Obama tramples Constitution again with plan to fund lawyers for illegal kids

It amazes me how quickly we move from crisis to crisis with the Obama administration. Some time ago, we were glued to the news watching massive numbers of illegal aliens crossing our border, and somehow they’ve all just disappeared. Well, they always say follow the money — and it tells quite a story.

As the Washington Times reports, “The Obama administration will pay $9 million over the next two years to give taxpayer-funded attorneys to some of the illegal immigrant children who have surged across the U.S. border this year, the Health and Human Services Department said Tuesday. About 2,600 immigrants will be able to be represented by lawyers thanks to the funds, which were awarded in two grants to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, according to a notice to be published in the Federal Register on Thursday.”

Wait a minute. It was just last week that Obama and his pen declared illegal aliens will be allowed to enlist in our military. Quite perplexing at a time when we’re “pink slipping” active duty members. I guess Obama prefers illegals? Where is the $9 million for our own warriors?

Just as a reminder, the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 declares that only the Congress can take action on matters of naturalization — but I guess “What difference at this point does it make?” — you know, that ol’ constitution thing.

Always looking to appease his political base, the Times says “illegal alien advocates cheered the decision, which they’d been demanding for months, saying it will not only help the children get a fair hearing on asylum claims, but it will also make the court proceedings go faster, which will end up saving the government money.”

And we have written previously on the DoJ decision about the whole asylum issue, which is just another means to backdoor our system.

According to the Washington Times, “administration critics in Congress said the move could violate federal law and will most likely prolong illegal immigrants’ time in the U.S., encouraging more children to make the dangerous crossing.”

“To end the surge at the border, the Obama administration should instead focus its efforts on deterring future border crossers and enforcing the laws against illegal entry into the United States,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Virginia Republican. “Without such actions, the flood of people attempting to cross the border illegally will only continue.” The administration’s move marks another effort to circumvent Congress.”

Sorry Chairman Goodlatte, this is exactly what Obama intends to do — flood the country with illegals — after all, that’s what he promised the radical Hispanic groups such as LULAC and La Raza. And this is being done quietly so as to not upset the midterm elections — but alas, we here will continue to expose the nefarious intents of Barack Hussein Obama and his progressive socialist acolytes. Yesterday, we asked the question about the correlation between the mysterious respiratory illness affecting our children and the influx of these illegal alien children. Makes you wonder…

Clearly Obama cares only about his progressive socialist agenda and legacy — not about American children who have dreams.

The Times reports that “Obama had requested $15 million to provide lawyers for the children in his emergency spending request earlier this summer, but Congress left town without approving the money.”

So I suppose he just appropriated the funds himself? Again, only Congress appropriates funds — there I go again with that Constitutional responsibility thing. And talk about “home cooking” — the Washington metropolitan region, with its high population of Central American immigrants, has taken an outsize number of the children, so it’s not surprising the Baltimore/Arlington region is one of eight areas that will get the money for lawyers. The other seven are: Los Angeles, Houston, Miami, Dallas, Memphis, Tennessee, New Orleans and Phoenix. The Catholic bishops and USCRI will decide which children get lawyers. The Times says neither organization returned messages seeking comment on Tuesday about how they would spend the money.

Methinks any organization receiving American taxpayer funds should be responsive to inquiry — just sayin’. And where is the Freedom from Religion Foundation or the American Humanist Association on this? Seems to me this is truly an example of a violation of separation of church and state. And this is about a religious organization receiving American taxpayer dollars — state dollars — to do political bidding, that ain’t right! The statue at the Madison County high school which has FFRF and AHA all up in arms was donated by private funds, so c’mon, you mean to tell me this doesn’t represent the same “political activity” that the FFRF settled with the IRS in a lawsuit?

Oops, forgot, if it’s about progressive socialists or Islamo-fascists they can do anything they want since the secular humanists find it so much easier to attack Christians and their faith. Hey, FFRF and AHA, you guys suck, really, I mean that because here we have a serious violation of the Constitution and you’re saying nothing. I bet if a Christian organization got American taxpayer funding to support pro-life you’d all be up in freakin’ arms.

Ladies and gents, I present to you just another reason to vote out all Democrats that you can in November and remember that the progressive socialists, Islamo-fascists and secular humanists have all aligned themselves against our Constitutional Republic. Time to fight back.

439 COMMENTS

  1. What’s the point here? West is all over the place, jumping from one naked allegation to another. Let’s inject some facts and see where that takes us.

    1) The illegals that will be allowed into the military will come in through the Congressionally approved and funded Military Accessions in the National Interest, or MAVNI. Very few illegals will qualify, as they will need to have a special skill such as a needed language to get in. West lied to you when he made it seem that Obama is tossing out Citizens in favor of illegals. No citizen with these special skills will be kicked out. Further, these limited slots are only open to immigrants without a proper visa if they came to the U.S. with their parents before age 16. More specifically, they must be approved under a 2012 Obama administration policy known as Deferred Action for Child Arrivals, or DACA. The logic is this: if they have approval from the executive branch to stay, then they are not undocumented. The fast-track to citizenship program was approved by Congress and is open to anyone here who is not undocumented. Therefore the DACA immigrants qualify for the congressionally approved MAVNI program, if they have the right skills. I’m not sure that is a good decision, but that’s the HONEST account of what the president is doing, in sharp contrast to the half-truths and hysteria West pumped our way.

    2) The money Obama is spending is money approved by Congress for grants to non-profits to support US interests. It could not be diverted to the military. Budgets don’t work that way. Either West was asleep when he got his cup of coffee in the House or he’s lying when he declares otherwise. To recap – the money was funded by Congress and no, it could not be given to the military.

    3) Funding programs to entities run by religious organizations does not automatically offend the Constitution’s Establishment or Free Exercise clauses. This has been the law in the United States since Bradfield v. Roberts , 175 U.S. 291 (1899), West whines about the atheists not complaining … but that’s on him. It’s not the fault of the atheists that they know the law and West does not.
    At this point West should be embarrassed. thoroughly, absolutely embarrassed by his failure to state even one ground upon which Obama has violated the Constitution, notwithstanding his breath holding and foot stomping.

    • Nope, we need to put your right wing ass into a time machine and send you back to 1938 in Nazi Germany where your hateful bitter KKK ass belongs

  2. How about the Declaration of Independence being used. The Founding Father’s provided a way to fight back. According to the Declaration of Independence, it’s our duty, to remove the tyrannical government.

    • There was a free and fair election less than 2 years ago.

      Tyrannical governments don’t allow you to use the courts for redress, they especially don’t follow the court orders when they lose, yet the Obama Administration does.

      What Constitutional violations has Obama committed? West’s headline makes a reckless and seditious claim, but the facts don’t back him up. Maybe you’ll do better – what makes you think you have the right to invalidate two fair and free elections?

      Be specific.

      • No, this government just has kangaroo courts and does things like use the IRS to make sure you cannot fight after your wealth has been stolen just because you disagree on something. funny you say he follows court orders, and also ask what constitutional violations he has committed, yet must not be aware he has aided and abetted the enemy (al quaeda, etc) by releasing them (for a traitor). Also this was illegal because he didn’t notify congress of his intent, as required by law by at least 30 days- gee I wonder why!? Facts do back him up if you actually know what you are talking about, not trolling about ”fair” and ”free” elections that were obviously rigged and skewed. Your ”opinions” are what is seditious and reckless, not the facts that tend to go against them.

      • This is h­ow you can make a decen­t i­n­come e­very month… Try it for yours­elf! A­fter been without work f­or 6 month­s, i star­ted freelancing over t­his w­ebsite and now i could­n’t be happier. After 6 months o­n my ne­w jo­b my monthly income is around 12k a month…> -> CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFO!!! <-

      • Rigged like the 2000 Presidential election, when Al Gore got 540,000 more votes than Bush, and Bush ended up in the white house, becoming the first President since 1888 to lose the popular vote and still end up in the white house?

      • Okay, so now we have a list to work with. You think Obama should be impeached for the following:

        1) Not notifying Congress that he was exchanging POWs to secure the release of a US soldier.
        2) Using the IRS to steal money from his political enemies
        3) Rigging the 2008 and 2012 elections.

        Do I have the list right? Need to add any other counts?

        Now is the time, no goal post shifting later.

      • Right Wingers are mad because a black man kicked their filthy nasty asses in two consecutive Presidential elections.

    • Yes… against a foreign government that imposed its will on a population that was not allowed representation… not a legally elected representative government.

      • Fool, the constitution states that all government gets its powers from the consent of the governed. Or do you not realize the actual ideal for which it was written.

      • Wow.. you can’t read. That point only supports what i wrote.
        That is why we have a nation of laws with legally elected representatives, giving the people the power to vote on their government.

        Thank you for unintentionally supporting my argument.

      • Funny you should mention laws Brendan. The law was broken and the constitution violated on this one. But that doesn’t matter to you liberals, obviously.

      • Good point Brendan. But keep in mind, KKK grade school doesn’t teach the right wingers too much

      • right winger, how about lying America into war like Bush did? Or, right winger, how about illegally selling weapons to the terrorist nation of Iran like Reagan did?

      • No, you are the fool, right winger. You are just mad because a black man is the President, and he kicked your filthy right wing ass in two elections.

