is an incident to the power of war, vested in Congress by the constitution,” Madison wrote. “This is a former argument in a new shape only; and is answered by repeating, that the removal of alien enemies is an incident to the power of war; that the removal of alien friends, is not an incident to the power of war.”


Former vice president and South Carolina Sen. John C. Calhoun was the intellectual and political architect of the theory of nullification.
Former vice president and South Carolina Sen. John C. Calhoun was the intellectual and political architect of the theory of nullification.

The U.S. is not at war with Mexico. Nor is at war with any of the Central or South American states where the vast majority of migrants originate.

Furthermore, federal law is supreme over state law on immigration. Since the late 19th century, courts have held that the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution provides the federal government with the “sovereign” authority to regulate immigration. Whether one thinks this granting of authority is correct or not can be debated, but it remains standing precedent. In addition, the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause prohibits states from interfering or superseding areas of the law where the federal government has constitutional authority.

This is all pretty clear. The federal government is supreme over immigration law. The states cannot simply ignore federal immigration law or federal authority to enforce immigration law because they disagree.

While Abbott’s over-the-top rhetoric mirrors that of nullifiers, he has so far not actually violated the Supreme Court’s decision. We remain far from the constitutional crises that preceded the Civil War. The court’s ruling simply allowed the Border Patrol to cut the razor wire while imposing no requirements on Texas. That could change as the court case moves forward and Texas is asked to change its actions.

One possible resolution to the standoff could involve Biden federalizing the Texas National Guard, overriding their orders from Abbott and making them open the park at Eagle Pass to Border Patrol. This was the solution President Dwight Eisenhower chose in 1957, when Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus sought to nullify the Supreme Court desegregation order and use the state’s national guard to block Black students from accessing Little Rock schools.

There are, of course, other solutions. In 1832, while President Andrew Jackson threatened to go to war with South Carolina, his administration and others engaged in negotiations to prevent the state’s secession. The parties ultimately prevented the state from leaving the union by agreeing to amend the tariff laws South Carolina had declared it would disregard.

Abbott’s use of nullification rhetoric — and the Republican Party’s broader embrace of it — may turn out to be all bluster when the courts ultimately rule on the issues at the heart of the standoff. But his statement provides yet another example of how far Republicans have strayed from their origins.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-invokes-nullification-border-standoff-223714923.html

 

A full page of bloviation trying to tie Abbott's approach to that of the vermin in the civil war.
Fail.
The difference fundamentally is that in the Civil War the states were fighting about their right to self govern their affairs against the interference of the Federal Government trying to tell them how to live their lives.

The current situation differs in one important detail; Abbott is insisting that the Federal government actually do it's job of securing the border, and if they won't then he will. Along with 26 other states who are backing Abbott. And 6 MILLION ILLEGAL MIGRANTS welcomed into the country by the brandon administration are all the justification Abbott needs.

 

You might notice the mythical lie about the Civil War. It was about r right to self govern their affairs against the interference of the Federal Government trying to tell them how to live their lives. Well no that is just a stupid ignorant disgusting lie. The Civil War was about preserving slavery. It was about the southern states refusing to accept Abraham Lincoln as president. And so they attacked the north.

Which is the same thing we are seeing here right now. Treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republicans refusing to accept President Biden and federal authority. While the last thing they are willing to do is anything that might actually help solve the problem. They want civil war. Americans killing Americans because Joe Biden is president. That is how much they literally hate the United States of America and every great thing it has ever stood for.

And that is why we will not see an answer to this very simple question.

But think about that. Because there is always a double edged sword. Suppose the Supreme Court says Trump has to remain on state ballots for the presidential election. If Texas and Abbot can refuse to comply with a Supreme Court decision then so can the states claiming Trump is guilty or insurrection and keep him off the ballot.

And in the meantime keep looking at those who want American bloodshed because Joe Biden got elected president.







Maria Bartiromo excited for border conflict: 'Is this going to turn into a civil war?'