      • Lookie here! I crucified you and you don’t like it, funny how racist scum like you always pull the race card. And just so you know how stupid you are, yes I am a white ”right winger”, and so is my black ”right winger” wife. I am mad because a man with communist ties and socialist views is in the white house, if you must know. Right wing exterminator my ass.

      • You sure told that ignorant racist, Carol brooner, off. bet she is one ugly troll white woman

  3. “Kick em in the left knee, kick ’em in the right knee, kick ’em in their weenie!!”

    Save the World! Vote All Democrats Out!

  4. hahaha
    Allen West thinks that providing due process is trampling the Constitution.

    So when these illegals face deportation hearings they will have legal representation provided… OH NO!
    Legal Representation!!??

    Thank God Allen West doesn’t actually hold any political office if he thinks providing people being processed through hearings being given representation is trampling the Constitution.

    • Not enforcing the law is trampling the Constitution idiot. If you are not a legal immigrant, there is not such thing as ‘due process’ in this case. Thank God you don’t hold political office, but then again, people that think like you are ruining this country.

      • It helps if you make sure you know what you’re talking about before you call someone else an idiot.}
        In this case, you are clueless… idiot.
        Illegals applying for asylum are entitled to representation and due process.

      • yeah not at the U.S. tax payers expense
        but then again what would be hard for you to understand since you probably are a sponge youself
        get out of mommies basement and get a job libtard

      • Actually, yes… at the expense of taxpayers.

        Legal representation is one of those things we provide for people who can’t afford it.

        Clearly you either don’t understand American principles or you just don’t like America.

        I know these basic American values upset you, but do you assume that everyone who mentions them is a sponge?
        Pathetic

      • yes legal representation for LEGAL United States citizens
        libtard
        please go back down to the basement
        you are embarrassing mommy

      • Wrong retard. Anyone (US citizen or not) that is processed theough our courts is entitled to legal representation.

        You look like a moron when you make statements withput having a clue what you’re talking about.

        Next time, check your facts kid.
        Hell! Even captured terrorists that are charged in our courts are entitled to representation.

        You don’t understand, or just don’t like, American values and laws.

      • yeah in your libtard america that law was passed with a specific purpose now you libtards twist the law to let in your families
        the correct term for these aholes is
        criminal aliens like it or not libtard
        you are exactly whats wrong with america today

        i can only hope its your mother or daughter or family member that gets raped murdered or hurt or even beheaded from your friendly criminal aliens

        put down the koolaid get off the couch get out of mommies basement and get a job sponge

        i would call you a retard but that would be an insult to retards

      • Wow… you are a special kind of stupid.
        You ASSume that because, unlike you, I recognize the American principle of due process that that somehow makes me in favor of illegals.

        I don’t support illegals… but I do support due process.

        In your tiny mind, you can’t grasp that simple concept.

        Do you think that anyone who believes criminals deserve to be tried before they are convicted is somehow in favor of criminals?

        It’s so pathetic that you hate American values so much that you wish my family members harm just because i pointed out the law to you.
        Maybe you should go join the Taliban if you hate America so much and you want to live under a system where there is no due process.

      • maybe i will join your taliban family
        you are about as american as bho
        have fun in your islamist country libtard

      • Well kid, since you clearly hate American values, maybe you should join the Taliban
        It is insane that just because you show contempt for the Constitution, you believe those of us that do are somehow Islamists?
        Wow… you truly are a special kind of crazy

      • You’re a liar, right winger. I can tell that you haven’t even studied the law, you are a liar, right winger, and so is your mammy

      • There is a distinction that is worth noting. Everyone is entitled to Constitutional protection, be they a citizen, legal resident or unauthorized alien. Per Gideon v Wainwright, every CRIMINAL defendant is entitled to legal representation provided by the state, if needed.

        Immigration courts are civil in nature. Most people don’t know it, but the overwhelming number of “illegals” have actually committed no crime. They have violated the US’ civil immigration laws.

        As a civil court, there is not a right to have an attorney provided to the defendant, just as when you sue someone for a slip-and-fall in a civil court they must get their own attorney.

        The money Obama is allocating has two goals. Yes, there is the humanitarian interest in helping people unskilled in the law have decent representation for such an important day in court, but the real reason, the one that really, really matters is judicial efficiency — you may think of it as saving taxpayer dollars.

        As you can imagine, or may have experienced, having defendants proceed pro se leads to sloppy filings, confused hearings and delay after delay after delay.

        A few dollars spent on attorneys leads to HUGE returns in efficiency. We can clear dockets faster, reduce detention time, improve meaningful participation for the defendants and, ultimately, save several fold the initial investment.

        These dollars spent by Obama demonstrate something we don’t see enough of from his Administration: the careful and intelligent stewardship of our tax dollars.

        If West had half of a brain he’d stop opposing everything Obama does and judge each act or decision on its own merit. Instead, West prefers doing an end-around on thinking, using not his brain but his knee, as in never-ending knee jerk responses.

        It’s shameful on West’s part, and harmful to the Republic and the republicans.

      • [[ Everyone is entitled to Constitutional protection, be they a citizen, legal resident or unauthorized alien.]]

        Wrong. And quit being a lib-punk with that ‘unauthorized alien’ crap lefty. The term is ILLEGAL. You get a bus trip home. That’s it. Sniveling lib.

      • Sorry Drew, the law is the law … and the law of the United States since the 1800s is that everyone is covered by the Constitution. See YICK WO v. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)

        If you’d just read a little, you be embarrassed a whole lot less.

      • I gave you the case law … and you’ve held your breath and stomped your feet. Whom should people believe?

      • I gave you a simple question you have yet to answer. If you are not here legally are you therefor here illegally? Which is it? Either you are a legal citizen or you are not. Even leftards like you can figure that one out.

      • Drew, dear child, I’ve answered your question many times. I think part of the problem you are having is that you don’t understand basic English. There is no such thing as a “legal citizen,” nor is there an “illegal citizen.” All citizens are lawful. It’s part of the definition of citizen.

        The word you want to use when you’re writing is “resident” and “non-resident” when you are talking about aliens. Then, you can use legal, unauthorized or undetermined to further qualify the aliens you are talking about. If you want to use colloquial English, you can also use “illegal” in the place of “unauthorized.” The legal terms is unauthorized, but if illegal makes you feel better, that’s fine to use as well.

        Legal aliens are entitled to entry to the US.

        Illegal or unauthorized aliens do not have permission to enter the US, but are in the US unlawfully.

        Aliens of undetermined status are aliens that HAVE NOT broken the law and who may or may not be entitled to entry to the United States.

        That’s just the law.

      • {{ There is no such thing as a “legal citizen,” nor is there an “illegal citizen.” All citizens are lawful. It’s part of the definition of citizen ]]

        So why the need for a hearing for your illegal children? How long have you been chasing your tail leftard?

      • Fool, you need to read the actual law and quit relying on the KKK’s and Rush Limbaugh’s interpretation of it.

      • The KKK? You mean that LIEberal terrorist wing?

        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2309727/posts

        History Of The Democrats And The KKK…..(Why the Democrats started the KKK)
        Live Leak ^

        Posted on 8/6/2009 11:59:36 AM by IrishMike

        The original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white, according to a new television program and book, which describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats.

        An estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites died at the end of KKK ropes from 1882 to 1964.

        The documentation has been assembled by David Barton of Wallbu More..ilders and published in his book “Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White,” which reveals that not only did the Democrats work hand-in-glove with the Ku Klux Klan for generations, they started the KKK and endorsed its mayhem.

        “Of all forms of violent intimidation, lynchings were by far the most effective,” Barton said in his book. “Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and their platforms consistently called for a ban on lynching. Democrats successfully blocked those bills and their platforms never did condemn lynchings.”

        Further, the first grand wizard of the KKK was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention, no Democrats voted for the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to former slaves and, to this day, the party website ignores those decades of racism, he said.

        “Although it is relatively unreported today, historical documents are unequivocal that the Klan was established by Democrats and that the Klan played a prominent role in the Democratic Party,” Barton writes in his book. “In fact, a 13-volume set of congressional investigations from 1872 conclusively and irrefutably documents that fact.

        “The Klan terrorized black Americans through murders and public floggings; relief was granted only if individuals promised not to vote for Republican tickets, and violation of this oath was punishable by death,” he said. “Since the Klan targeted Republicans in general, it did not limit its violence simply to black Republicans; white Republicans were also included.”

        Barton also has covered the subject in one episode of his American Heritage Series of television programs, which is being broadcast now on Trinity Broadcasting Network and Cornerstone Television.

        Barton told WND his comments are not a condemnation or endorsement of any party or candidate, but rather a warning that voters even today should be aware of what their parties and candidates stand for.

        His book outlines the aggressive pro-slavery agenda held by the Democratic Party for generations leading up to the Civil War, and how that did not die with the Union victory in that war of rebellion.

        Even as the South was being rebuilt, the votes in Congress consistently revealed a continuing pro-slavery philosophy on the part of the Democrats, the book reveals.

        Three years after Appomattox, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, granting blacks citizenship in the United States, came before Congress: 94 percent of Republicans endorsed it.

        “The records of Congress reveal that not one Democrat � either in the House or the Senate � voted for the 14th Amendment,” Barton wrote. “Three years after the Civil War, and the Democrats from the North as well as the South were still refusing to recognize any rights of citizenship for black Americans.”

        He also noted that South Carolina Gov. Wade Hampton at the 1868 Democratic National Convention inserted a clause in the party platform declaring the Congress’ civil rights laws were “unconstitutional, revolutionary, and void.”

        It was the same convention when Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, the first grand wizard of the KKK, was honored for his leadership.

        Barton’s book notes that in 1868, Congress heard testimony from election worker Robert Flournoy, who confessed while he was canvassing the state of Mississippi in support of the 13th and 14th Amendments, he could find only one black, in a population of 444,000 in the state, who admitted being a Democrat.

        Nor is Barton the only person to raise such questions. In 2005, National Review published an article raising similar points. The publication said in 1957 President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, deployed the 82nd Airborne Division to desegregate the Little Rock, Ark., schools over the resistance of Democrat Gov. Orval Faubus.

        Further, three years later, Eisenhower signed the GOP’s 1960 Civil Rights Act after it survived a five-day, five-hour filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats, and in 1964, Democrat President Lyndon Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act after former Klansman Robert Byrd’s 14-hour filibuster, and the votes of 22 other Senate Democrats, including Tennessee’s Al Gore Sr., failed to scuttle the plan.

        Dems’ website showing jump in history

        The current version of the “History” page on the party website lists a number of accomplishments � from 1792, 1798, 1800, 1808, 1812, 1816, 1824 and 1828, including its 1832 nomination of Andrew Jackson for president. It follows up with a name change, and the establishment of the Democratic National Committee, but then leaps over the Civil War and all of its issues to talk about the end of the 19th Century, William Jennings Bryan and women’s suffrage.

        A spokesman with the Democrats refused to comment for WND on any of the issues. “You’re not going to get a comment,” said the spokesman who identified himself as Luis.

        “Why would Democrats skip over their own history from 1848 to 1900?” Barton asked. “Perhaps because it’s not the kind of civil rights history they want to talk about � perhaps because it is not the kind of civil rights history they want to have on their website.”

        The National Review article by Deroy Murdock cited the 1866 comment from Indiana Republican Gov. Oliver Morton condemning Democrats for their racism.

        “Every one who shoots down Negroes in the streets, burns Negro schoolhouses and meeting-houses, and murders women and children by the light of their own flaming dwellings, calls himself a Democrat,” Morton said.

        It also cited the 1856 criticism by U.S. Sen. Charles Sumner, R-Mass., of pro-slavery Democrats. “Congressman Preston Brooks (D-S.C.) responded by grabbing a stick and beating Sumner unconscious in the Senate chamber. Disabled, Sumner could not resume his duties for three years.”

        By the admission of the Democrats themselves, on their website, it wasn’t until Harry Truman was elected that “Democrats began the fight to bring down the final barriers of race and gender.”

        “That is an accurate description,” wrote Barton. “Starting with Harry Truman, Democrats began � that is, they made their first serious efforts � to fight against the barriers of race; yet � Truman’s efforts were largely unsuccessful because of his own Democratic Party.”

        Even then, the opposition to rights for blacks was far from over. As recently as 1960, Mississippi Democratic Gov. Hugh White had requested Christian evangelist Billy Graham segregate his crusades, something Graham refused to do. “And when South Carolina Democratic Gov. George Timmerman learned Billy Graham had invited African Americans to a Reformation Rally at the state Capitol, he promptly denied use of the facilities to the evangelist,” Barton wrote.

        The National Review noted that the Democrats’ “Klan-coddling” today is embodied in Byrd, who once wrote that, “The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia.”

        The article suggested a contrast with the GOP, which, when former Klansman David Duke ran for Louisiana governor in 1991 as a Republican, was “scorned” by national GOP officials.

        Until 1935, every black federal legislator was Republican, and it was Republicans who appointed the first black Air Force and Army four-star generals, established Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday as a national holiday, and named the first black national-security adviser, secretary of state, the research reveals.

        Current Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has said: “The first Republican I knew was my father, and he is still the Republican I most admire. He joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did. My father has never forgotten that day, and neither have I.”

        Barton’s documentation said the first opponents of slavery “and the chief advocates for racial equal rights were the churches (the Quakers, Presbyterians, Methodists, etc.). Furthermore, religious leaders such as Quaker Anthony Benezet were the leading spokesmen against slavery, and evangelical leaders such as Presbyterian signer of the Declaration Benjamin Rush were the founders of the nation’s first abolition societies.”

        During the years surrounding the Civil War, “the most obvious difference between the Republican and Democrat parties was their stands on slavery,” Barton said. Republicans called for its abolition, while Democrats declared: “All efforts of the abolitionists, or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient [to initiate] steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and all such efforts have the inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people.”

        Wallbuilders also cited John Alden’s 1885 book, “A Brief History of the Republican Party” in noting that the KKK’s early attacks were on Republicans as much as blacks, in that blacks were adopting the Republican identity en masse.

        “In some places the Ku Klux Klan assaulted Republican officials in their houses or offices or upon the public roads; in others they attacked the meetings of negroes and displaced them,” Alden wrote. “Its ostensible purpose at first was to keep the blacks in order and prevent them from committing small depredations upon the property of whites, but its real motives were essentially political � The negroes were invariable required to promise not to vote the Republican ticket, and threatened with death if they broke their promises.”

        Barton told WND the most cohesive group of political supporters in American now is African-Americans. He said most consider their affiliation with the Democratic party longterm.

        But he said he interviewed a black pastor in Mississippi, who recalled his grandmother never “would let a Democrat in the house, and he never knew what she was talking about.” After a review of history, he knew, Barton said.

        Citing President George Washington’s farewell address, Barton told WND, “Washington had a great section on the love of party, if you love party more than anything else, what it will do to a great nation.”

        “We shouldn’t love a party [over] a candidate’s principles or values,” he told WND.

        Washington’s farewell address noted the “danger” from parties is serious.

        “Let me now � warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. � The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism,” Washington said.

      • Excellent point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are kicking that fool KKK right winger, Ass Martin’s butt in this debate

      • [[ Wrong retard. Anyone (US citizen or not) that is processed theough our courts is entitled to legal representation.]]

        And therein lies the problem with your thinking inbred. They do not belong in the courts. They belong on a bus heading south.

        [[ Hell! Even captured terrorists that are charged in our courts are entitled to representation.]]

        And that’s another problem with scumy libtards like you. Instead of killing terrorists, lib-scum wants to treat them like jaywalkers or shoplifters and put them in court. What a waste of life you are.

      • Ass Martin, again, a bogus point on your part. You sure are stupid. Didn’t your David Duke High School teach you anything?

      • Yep, the south was once solidly Democrat, or KKK. But when LBJ signed the first civil rights bill into law, in 1964, then the 1965 Voting rights act, then the 1968 Fair Housing Act, and Richard Nixon’s Southern Strategy, then the old racist Democrats began shifting to the Republican Party, which is now solidly Republican. Now, the Republican Party consist of the kids, grand children, etc., of the old racist Democrats. The Republican Party today controls the south because of their KKK heritage.

      • The Republicans were responsible for passing the CRA.

        http://www.nationalcenter.org/NVDavisBradley1299.html

        Bill Bradley Fouls the Civil Rights Act

        by R.D. Davis

        A New Visions Commentary paper published December 1999 by The National Center
        for Public Policy Research, 501 Capitol Court, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002,
        202/543-4110, Fax 202/543-5975, E-Mail [email protected], Web
        http://www.nationalcenter.org. Reprints permitted provided source
        is credited.

        Former basketball star and current Democratic presidential candidate Bill Bradley hasn’t fouled an opponent on the basketball court in years, but lately he’s fouling the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Bradley claims the congressional vote on the Act led to which political party he would join. Oh, really?

        On October 9, 1999 at an Iowa Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner, Bradley exclaimed: “I remember the exact moment that I became a Democrat. It was the summer of 1964; I was an intern in Washington between my junior and senior year in college. And I was in the Senate chamber the night the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed that desegregated public accommodations in America… And I became a Democrat because it was the party of justice. It was Democrats that stepped forward that evening in the Senate and cast their vote that washed away the stain of segregation in this country.”

        I believe that Democrats have lied about who supported the Civil Rights Act for so long that they actually believe their lies. But anytime this lie is retold, I feel compelled to debunk it. So here we go again…

        The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 (p. 1323) recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia and former KKK member Robert C. Bryd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr. (the father of Bradley’s Democratic opponent). Surely young Bradley must have flunked his internship because ostensibly he did not learn that the Act’s primary opposition came from the southern Democrats’ 74-day filibuster. In addition, he did not know that 21 is over three times as much as six, otherwise he would have become – according to the logic of his statement – a Republican.

        In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80% (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.

        Since Bradley was interning in the Senate, why doesn’t he remember the major role the Republicans played in fighting for civil rights? During the Eisenhower Administration, the Republican Party made more progress in civil rights than in the preceding 80 years. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Although the Democratic-controlled Congress watered them down, the Administration’s recommendations resulted in significant and effective civil rights legislation in both 1957 and 1960 – the first civil rights statutes to be passed in more than 80 years” (“The Republican Party 1960 Civil Rights Platform,” May 1964). It reported on April 5, 1963 that, ” A group of eight Republican senators in March joined in introducing a series of 12 civil rights bills that would implement many of the recommendations made in the Civil Rights Commission report of 1961.”