David Edwards
January 28, 2024 10:54AM ET



Fox News/screen grab





Fox News host Maria Bartiromo teased a possible conflict between the federal government and Texas as the start of a new civil war.

During a Sunday interview on Fox News, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) vowed to defy the federal government by putting razor wire along the border.

"You know, the founders never dreamed we'd have a president like this one who would just open the door to everyone, and they said, well, invasion if an army came," Patrick said. "Well, we're facing an army."

"And they're well-armed, they're well-coordinated, they're making millions and millions of dollars off of Joe Biden," he said. "Don't mess with Texas."

ALSO READ: Autocracy and democracy are on a collision course

Patrick claimed that Biden stood down instead of confronting Texas officials about the razor wire.

"Because, I mean, what is this going to turn into a civil war?" Bartiromo asked excitedly. "I mean, you've got the Texas rights versus federal rights, both sides with guns."

"And we believe constitutionally we are right," Patrick replied. "We have a right to defend our citizens, we have a right to defend this country, and we're just doing the job."





https://www.rawstory.com/maria-bartiromo-civil-war/

 

One case.
One.

 

Cruelty is the point.


‘Just Shoot Migrants In the Legs’: House Democrat Roasts Trump’s ‘Border Plan’ in House Hearing
Alex GriffingJan 30th, 2024, 6:00 pm


Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA) tore into former President Donald Trump and the House GOP on Tuesday during a Judiciary Committee hearing on the crisis at the southern border.

Garcia lit into the Republicans for trying to scuttle a bipartisan deal from the U.S. Senate at the behest of Trump before the deal has even been finalized. While blasting the GOP for refusing to consider actual policy reforms to strengthen the border, Garcia took aim at past proposals from Trump.

“I want to remind the public that Donald Trump and House Republicans also have their own ideas for the border,” the California Democrat began with a visual aid behind him.


“So let’s review the majority’s border ideas that they’ve actually presented. Here they are. Donald Trump actually has said that he wants to build alligator moats along the border,” Garcia said pointing to the graphic behind him, adding:

That’s one of his incredible ideas. Another idea that Donald Trump has promoted, is he actually wants to electrify the border fence and maybe even put some spikes on the border. That’s another Donald Trump and MAGA majority border idea. Another idea, which I’m not sure how well it would go, is he wants to actually bomb northern Mexico with missiles. That’s another Trump idea. And finally, I think one of the ones that I think is the most grotesque is suggestions that instead, we should maybe just shoot migrants in the legs as they cross the border.

So once again, the Donald Trump and MAGA plan is alligator moats, bombing northern Mexico, shooting migrants in the legs, and electrifying the fence, and putting spikes on them. That is the Donald Trump border plan. And so again, we are here today with these horrific ideas being presented constantly by the former president.

“This is all about trying to get Donald Trump reelected. Donald Trump himself is saying he wants no solutions this year out of the Congress. And Secretary Mayorkas and President Biden continue to offer solutions every day and are ready to actually talk about real immigration and border solutions in this country,” Garcia concluded.

The ideas from Trump that Garcia referenced were widely reported in 2019 as former and current Trump White House aides began to recall them to the media. The New York Times reported in October of 2019:

Privately, the president had often talked about fortifying a border wall with a water-filled trench, stocked with snakes or alligators, prompting aides to seek a cost estimate. He wanted the wall electrified, with spikes on top that could pierce human flesh. After publicly suggesting that soldiers shoot migrants if they threw rocks, the president backed off when his staff told him that was illegal. But later in a meeting, aides recalled, he suggested that they shoot migrants in the legs to slow them down. That’s not allowed either, they told him.

Watch the clip above via C-SPAN.


https://www.mediaite.com/politics/j...t-roasts-trumps-border-plan-in-house-hearing/

 

Of all his ideas, the alligator ditch is the most creative. DuhSantis would surely help catch Florida gators to stock the ditch. Shoot em in the legs is obvious, as is electric fencing. Even spikes has already been done.

 

I actually supported the moat full of alligators and poisonous snakes. Many if not most of the migrants heading north are starving to begin with. So the US government providing a food source for them would actually be humanitarian.