        The principal measures introduced by these Republicans broadened the Civil Rights Act of 1964, making it “designed to pass unlike Democratic ‘public relations’ attempts” (CQ, February 15, 1963, p. 191). Republican senators overwhelmingly “chided” President John Kennedy about his “failure to act in this field (civil rights).” Republican senators criticized the Kennedy Administration’s February 28, 1963 civil rights message as “falling far short” of the Civil Rights Commission’s recommendations and both party platforms. “If the President will not assume the leadership in getting through Congress urgently needed civil rights measures,” the Republican senators said, ” then Congress must take the initiative” (CQ, April 5, 1963, p. 527).

        At the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson praised the Republicans for their “overwhelming” support. Roy Wilkins, then-NAACP chairman, awarded Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen of Illinois the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights Award for his “remarkable civil rights leadership.” Moreover, civil rights activist Andrew Young wrote in his book An Easy Burden that “The southern segregationists were all Democrats, and it was black Republicans… who could effectively influence the appointment of federal judges in the South” (p. 96). Young added that the best civil rights judges were Republicans appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower and that “these judges are among the many unsung heroes of the civil rights movement.”

        The historical facts and numbers show the Republican Party was more for civil rights than the Democrats from “the party of justice,” as Bill Bradley called it. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, in reality, could not have been passed without Republican votes. It is an “injustice” for contemporary Democratic politicians and the liberal news media to continue to not give the Republicans credit for their civil rights triumphs. Now is the time for Republicans to start informing black Americans of those historical triumphs to lead them back to their “home party.”

      • [[ then the old racist Democrats began shifting to the Republican Party, ]]

        Then why can’t you name them lefty?

        I can name the Dixiecrats who went Dem……….

        Where did all of the Dixiecrats go?

        Democrats argue that Southern Dixiecrat racists fled from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party after the Civil Rights Act in 1964. That would of course be an odd thing to do, given that Republicans, who had a 100-year history of support for civil rights, voted for Civil Rights with much larger majorities than Democrats, who have a 150-year history of support for slavery, segregation, and the Ku Klux Klan.

        The 150-year civil rights struggle can be summed quite accurately: it was a struggle of Republicans supporting civil rights against Democrats opposing it. By the mid-20th century, some Democrats had come around to the Republican view that blacks had civil rights.

        The opponents of civil rights have always been Democrats.

        But let’s take a look at how many Dixiecrat segregationalists remained Democrats, and how many switched parties:

        Dixiecrats who remained Democrats after 1964:

        Orval Fabus
        Benjamin Travis Laney
        John Stennis
        James Eastland
        Allen Ellender
        Russell Long
        John Sparkman
        John McClellan
        Richard Russell
        Herman Talmadge
        George Wallace
        Lester Maddox
        John Rarick
        Robert Byrd
        Al Gore, Sr.
        Bull Connor

        Dixiecrats who became Republicans after 1964:
        Strom Thurmond
        Miles Godwin

        So much for that trope. Stay stupid lefty.

      • stupid racist, you know your grandparents were once racist Democrats. Now since the racist south is now Republican, because of the evolution of the Democrat racists into the Republican party, that is why you are Republican.

      • [[ stupid racist, you know your grandparents were once racist Democrats ]]

        Speak for yourself lefty.

        [[ Now since the racist south is now Republican, ]]

        Assuming facts not in evidence.

        [[ because of the evolution of the Democrat racists into the Republican party]]

        Name them and post your proof.

      • It’s so sad that you hate American values so much.
        Are there any other parts of our Constitution that you wish to get rid of you unAmerican piece of garbage?

      • [[ It’s so sad that you hate American values so much ]]

        al·lit·er·a·tion
        əˌlitəˈrāSHən/
        noun
        the occurrence of the same letter or sound at the beginning of adjacent or closely connected words.
        ——————————————————————————

        Whatsamatta pus? You runnin’ out of words?

      • Good point Brendan. I’d rather have them here, anyway, in contrast to the KKK right wingers.

      • You stupidly [as if you have any other choice] keep referring to ‘American values’ yet you never define them. Libtard-speak is such crap.

      • Oh… you need clarification?
        Of course you do.
        in this case, the American value being referred to is the right to representation.

        I guess that’s all just “libtard speak” to you though, right?

      • [[ the American value being referred to is the right to representation ]]

        For Americans. Look it up AQ.

      • I did look it up.
        Maybe you should have looked it up kid.

        YICK WO v. HOPKINS
        In 1886, the Supreme Court ruled that equal protection under the 14th Amendment applied to non citizens as well as citizens
        There’s your answer.

        i will await your apology for all the times you wrote only US citizens were allowed representation in court.

        Have you ever been right?

      • illegal alien
        Examples
        noun
        1.
        a foreigner who has entered or resides in acountry unlawfully or without the country’sauthorization.
        2.
        a foreigner who enters the U.S. without an entryor immigrant visa, especially a person whocrosses the border by avoiding inspection or whooverstays the period of time allowed as a visitor,tourist, or businessperson.

      • [[ the American value being referred to is the right to representation. ]]

        Great! Then let the illegals call their consulate/embassy of the nation they are from! See Brenda? How hard was that?

      • Right winger, throw water on that burning cross in your front yard before they charge you with arson

      • awwww… the little troll who is sexually obsessed with me is back.
        As usual, you don’t like what I wrote because facts upset you.. and since you can’t actually refute what I write, you resort to lame insults..
        No kid… I don’t sympathize with illegals.
        But unlike you, I care about the Constitution and understand that everyone is entitled to legal representation.
        It seems you would prefer a dictatorship

      • Listen closely lib-scuzz. You, TruAzzClown, PutridPussy, Cliftard, BJ-52, Earl-of-idiocy come here for one thing only. Troll and circle jerk each other into libtard psychosis. Now here is a simple lesson even cranially challenged inbreds like you can understand. If you are called an ‘illegal’ that means you have broken the law to get here. Now put them on a rickety azzed bus and send them back. Either that or you and the rest of the left-nut dung beetles can adopt them. Now refute that ‘illegal’ means you broke the law.

      • I’m so sorry that you hate American principles so much that you don’t believe in due process.
        i also find it amusing that you think that people who break the law aren’t entitled to due process.

        Are you really that ignorant of basic American principles?
        You think this argument is about illegals not being illegal?
        You really need to learn how to read.
        People who break the law are entitled to due process before being convicted of a crime or denied asylum

        read a law book some time and you won’t sound so stupid

      • [[ I’m so sorry that you hate American principles ]]

        Says the inbred who craps all over immigration laws and rules.

        [[ i also find it amusing that you think that people who break the law aren’t entitled to due process ]]

        Americans are. Illegals aren’t. Or do you stupidly think the Constitution was written for people other than US citizens.

        [[ Are you really that ignorant of basic American principles? ]]

        That American laws apply to Americans?

        [[ You think this argument is about illegals not being illegal?You really need to learn how to read.
        People who break the law are entitled to due process before being convicted of a crime or denied asylum ]]

        So this discussion isn’t about illegals? Great! Show me their paperwork that says they are here legally. If not, send ’em back.

        [[ read a law book some time and you won’t sound so stupid ]]

        Thee is nothing on God’s green Earth that will ever fix your rank stupidity kid. Find a Kevorkian drive-thru ASAP.

      • Wow… all you’ve done is show your ignorance.
        Your entire argument comes down to your belief that due process in US courts only applies to US citizens.

        WRONG!

        Non US citizens are also entitled to representation in US courts, dumbass.

        Your assertion that only citizens are afforded representation is 100% incorrect.
        While it’s sweet of you to wish me dead, next time you make a wrong assumption, you might want to look it up before posting a comment that only make you look stupid.

        I know you clearly don’t pay attention to immigration courts… but have you noticed how when we bring foreign terrorists into US courts to be tried for crimes committed in the US, we have to provide them legal representation?

      • Let it go Brenda. Americans have the rights of the US Constitution. Not your illegal kids, not your fellow terrorists.

      • Sorry kid, but you keep posting these factually inaccurate comments.
        You look pretty stupid when you keep arguing points that are false.
        It’s one thing to argue a difference of opinion… but you are arguing in complete contradiction of what the law is.

        The right to representation applies to anyone (US citizen or not) in US courts.

        Try to grasp that simple truth… think slowly and take your time…
        If… you… are… tried… in… a… court… of… law… in… the… United… States.. of… America… you… are… entitled… to… legal… representation… regardless… of … whether… you… are… a… US… citizen… or… not.

        You mentioned terrorists… did you not notice over the years that even foreign terrorists are given representation if they are processed in US courts?

      • Oh… do you not know how to use google?

        YICK WO v. HOPKINS
        In 1886, the Supreme Court ruled that equal protection under the 14th Amendment applied to non citizens as well as citizens
        There’s your answer.

        i will await your apology for all the times you wrote only US citizens were allowed representation in court.

      • U.S. immigration laws do not refer to illegal immigrants, but in common parlance the term “illegal immigrant” is often used to refer to any illegal alien.
        Alien (law) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_(law)
        Wikipedia

      • Ass Martin supported due process when Reagan got busted for illegally selling weapons to the terrorist nation of Iran

      • Illegal means adjective
        1.
        contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law.

        These children have broken no law in asking for a hearing to determine if they have a legitimate claim for entry.

        So, by your definition, they are not illegal.

        They are following the law. Specifically, William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008.

        They are doing what you refuse to do: respect the rule of law.

      • If you are not a citizen and enter the country anyway you are here illegally. I accept your concession.

      • LOL – tell that to all those tourist that come here every year. They aren’t citizens and they enter, but they and the US ICE seem to think they have entered lawfully.

      • No, quiet often not. But that wasn’t your claim. You childishly insisted that anyone in the country that is not a citizen is illegal. Good on your to run away from your wing-nuttery posts.

      • So tourists come here and are granted entry without paperwork granting them entry? Show me you blubbering fool.

      • LOL – you really haven’t traveled outside the US have you?

        Your posting history demonstrates that you’re a troll and that’s been okay because I’m not writing to you, I’m writing to those who might be reading and thinking about becoming a radical right-winger like you.

        Each of your posts demonstrates my core argument: the radical right embarrass the conservative movement. Don’t be a dumb arse, people, don’t be like Drew. Don’t argue by holding your breath and stomping your feet.

        For you, Drew, I offer this: I understand how in even a casual Internet discussion one can become intransigent, even after being proven wrong. I take no insult in your constant trolling of my posts. However, now that you’re more educated on these issues, I hope the next time you decide to start posting lies you ask yourself this one question: how well good for the country can a political movement be when the only way to support it is to either lie or avoid learning the truth. The Tea Party extremist remind me of a cult that tells its members that the only way to get to heaven is to ignore and refuse to see or listen to any outside influences.

        Return to being the patriot you always wanted to be. Return to being a conservative. Abandon the radical right for a political philosophy you can defend with intelligent debate and well considered fact.

        Or, just be another troll.

        Up to you.

      • Before you were whining about paperwork, now, having been completely defeated on that issue you now want to discuss documentation? Good on you to run from your previous position.

        Show some personal integrity. Claim a position and stick with it, until and unless you’re demonstrated to be wrong. Then, show some maturity and let the newly obtained knowledge inform you position.

      • [[ Before you were whining about paperwork ]]

        Which YOU originally brought up.

        [[ ou now want to discuss documentation ]]

        Which you also originally brought up. Just wave the white flag and scurry back under Obama’s skirt.

      • Scroll up, troll, that’s all anyone has to do to see you’re lying.

        Paperwork and documentation are distinct legal concepts, and both were introduced into this conversation by you.

        Didn’t you take English in school?

      • Quit tap dancing. What is the basis for your claim that illegal aliens do not have Constitutional Rights?

      • What is the BASIS for your claim that illegal aliens do not have Constitutional rights? What makes you think you are right?

      • Quit being a troll. What is the basis for your claim that illegal aliens do not have Constitutional Rights?

      • Actually, I’m bored with with you. Your arguments are lifeless, your posts void of wit and wisdom.

        Writing of learning to read. I’ve twice given you the citation for Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) wherein the SCOTUS affirmed illegal aliens have rights.

        You seemingly couldn’t be bother to read it. Your petulant demand that illegals have no Constitutional rights stems not from any legal research or logical thought on your part; rather, its’ just an expression of how you hope/ want/ demand it be — all evidence to the contrary be damned.

        In other words, you’re the perfect model of Mr. West. He too can’t be bothered to read the Constitution, the case law, the facts. He declares what ever he wants to be true is true, but at least he does it in an amusing way.

        You’re just a troll, a lackey who can’t even properly carry the water of the fool on the hill. If ever you feel anger that people don’t respect your “arguments,” think back on this thread and realize it’s because you don’t respect your own arguments enough to shape them using research, fact and a strict adherence to logic.

        Here’s nice lay discussion of illegal alien rights. Written at a sixth grade level, it might be a bit above your reading level, but if you sound out the words, you can make it through.

        http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/illegalrights.htm

        Two seconds with the google would have saved you so much embarrassment.

      • Your crap is nuanced pap that is nothing more than red meat for bleeding heart leftards. Either you are here legally or you are not. I’ve given you the definition of illegal alien. Now you can run from it all you wish. It doesn’t change the meaning. If I bore you, ignore me. It isn’t that hard lefty. But you left-nuts have overblown egos. No brains but huge egos.

      • The Supreme Court spoke very clearly – illegal aliens have Constitutional Rights. No Nuance. You are flat out wrong, but like the radical that you are, you refuse to confront reality.

        By your definition, the children are legal immigrants. They are authorized by the US to be where they are, they have a legal right to be where they are (per a Bush-era law), they have broken no law and they may yet be granted full entry rights.

        By the definition we lawyers use, they are immigrants of undetermined status awaiting a final immigration determination.

        But, again, your radical addled brain can’t handle that – do you know how pathetic that makes you?

      • We disagree. If you are an illegal you have no Constitutional rights. My opinion. Or are you a fool who thinks that everything from the SCOTUS is correct. Sheeple.

      • And that takes us back to the original premise. I respect the rule of law, you don’t. I’m a conservative. You aren’t.

        You just holding your breath and stomping your feet – and the world is laughing at you.

      • You have reading comprehension issues left nut. Disagreeing is not disrespecting. And you’re a con man. Accept your lot in life.

        [[ You just holding your breath and stomping your feet]]

        And the desperate projection begins

      • Your railing against more than 100 years of established law. The entire country follows it – and there you are. Holding your breath and stomping your feet demanding that you know the law better than generations of Supreme Court justices.

        Good luck.

      • George W Bush’s first oil venture in 1979 was funded by Salem Bin Laden, the older brother of Osama Bin Laden

      • Obama Administration Funding Hamas Terrorists Unites 88 Senators: “Gravely Concerned”

        Hamas, responsible for thousands of terrorist rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, including children, is now set to benefit from nearly 500 million dollars a year that we, the American taxpayers, hand the Palestinian government.

        Funding or supporting terrorism in any way is a direct violation of U.S. law.

        Yet, the Obama Administration has adamantly refused, even in the face of new Hamas terrorist attacks, to suspend that funding or back away from its full throated support of the Palestinian Unity Government, choosing instead to take a wait a see approach.

        We, and tens of thousands of our members, have been demanding that the Obama Administration pull back its support and simply stop funding this terrorist-led government.

        An overwhelming majority of U.S. Senators now agree – 88 in fact, and it’s hard to get 88 Senators to agree on anything.

        Led by Senators Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Susan Collins (R-ME), the overwhelmingly bipartisan letter to President Obama states that the Senators are “gravely concerned” with the Administration’s continued funding of the terrorist-led government.

        The letter expresses clearly the immense danger posed by continued U.S. support for Hamas:

        By its actions and inaction, Hamas has demonstrated it is not a partner for peace. Hamas has openly called for Israel’s destruction and last month Hamas leaders again repeated their refusal to meet recognized international demands: recognition of Israel, renunciation of terror, and acceptance of previous Israel-PLO agreements.

        Not only is President Obama’s policy dangerous, it is a direct violation of Congress’s constitutionally exercised authority over how our tax dollars are spent. As the letter notes, providing support for any government that includes Hamas terrorists is a direct violation of “the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 and restrictions contained in the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2014, including prohibiting foreign assistance to Hamas or any power-sharing government of which Hamas is a member or over which Hamas has undue influence.”

        In other words, 88 Senators are saying that if President Obama doesn’t pull the plug on funding the Palestinian Unity Government (“Unity” read: terrorist), he will be breaking the law.

        Nearly 88,000 Americans have signed the ACLJ’s petition demanding that the Obama Administration stop funding jihadists.

        Thankfully, the Senate is joining the fight. If President Obama continues to ignore the law, Congress must act. A letter is a great first step, but this matter deserves more than mere words. The road to peace cannot be paved by funding terrorists.

      • hahahha… my favorite stalker.
        It must be so frustrating for you to be unable to refute any of my pints that all you can do is lash out with childish insults.

      • 1) The immigrants are specifically granted due process by our national immigration laws, See William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008

        2) It’s been the law in the US for more than a century that non-citizens, even if here illegally, are entitled to due process. See Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) and its progeny Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903)

        In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment’s statement, “Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” applied to all persons “without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality,” and to “an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here.” (Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903) )

      • Don’t tap dance scum. You like illegals? Put your damn money where your mouth is and adopt them. You leftards are great at demanding of others what YOU left sacs would NEVER do.

      • No tap dancing. I like the rule of law. I’ve stated that I would prefer the law change, but until then, I want the law followed.

        Your whole adoption argument is wholly bizarre. (1) I’m not a liberal. (2) Wanting to see the rule of law followed has nothing to do with how many children my wife and I adopt. I’m not asking anyone to adopt anyone. I’m asking for the rule of law to be followed.

        That frightens you, and I’m sorry about that. I wish you could know what it feels like to have principles and to stick with them. If you believe in the US Constitution, then you must believe in Due Process. It’s just that simple.