 

And wouldn't they be stylish in alligator cowboy boots.

 

One.
Just one, american hater.

Court, name, date, case citation.

Meanwhile, we see that the ILLEGAL MIGRANTS are getting a bit more aggressive.
You know who we're talking about, those poor, desperate, hard working, humble ILLEGAL MIGRANTS who came to America at Biden's invite to see a better life, who were welcomed, handed free medical care, free housing, free food, and free laundry and told to "have a nice life".
The ones the heartless deplorables want deported now.
Well, you can watch them gang up on the cops, and learn that they were actually arrested, then released "on bail" (despite being ILLEGAL MIGRANTS subject to deportation.
And if you search for it you can even see one of those ILLEGAL MIGRANTS released on bail showing his appreciation for his new life in America by "saluting" us. With, you know, his middle fingers.​

7 arrested in attack on NYPD officers near migrant shelter in Times Square - CBS New York (cbsnews.com)

NEW YORK -- Two more suspects are under arrest Thursday for allegedly attacking two NYPD officers outside a migrant center in Times Square.

So far, police have arrested seven of the 12 suspects accused in the attack on Jan. 27, but NYPD officials have blasted the Manhattan District Attorney's Office after some were set free on bail.

Surveillance video showed a group of men assaulting officers in front of a migrant center on West 42nd Street, police said.

The video appeared to show two officers in a struggle with a man wearing yellow, followed by a barrage of people taking turns punching and kicking a lieutenant and another officer.

"You want to know why our cops are getting assaulted? There's no consequences and we must change this," said NYPD Chief of Patrol John Chell.

The Manhattan DA's Office said it needs more time to review surveillance video and talk to more witnesses to assess each suspect's role in the attack.

"Violence against police officers is never acceptable. It is paramount that we conclusively identify each defendant and specify each participant's role in the incident," a spokesperson for Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg said.

The NYPD said many of the men involved were 19 to 24-year-old migrants staying at city shelters.

Gov. Kathy Hochul joined the chorus of displeased voices and weighed in on whether the suspects should be deported.

"I think that's absolutely something that should be looked at. I mean, if someone commits a crime against a police officer in the state of New York, and they're not here legally, definitely worth checking into," said Hochul.

Bragg's office said the five suspects released without bail face up to seven years in prison. The second degree assault charge is a felony.

<iframe width="660" height="371" src="" title="5 arrested after attack on NYPD officers in Times Square" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

GOP Governors Invoke the Confederate Theory of Secession to Justify Border Violations
Mark Joseph Stern
Fri, January 26, 2024 at 9:40 AM MST·6 min read
3.8k

This week, Republican governors across the country escalated their conflict with the Biden administration over the southern border by invoking the same legal theory that slave states wielded to justify secession before the Civil War. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, joined by 25 other GOP governors, now argues that the Biden administration has violated the federal government’s “compact” with the states—an abdication that justifies state usurpation of federal authority at the border. This language embraces the Confederacy’s conception of the Constitution as a mere compact that states may exit when they feel it has been broken. It’s dangerous rhetoric that transcends partisan grandstanding. And as before, it’s being used to legitimize both nullification and dehumanization.

Consider the very first line of a statement Abbott issued on Wednesday that was subsequently backed by the other Republicans, which states, “The federal government has broken the compact between the United States and the states.” That language is strikingly similar to the very first line of the secession ordinances passed by slave states when they purported to leave the union. Most of these ordinances began with a declaration that the state sought “to dissolve the union” that was “united under the compact” known as the Constitution. It was this “compact”—not national sovereignty, but a contract among states and the federal government—that constituted the United States of America. The secession ordinances asserted that the federal government, and the president especially, owed certain constitutional duties to the states under this contract. It had allegedly abdicated those duties by threatening to restrict slavery and disrespecting the rights of Southern states in other ways inextricably linked to the maintenance of white supremacy. Any state, these ordinances concluded, was therefore entitled to depart the union and become “free and independent” once more.

leaving the page." data-wf-tooltip-position="bottom">President Abraham Lincoln was staunchly opposed this so-called compact theory. As he explained in his first inaugural address, “The Union of these States is perpetual” under the Constitution. The United States do not form a compact, but are a “country” bound together by “national fabric.” This argument provided the entire justification for the war in its early years, which Lincoln initially framed as a battle against secession, not slavery. (“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it,” he wrote in 1862, “and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it.”) The union that Lincoln hoped to save was an agreement between the sovereign people of the United States, not the states themselves. And so, the president argued, the people of a particular state could not break away of their own volition.


Here, Lincoln drew on an impressive historical pedigree: Sen. Daniel Webster’s rejection of the compact theory during the nullification crisis of 1833. That crisis, too, has uncanny parallels with Abbott’s misunderstanding of federal supremacy today: South Carolina insisted on its right to nullify a tariff enacted by Congress, much like the Texas governor seeks a right to nullify statutes that give Border Patrol authority over the southern border. “No State authority,” Webster proclaimed, “can dissolve the relations subsisting between the government of the United States and individuals.” That relationship was secured by the Constitution, and the states have no prerogative to undermine it, even in the name of supposed injustice or emergency.

Webster’s theory prevailed in 1833, and Lincoln’s carried the day in 1865 with the surrender of the Confederacy. Now, however, Abbott appears to disagree with both men. His letter faulted Biden for his “illegal refusal to protect the states” from migrants, failing to “perform his constitutional duties” by detaining every unauthorized migrant. By doing so, Biden purportedly broke the “compact” between the federal government and the states, freeing Texas to supplant federal authority at the border. Or, in Abbott’s words, to exercise its “constitutional authority to defend and protect itself.” (The statement by 25 other GOP governors says almost exactly the same thing.)

For further support, these governors invoked the Constitution’s invasion clause. But this is, at best, a distraction. The invasion clause clarifies that states may not “engage in war” without Congress’ consent “unless actually invaded.” It was intended to let states defend themselves against foreign armies—hence the word war—until the federal government had a chance to respond. James Madison himself said that immigration does not constitute an “invasion,” as the term implied the “operation of war.” No matter how bellicose their rhetoric, Republican governors cannot seriously argue that they are at war with migrants under any constitutional definition of the term. The invasion clause simply does not give states license to usurp federal policy or interfere with federal law enforcement.

So the “invasion” language, which Donald Trump repeated on Thursday, is probably best understood as window dressing for the primary legal theory underpinning Republican governors’ claims: that the United States constitutes a compact, and Biden’s violation of this compact triggers a state’s right to supplant federal authority, by force when necessary. It’s difficult to believe that the similarities between this theory and those of the Confederacy are mere coincidence. Either way, the resemblance speaks volumes about Abbott’s dangerous undertaking at the border. The governor vocally despises migrants, almost all of them nonwhite, who are seeking asylum in the United States. At every turn, he depicts them as less than human, violent criminals exploiting the country’s generosity to destroy it from within.

What does it look like when secessionist theory is weaponized against a 21st-century president? We have already begun to find out. For months, the Texas National Guard was engaged in an armed standoff with federal law enforcement, as well as active duty service members, at the Rio Grande: Guardsmen used razor wire to fence off the border, preventing federal access to migrants, even those in severe medical distress. On Monday, by a 5–4 vote, the Supreme Court lifted an injunction that prevented federal officers from cutting through this razor wire. But Abbott says his state will “defend and protect itself” by continued use of force, raising the very real possibility of ongoing clashes between state and federal law enforcement. Whether these disputes turn violent is anyone’s guess. The belligerent governor, though, has conspicuously declined to rule out use of force against anyone who stands in his way.