      • [[ I like the rule of law. ]]

        So you admit that illegals are law breakers and need to be sent back. Good doggy. Yer lernin’.

      • The kids are not law breakers. They are not illegals. Technically they are immigrants of undetermined status. The Due Process hearings will determine their status and most will – and should – be denied entry.

        These children didn’t jump the fence or make a break for it through the desert. They presented themselves to the first agent they could find because they wrongfully thought the US had a program that would allow them free entry.

        That mistaken belief came from two evil and anti-American forces. First you had the coyotes who told the parents that any one under 16 was now entitled to Amnesty in America. Second, you had the Tea Party wingnuts claiming that Obama had opened the border and was giving Amnesty to all minors.

        Both POS groups were lying. Period. There is not an open border between the US and Mexico and Obama does deport children – and moms and dads. By the time he leaves office Obama will have deported more illegals than any other president. Open Borders my white arse.

        Your problem is that you really don’t know much about immigration law.

        Ask yourself the following questions:

        How do most illegals get into the country? Did you say sneaking in? You’re wrong. Most come here lawfully and then overstay their visa.

        Are most illegals guilty of committing a felony? Did you say yes? You’re wrong. Most illegals have violated a civil code, not a criminal code, in overstaying or crossing the border.

        Deporting illegals backs up our criminal court docket, yes or no? Did you say yes? Wrong again, I just told you, nearly all illegals are here on a civil violation. We have special Civil Courts set up to deal with illegal immigrants.

        Is it true that illegals don’t have any Constitutional rights, they being illegal and all? Did you say true – no rights for them? You’re wrong. It’s been the law of this country since the late 1800s that everyone, no matter their immigration status, is entitled to due process and the protections of the Constitution.

        Think I’m wrong? Challenge me. You’ll look silly, but you’ll definitely learn something.

      • Wrong lib-nut. They are illegals. Immigrants go through a process to become legal. Either send them home or YOU adopt them.

      • See, you don’t know understand the law. They are actually in the process “to become legal,” except that nearly all them will fail, as it should be. That’s what all this is about. The Bush-era law MANDATES that unaccompanied minors from non-border countries get to have a hearing to determine if they qualify for entry into the United States.

        That’s the law I want changed, but until that time, that’s also the law I want followed. We can’t demand that Obama break the law when it suits us and then complain that he does the same when it suits him.

        The rule of law must prevail if we are to maintain our status as a nation of laws.

        Seriously, do you have any education, even if as an autodidact, in this area?

      • [[ See, you don’t know understand the law. They are actually in the process “to become legal,”]]

        See IDIOT? Until they become legal they are ILLEGAL!!!

      • Sorry, that’s not the law. By presenting themselves for entry at the border they haven’t broken the law. They are neither legal nor illegal. They are immigrants of undetermined status.

        You claim they are “illegal.” What law did they break by walking up to the border and saying “hey, I’m an unaccompanied minor, let me in?”

        Be specific.

      • Your premise is wrong and ignores the facts.

        Go work on your reading comprehension and then come back with a relevant argument or observation.

      • My ‘premise’ is that they are not here legally. Think dope! If they were here legally, why the need for a hearing?

      • What part of indeterminate status don’t you understand … unless … oh, yes, I see now …. you’re just a troll … good on you …

      • Fine, then you may consider them legal immigrants that have been denied entry until they can have a determination hearing. They’ve broken no law in presenting themselves for entry and they are being given a due process hearing as required by law. They are free to leave the country and abandon their claims if they choose, so they aren’t under arrest and they aren’t prisoners.

        You’re out of your depth here, and stomping your feet and bantering about insults won’t change your trolling ways.

        You don’t know thing one about Immigration Law, but you comically think those of us who do know what we’re talking about will cave if you just hurl one more insult.

        Has that ever worked for you?

      • [[ Fine, then you may consider them legal immigrants that have been denied entry until they can have a determination hearing. ]]

        Spoken like a true criminal loving Obamite.

        If you enter this country any other way except via the legally accepted process, are you here illegally?

        [[ They’ve broken no law in presenting themselves for entry }}

        They presented themselves and are not legal citizens. Turn them around like any other illegal.

        {{You don’t know thing one about Immigration Law, but you comically think those of us who do know what we’re talking about will cave if you just hurl one more insult. }}

        I know that you are not here legally if you have not gone through the legal process. Prove me wrong.

        You leftards insult your inbred selves by claiming you are here legally yet still need a hearing to determine the legality of your illegal entry. Moron.

        {{ Has that ever worked for you? }}

        You mean simple logic 101? All the time.

      • Oh, my dear troll, they are trying to enter via a legal process. They are trying to enter as prescribed in the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. http://www.state.gov/j/tip/laws/113178.htm

        If they were from Mexico or Canada, they would just be turned away. Because they are unaccompanied minors from non-border nations the law says they are entitled to a hearing to determine if they are to be allowed entry.

        They haven’t broken any law, but they aren’t entitled to immediate entry, however they are entitled to a hearing to determine if they qualify, under the law, for entry.

        So which is it – do you not know anything about the US law or are you just opposed to the Rule of Law?

      • [[ Oh, my dear troll, they are trying to enter via a legal process ]]

        How so? Show us the paperwork they submitted like LEGAL immigrants do.

      • Go down to the various Immigration Courts and pull the paperwork yourself. I guarantee you there is a file for everyone of these unaccompanied minors that presented themselves for entry.

        Did you bother to read the law I linked to you several times? No, you didn’t. Reading would require thought and, ever worse for you, you would have to confront how silly you are being.

        You’re why conservatives can’t stand the radical right. You know you’re wrong, you know you’ve been caught outside your depth, but your hate just drives you say dumber and dumber things.

        You make conservatives look bad.

      • You’re the one demanding to see “papers.” While you may dream of an America were “papers please” is the first sentence out of every LEO’s mouth, the patriots on this board find that prospect abhorrent.

        I notice you keep going down these ill-conceived paths and then getting rather upset when they don’t work out for you. Are you sure you wish to proceed?

      • I did not. Not only are you a troll, you’re not a very good one. Please do try to step up your game a bit. It’s on you to remember what lie you posted and when you posted it.

      • You do realize that this is a threaded conversation, yes? All you have to do is scroll up to see who raised the issue.

        Have you no sense of dignity?

      • It is determined that they are illegals.

        U.S. immigration laws do not refer to illegal immigrants, but in common parlance the term “illegal immigrant” is often used to refer to any illegal alien.

        Alien (law) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_(law)

        Wikipedia

      • U.S. law also uses the term “unauthorized alien.”

        Ibid.

        You got a point in there somewhere?

        Also from the page you reference: “an illegal alien is a non-citizen who is present in a country unlawfully or without the country’s authorization”

        Authorized means “having official permission or approval.

        These children are precisely authorized to be where they are. By your logic, that make them legal immigrants. Fine, have it your way.

        But, really, they are aliens of undetermined status who are awaiting a hearing to determine final immigration status.

      • illegal alien
        Examples
        noun
        1.
        a foreigner who has entered or resides in acountry unlawfully or without the country’sauthorization.
        2.
        a foreigner who enters the U.S. without an entryor immigrant visa, especially a person whocrosses the border by avoiding inspection or whooverstays the period of time allowed as a visitor,tourist, or businessperson.

      • I already gave you permission to use non-legal terms, to use the lay dictionary and its colloquialisms.

      • You’re not qualified to ‘permit me’ to do anything. run to the corner and lick your many wounds.

      • Ass Martin, KKK logic is to lynch anyone that isn’t white, well, you white supremacist dogs do like Black Uncle Toms, can’t deny that, but anyone else that is not of your kind, you hate them, don’t you, you KKK Tea Bagging scumbag trash

      • BTW: you know who agrees with me? The conservative Wall Street Journal.

        Here’s how they characterize the children: they are “await[ing] hearings in federal court to determine their immigration status.”

        They don’t call them illegals. They don’t call them legal.

        They are immigrants of undetermined status.

        This isn’t a hard concept to grasp. Why is it beyond your ken?

        As much as I find amusement in bashing a wingnut against the unforgiving nature of logic, I have to ask — why are you so committed to using demonstratively wrong labels? Why are you embarrassing yourself like this?

        It’s not just your position, lots of people wrongly think your position is correct, but more importantly in the way you present yourself? Hurling insults, using troll-inspired retorts and childlike, playground logic – do you not see how poorly you come off?

      • I don’t care who agrees with you. Now one more time……….. Until they become legal they are ILLEGAL!!!

      • Stomping your feet and holding your breath is not a good substitute for logic, reason and fact. Good luck with your trolling.

      • [[ Stomping your feet and holding your breath is not a good substitute for logic, reason and fact ]]

        Then stop doing it.

      • Right Winger, you are illegal. you are illegally representing the human race, and you are nothing but a KKKer, you racist scum punk

      • Ass Martin, quit lying right winger, and go get your white cape, and white hood, out of the cleaners before they close

      • Ass Martin, nope, YOU are wrong, Tru is point blank right on his point. Now go in your back yard, and burn a cross

      • Refute the following…….

        Dixiecrats who remained Democrats after 1964:

        Orval Fabus
        Benjamin Travis Laney
        John Stennis
        James Eastland
        Allen Ellender
        Russell Long
        John Sparkman
        John McClellan
        Richard Russell
        Herman Talmadge
        George Wallace
        Lester Maddox
        John Rarick
        Robert Byrd
        Al Gore, Sr.
        Bull Connor

        Dixiecrats who became Republicans after 1964:
        Strom Thurmond
        Miles Godwin

      • I’d like to send your racist ass back to the European prisons that your scum ancestors came out of

      • The right wingers have two laws when it comes to Presidents. One, for white Presidents that they love, which is no law. Their white right wing Presidents can do anything, and they ignore it. But with a Black President that they hate because he is Black, he should just be a good slave and do what the slavemaster instructs him to do. The slavemaster being the White KKK Republican lynch mob.

      • i just saw this post.
        Wow… you are a dumfuk.
        You spent the last three days saying noncitizens don’t have rights yet three days ago you responded to a post wherein the poster provided specific court cases proving noncitizens have rights>
        you are just willfully ignorant or you just can’t read.
        What al ying unAmerican loser you are

      • Again, Tru, you are talking to the KKK. They do not want to hear facts, just lies. Rush Limbaugh pumps them up, and their racist white supremacist ego’s inflate, and reason and logic is far from their agenda

      • http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights
        This breaks it all down, in simplistic statistics, that even a moron like you can understand. Never forget the most racist of all Democrats, Strom Thurmond, who formed the DixieCrat Party in 1948, following Harry Truman’s push for a Federal Anti Lynching law to protect returning Black veterans of WW 2 from being lynched in the south, Thurmond, a staunch Democratic racist, died a staunch Republican party member. So did Jesse Helms, a racist Democrat southern Senator, who also turned to the Republican party because of GOP’s racist appeal for racist whites.etc.

      • Any competent person with minimum political history knowledge know this. How old are you, out of curiosity?

      • Dixiecrats who remained Democrats after 1964:

        Orval Fabus
        Benjamin Travis Laney
        John Stennis
        James Eastland
        Allen Ellender
        Russell Long
        John Sparkman
        John McClellan
        Richard Russell
        Herman Talmadge
        George Wallace
        Lester Maddox
        John Rarick
        Robert Byrd
        Al Gore, Sr.
        Bull Connor

        Dixiecrats who became Republicans after 1964:
        Strom Thurmond
        Miles Godwin

      • right winger, that’s not very many, lol. And again, I stated that the transition STARTED after the passage of the 1964 civil rights bill. IT STARTED then, stupid right winger. The transition wasn’t complete until the late 1970s and early 1980s when the Racist Ronald Reagan, who openly opposed the 1964 civil rights act, the 1965 voting rights act, and the 1968 Fair Housing Act, became President. Reagan also supported apartheid or racism in South Africa, when he vetoed the 1986 Trade Sanctions Act against apartheid South Africa. When Reagan became President, the transition was all but complete, the racist Democrats joining the Republican Party. Now, Robert Byrd remained with the Democrats until his death, but ohhh, did he change his policies. And Al Gore Sr., who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, died on his bed regretting it. In fact, Al Gore Sr. was one of the few, maybe two or three Southern Democrats that opposed The Southern Manifesto, which was a ploy by the racist Democrats, later turned republicans, to resist the implementation of the new civil rights laws. Al Gore Sr. refused to sign it.

      • I see. So how many racists Democrats are acceptable to you?

        25 Examples of Liberal Racism in QuotesJohn Hawkins | Mar 26, 2013

        1) “(Obama’s) a nice person, he’s very articulate this is what’s been used against him, but he couldn’t sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.” — Dan Rather

        2) “White folks was in the caves while we [blacks] was building empires … We built pyramids before Donald Trump ever knew what architecture was … we taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.” — Al Sharpton

        3) “‘Hymies.’ ‘Hymietown.’” — Jesse Jackson’s description of New York City while on the 1984 presidential campaign trail.

        4) “A few years ago, (Barack Obama) would have been getting us coffee.” — Bill Clinton to Ted Kennedy

        5) “The Israeli puppeteer travels to Washington and meets with the puppet in the White House. He then goes down Pennsylvania Avenue and meets with the puppets in Congress. The Israeli leader then ‘brings back millions of dollars’ in aid to Israel.” — Ralph Nader

        6) “(Harry Reid) was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama — a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” — Harry Reid’s comments reported by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann

        7) “I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia [Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan recruiter] that he would have been a great senator at any moment. . . . He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation.” — Former Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd (D.,Conn.)

        8) “Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them.” — Mary Frances Berry, former Chairwoman, US Commission on Civil Rights

        9) “Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.” –Mary Frances Berry, former Chairwoman, US Commission on Civil Rights

        10) “Well, because the Arabs who were involved in 9/11 cooperated with the Zionists, actually. It was a cooperation. They gave them the perfect excuse to denounce all Arabs. It’s a racist sort of thing, really racist – you know, picking out these 19 or 20 terrorists – they were terrorists – and saying all the Arabs are like them.” — Former Democratic Senator James Abourezk on Hizbullah TV

        11) “Let me see one of you adopt one of those ugly black babies.” — AbortionistAshutosh Ron Virmani

        12) “There’s no great, white bigot; there’s just about 200 million little white bigots out there.” — USA Today columnist Julienne Malveaux

        13) “Them Jews aren’t going to let (Obama) talk to me. I told my baby daughter, that he’ll talk to me in five years when he’s a lame duck, or in eight years when he’s out of office. …They will not let him talk to somebody who calls a spade what it is.” — Jeremiah Wright

        14) “There’s white racist DNA running through the synapses of his or her brain tissue. They will kill their own kind, defend the enemies of their kind or anyone who is perceived to be the enemy of the milky white way of life.” — Jeremiah Wright

        15) “The white man is our mortal enemy, and we cannot accept him. I will fight to see that vicious beast go down into the lake of fire prepared for him from the beginning, that he never rise again to give any innocent black man, woman or child the hell that he has delighted in pouring on us for 400 years.” — Louis Farrakhan

        16) “White people shouldn’t be allowed to vote. It’s for the good of the country and for those who’re bitter for a reason and armed because they’re scared.” — Left-wing journalist Jonathan Valania

        17) “(Joseph Lowery) said that when he was a young militant, he used to say all white folks were going to hell. …’Then he mellowed and just said most of them were. Now, he said, he is back to where he was.’” — The Daily Mail quotes Joseph Lowery, who gave the benediction at President Obama’s inauguration

        18) “We are owned by propagandists against the Arabs. There’s no question about that. Congress, the White House, and Hollywood, Wall Street, are owned by the Zionists. No question in my opinion. They put their money where their mouth is…We’re being pushed into a wrong direction in every way.” — Helen Thomas

        19) “You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent.” — Joe Biden

        20) “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” — Joe Biden

        21) “I give interracial couples a look. Daggers. They get uncomfortable when they see me on the street.” — Spike Lee

        22) “I want to go up to the closest white person and say: ‘You can’t understand this, it’s a black thing’ and then slap him, just for my mental health.” — New York City Councilman, Charles Barron

        23) “We got to do something about these Asians coming in and opening up businesses and dirty shops. They ought to go.” — Marion Barry

        24) “The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn’t. But she is a typical white person…” — Barack Obama

        25) “That’s just how white folks will do you. It wasn’t merely the cruelty involved; I was learning that black people could be mean and then some. It was a particular brand of arrogance, an obtuseness in otherwise sane people that brought forth our bitter laughter. It was as if whites didn’t know that they were being cruel in the first place. Or at least thought you deserving of their scorn.” — Barack Obama

      • The rest of the names that you mention, right winger, all of those racist Southern Democrats, are now dead. Their heirs are now republicans. lol. So what is your point? The south solidly votes Republican now, and previously, they voted solidly Democrat. Right Winger, you can’t argue against facts. That is the indisputable proof that the point in which I made is true.

      • It was never contested in the first place. As I have said, the exodus of the racist Democrats into the GOP started with the passage of the 1964 civil rights bill. that is a fact

      • So we agree that racist Dixiecrats became dems. Because you have yet to post proof to the contrary.

      • Like Reagan, Like Bush, Like Nixon. Or, like Bush Sr;., who pardoned the remaining Iran Contra crooks on December 23, 1992, killing the investigation of Republican Special Prosecutor, Lawrence Walsh? An investigation which was leading toward the indictment of Bush Sr. You right wing garbage, I know the history of your favorite Presidents, and how they trampled on the law. You have nerve, right winger, to talk about Obama.

      • And Obama illegally funded the Muslim Brotherhood. But when your name is HUSSEIN, what can you do? I know it is far more comfortable for lefties to go back 30 years to deflect from their terrorist POTUS. Welcome to 2014 where we have a POTUS who supports evil instead of killing it.

      • But the George HW Bush family has been in business with the Bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia for decades through the Carlye Group corporation. They have done business with the terrorist supporting Islamic radical Bin Laden family for years. Do you support that? Also, Reagan illegally sold weapons to the terrorist nation of Iran. Do you support that?

      • And? Got any links where Bush did business with Osama? Didn’t think so. Obama funded terrorists. Deal with it.

        And if you have a problem with Saudis………

        http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/18/clinton.donations/

        (CNN) — Former President Clinton published a list of donors to his foundation Thursday to help clear the way for his wife to become secretary of state.