Vicious nativism is certainly not a perfect comparison to the totalitarian white supremacy that drove the slave states to Civil War, but it, too, springs from the diseased roots of bigotry, fear, and rage. It should be no surprise, then, that Abbott and his allies would adopt Confederate rhetoric in his quest to seize control over the border and subject migrants to anguish and death. By embracing the Confederate theory of the nation as a mere compact, he has freed himself to take even more aggressive measures against the federal government. We have been here before. It does not end well.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-governors-invoke-confederate-theory-164012921.html

 

The biden administration is learning that open borders is not a policy that states will put up with.

Biden and the despicables might be willing to sell American sovereignty to the highest bidder but at least 26 states are not.

 

The cruelty is the point. The last thing Trump and treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republicans want to do is anything that might actually help solve what they call a crisis at the southern border. They enjoy the chaos and suffering and instead try to come up with more sadistic ways of killing or crippling migrants.


GOP Congressman Shocks With ‘Pinochet Air’ Idea For Migrant, Then Makes It Worse
Lee Moran
Fri, February 2, 2024 at 5:51 AM MST·3 min read
682

• 
  

Rep. Mike Collins (R-Ga.) on Thursday sparked anger with his suggestion that murderous tactics that were deployed by the Chilean dictatorship of leaving the page." data-wf-tooltip-position="bottom" data-wf-reset-every="90">Augusto Pinochet be used on a reported undocumented migrant.

On Wednesday, a migrant was caught on camera flipping off journalists soon after his release without bail following his arraignment over his alleged involvement in a group attack on New York Police Department officers, the New York Daily News reports.

Rep. Anthony D’Esposito (R-N.Y.) shared a photograph of the incident and wrote, “We feel the same way about you. Holla at the cartels and have them escort you back.”

Collins quote-tweeted D’Esposito’s post on his congressional X, formerly Twitter, account and suggested, “Or we could buy him a ticket on Pinochet Air for a free helicopter ride back.”


“Pinochet Air” referred to the so-called “death flights” conducted by the secret police of Pinochet’s military dictatorship, during which critics and dissidents disappeared after being thrown out of helicopters into the ocean and rivers.

Collins’ post was reportedly initially removed from the platform. The congressman issued a plea to X owner Elon Musk on his personal account, writing: “What is @elonmusk phone number? He’s apparently got a few more folks to fire! Help me #FreeCollins.”


The original post was reinstated with a note from X that read: “This Post violated the X Rules. However, X has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the Post to remain accessible.”

Afterward, Collins appeared to double down when he wrote on his X congressional profile, “I’m back. Never delete. Never surrender.”


MSNBC’s Chris Hayes was among critics of the lawmaker’s post.

“I think sitting members of congress calling for murdering people using the Pinochet regime’s preferred method of dropping them out of helicopters is really not great,” wrote the “All In” anchor.

Others agreed.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-congressman-shocks-pinochet-air-125153274.html

 

Watching american hater crawl up on his high moral ground to defend biden's open border policy while posting lies about despicables is not unexpected.
But the delusion is breath taking.

For starters, american hater, even biden has finally admitted there's a crisis at the border.
Biden finally admits: There’s a crisis at the border (msn.com)

Course, he's bundling the crisis with his Ukraine and Israel funding. We know he really doesn't give much of a poop about the border, in fact smart money is betting that the reason he hasn't closed the border already has nothing to do with his authority to do so, but rather that his handlers (read Soros) don't want the border closed.

But brandon does want that Ukraine money. He's got cronies to pay off and blackmail threats to neutralize.

So tell us, american hater, your incessant spew about the crisis being a deplorable thing is all based on them not wanting to give brandon his payoff money along with "fixing" the border crisis, isn't it? Everyone already knows the crisis is brandon's fault, in fact it was his plan from the beginning, but then never waste a crisis, eh?

The corrupt old man has stated he gets his payoff money along with "immigration reform" or he'll veto whatever lands on his desk, isn't that so? And that pretty much puts lie to your claim that brandon is hard at work solving the border crisis, but he's being thwarted by those pesky deplorables, eh?

Tying payoffs to securing our borders.
And then spinning it to blame deplorables.

You can't hate America much more than that, can you?

 

Watch: GOP senator punches hole in claim that Trump totally secured the border

Travis Gettys
February 5, 2024 12:53PM ET







Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) cleared up some misconceptions about border security during Donald Trump's presidency.

The Oklahoma Republican has been leading negotiations on a bipartisan Senate border agreement that House speaker Mike Johnson has promised to kill if it passes the upper chamber, and Lankford said President Joe Biden should be doing more to stop the flood of migrants crossing the border – but he said Trump's record wasn't much better.

"Obviously we want to be able to stop the chaos at the border," Lankford said. "We had the worst month ever in the history of the country in December. The response of that is changing how we handle asylum doing our catch-and-release, doing a new system where we don't have this 10-year backlog. We quickly turn people around, building more wall, adding more detention beds, doubling the deportation flights. I mean, it's a dramatic shift, and people are focused on one or two areas and saying, 'I don't like that area,' and they're ignoring all of the rest of it and literally saying I'd rather do nothing."


"Now I have had folks that have said the president has the authority to do and he's not doing it – that is 100 percent true," Lankford added. "Biden is not using the authorities he currently has, but I would also remind folks during the Trump administration we also had days of more than 4,000 people that were illegally crossing the border under the Trump administration in 2019, and they were struggling because there's gaps and loopholes in the law."

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-border-security/

 

Ah. We see what they're doing there.

Lankford and Schumer got together and did the old backroom deal cutting and now the media can't find enough ways to praise Lankford.

He's being quoted in many liberal rags along the same lines that Liz Cheney was when she agreed to be the front for the star chamber thingy. Liz should have talked with Dr. Ford and Diane Feinstein before she jumped, and Lankford should pull Liz aside and ask how that worked out for her.

Whatever Lankford is doing, we need to remember that only a few short years ago Lankford was on the despicable hit list for opposing brandon's vaccination mandates. Despicables called him a baby killer for that one.

And last year despicables twirled and puked on their shoes when Lankford said he was "not just working to make abortion illegal across the country, he wants to make abortion unthinkable.” Shumer especially was upset with that. He declared "We mourn the fact that millions of women and girls now have fewer rights than their mothers and grandmothers. We mourn the loss of individual freedom. We mourn the loss of a woman’s right to choose.”

But now that Lankford endorses the mislabeled immigration reform bill, he's the despicables fair haired boy. And apparently Shumer is man enough to set aside abortion and vaccination issues to work with Lankford to secure our borders.

 

'Fascist violence': Internet erupts after GOP lawmaker calls for murdering immigrants

Matthew Chapman
February 1, 2024 6:06PM ET



Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA) leaves a House Republican Conference meeting on\u00a0Nov.\u00a02. Collins violated the STOCK Act with two late disclosures of cryptocurrency.\u00a0Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images




Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA) caused a blowup on the social media site X on Thursday following a post in which he suggested immigrants should be given rides on "Pinochet Air" — a reference to a Chilean dictator whose armed forces tossed kidnapped dissidents out of helicopters on "death flights" over the Pacific Ocean.

"I think sitting members of congress calling for murdering people using the Pinochet regime's preferred method of dropping them out of helicopters is really not great," wrote MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes Thursday.

ALSO READ: ‘Abuse’: Politicians are fretting about AI stealing their faces and voices

"We wonder why the right wingers aren't freaking out about Trump's dictator talk but we shouldn't," wrote Pete Fuller, the chair of the Jackson County, Georgia Democrats. "The hard right would love Trump taking over dictatorial powers and to start disappearing the people that are inconvenient to them — as nepobaby Mike Collins demonstrates."

"Congressman Mike Collins from Georgia is literally threatening people with fascist violence," wrote newsletter writer "Ash J."

Perhaps one of the most spirited responses came from Collins himself, who posted from his personal account after his "Pinochet Air" post was taken down for violating the X rules and his campaign account was temporarily locked.

"What is @elonmusk phone number?" wrote Collins. "He's apparently got a few more folks to fire! Help me #FreeCollins."



https://www.rawstory.com/fascist-violence-mike-collins/