        Bill Clinton speaks to at the Clinton Global Initiative conference in Hong Kong in early December.

        The donations to the William J. Clinton Foundation include amounts of $10 million to $25 million from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and real estate mogul Stephen Bing, a personal friend of Clinton’s.

        The Clintons came under intense pressure during Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination to release the names of donors to both the foundation and to the Clinton presidential library in Arkansas.

        Bill Clinton agreed to the release the list after President-elect Barack Obama nominated Hillary Clinton to become secretary of state.

        The governments of Kuwait and Qatar are also on the list, as is Saudi businessman Nasser Al-Rashid, who has close ties to the Saudi royal family. Saudi Sheikh Mohammed H. Al-Amoudi, reputed to be one of the richest men in the world, is among the donors as well. Both Saudis contributed in the $1 million to $5 million range. A group called Friends of Saudi Arabia and the Dubai Foundation appear in the same category.

        Indian businessman Lakshmi Mittal also donated between $1 million and $5 million, as did the Elton John AIDS Foundation, the Princess Diana Memorial Fund and the Open Society Institute, which George Soros founded.

        ——————————————————-

        I guess this was payback for Clinton letting Osama go many times. Your turn lefty.

      • George W Bush got into the oil business through support of his financier, James Bath. James Bath got money from one client to fund the operations, and that client was Salem bin Laden, the older brother of Osama. The terrorist supporting Bin Laden family put George, THE CONVICTED DRUNK, in the oil business.

      • Still waiting for the proof that Bush did business with Osama.

        Obama Funds Terrorists

        May 1, 2012 by Daniel Greenfield 0 Comments

        On April 23rd, Obama stopped by the Holocaust Memorial Museum where he mouthed the words, “Never Again” and two days later he issued a memorandum waiving restrictions on funding to the terrorists of the Palestinian Authority, which routinely calls for the murder of Jews, and for its president who has described the Holocaust as a “fantastic lie.”

        It took Obama a day to disavow his commitment to a united Jerusalem. It took him a little longer to disavow his commitment to “Never Again.”

        In his memorandum, Obama certified the 192 million dollar aid package as “important to the national security interests of the United States” and White House spokesman Tommy Vietor claimed that it would ensure “the continued viability of the moderate PA government.” That same moderate government which has tried to form a pact with Hamas and whose high ranking officials have repeatedly engaged in terrorism.

        The Palestinian Accountability Act, which Obama waived with a flourish of the pen, was one in a series of attempts to stem the flow of taxpayer money to the terrorist corruptocracy in Ramallah. The Act mandated that no funds may be made available to the Palestinian Authority until it ends its terrorist activities and an independent audit is conducted of its finances. Rather than complying with the bill, Obama dismissed it by resorting to the transparently fraudulent claim of national security.

        So where is that money really going?

        According to the Palestinian Authority, its budget crisis was caused by the funding that it provides to Hamas run Gaza at a rate of 120 million dollars a month. If we take these figures as actual, then its 1.3 billion dollar budget deficit is almost entirely composed of Gaza expenditures.

        Another 60 million dollars a year is paid out to convicted terrorists in Israeli prisons. Obama’s generous waiver would cover a month’s worth of expenses for Hamas run Gaza and a year’s worth of salaries for the imprisoned murderers and bombers. Including members of Hamas. Then there are the infrastructure projects, like homes for released terrorists built by the Palestinian Investment Fund.

        Nearly 1.8 billion dollars of the PA budget for 2012 consists of government salaries. With above 20 percent unemployment, those in the West Bank and Gaza who don’t work in Israel, work directly or indirectly for the Palestinian Authority or the UNRWA, both funded by foreign donors, including the United States. The World Bank found that the Palestinian Authority’s government employment rates are more than twice the average for the region with around 150,000 employees. About 65,000 of those are in Hamas run Gaza.

        For all the talk about the needs of the Palestinian people, the Authority is in the guns, not butter business. Security spending is its single largest sector expenditure. Within the governance sector, which American aid heavily focuses on, 43 percent of funds goes to security. Its projections for the next three years call for 234 million dollars in security spending.

      • This isn’t gradeschool dipshit kool-ade drinker. Just because someone else did something doesn’t make it OK for the next guy. Next I suggest you learn the difference between apples and oranges, or not change the subject since I had you defeated when you opened your smartass mouth.

    • Brendan…Congress did NOT approve these funds. According to the constitution, congress MUST approve all appropriations. What about those two capitalized words do you not understand? I’d be willing to bet you have not a clue what the constitution even is.

      • You are assuming that the 9 million dollars over the next two years is not coming from discretionary funds that were already approved by Congress and set aside

      • republicans came back and did nothing, but campaign on the fact Obama did something. Now the republicans left DC for last minute campaigning.

      • Hey stupid. POS Reid has about 300 pieces of legislation sitting on his desk from Republicans that he refuses to bring to the floor. You idiot.

      • Hello Andy. I see you are in a good mood. Did the doctor give you an extra valiums for the weekend? Or were they hoping you would over dose?

      • Hello by-product. Now get back to the subject, take Reid’s joints out of whatever orifice it occupies at this time and tell him to do his job. After that, wipe the Dingy Harry off your teeth.

      • You and the rest of your infected libscum can call it whatever you wish. Tell your pappy Reid to do his job. Now go drink hos waste water punk.

      • Andy’s boyfriend didn’t show up this weekend. He was with a Black man, and Andy is mad that he has lost his boyfriend to a sweet black boy

      • Garbage legislation that has nothing to do, for the most part, with the bills that they submit, cloaked with right wing garbage that will hurt Americans.

      • I fail to see what your reply has to do with my comment Philanthro…..Obama broke the law again. Period. And I am in no way defending Republicans as they are complicit with Democrats in allowing, even aiding, this administration in it’s lawlessness. And the Repubs did not leave DC for last minute campaigning. They may be participating in such, but only because congress is back on another break, right after summer break and before the break for the Holidays. How can any of you support any of these politicians that work less than half the hours of the average American yet enjoy lifetime overpayment and benefits for being public SERVANTS for as little as two years? The government isn’t the problem. The morons that elect them then let the thieves and liars run wild and unchecked are at fault for not doing their civic duty.

      • According to Bush’s immigration law, most kids get legal representation.
        The republicans don’t care about passing reform so they can have something to campaign on.

      • Right Winger, there were 138 members of the Reagan Administration indicted, or forced to resign for crimes and ethical violations. Reagan signed the Boland amendment into law while knowing that at the same time, his operatives were violating it. Reagan broke every law on the books in illegally selling weapons to the terrorist nation of Iran, and Reagan LIED over and over again about it. But that was okay, wasn’t it, you right wing scum, because Reagan fought for the rights of white racists like youl

      • First of all Exterminator…You show true ignorance and intolerance with your name calling as is the normal tactic of the leftist progressives. (Otherwise known as socialists) Secondly, just because Reagan broke the law, that excuses your Muslim, socialist, America hating overlord Obama for doing the same? Very sound logic I must say. You are the poster child for the leftist destroyers of America and the constitution. And finally, you know nothing about me. Like how I got the crap beat out of me for hanging out with black kids in high school by a bunch of racist scum. Your party, the Democrats, fought tooth and nail AGAINST civil rights for minorities during the civil rights movement. They are the party that gave birth to the KKK. You know nothing about the truth. Your picture is next to the word “ignorant” in the dictionary. Obama has broken the law and violated the constitution time and time again and reminding us that others have done the same along with your ignorance and name calling doesn’t change that one iota. He is a criminal and a treasonous Islamist himself.

      • Right Winger, name me ONE SINGLE Obama official that has been indicted???????? C’mon, right winger, back up your BS.
        Nope, Obama has broken NO law. If he had, in the GOP House’s lawsuit against him, they could have named something other than “delaying the Employer ACA mandate.” Right Winger, that was the best John Bohner could come up with in the lawsuit. And that was something thatthe Republicans lobbied for earlier, lol. Nope, right winger, Obama has broken no laws. A President has the right to sign an Executive Order, and Obama has signed fewer executive orders than any President dating back to Herbert Hoover. You don’t understand the way in which the Executive branch of government operates. Your ignorant right wing butt should do a little research and get some relevant data in your right wing Rush Limbaugh mind. Again, President Obama has BROKEN NO LAWS!!!!!!! There hasn’t been ONE SINGLE Obama official indicted, right winger, NOT ONE! In contract, there were 138 officials of the Reagan Administration indicted, or forced to resign for crimes.l Lawrence Walsh, the REPUBLICAN SPECIAL PROSECUTOR appointed by RONALD REAGAN to head the federal investigation into Iran Contra INDICTED 15 Reagan officials, AND CONVICTED 11 of them. Right Winger, name me ONE SINGLE Obama Official that has been convicted?????????? You’re a damn liar, right winger. There is no similarity between Reagan’s
        HISTORICALLY PROVEN lawbreaking, and the fantasy lawbreaking in your mind that Obama has committed. NO INDICTMENTS RIGHT WINGER . NONE!!!

      • Your lack of sound, if any, logic is exactly why this country is in the toilet. Al Capone was never indicted for murder. So do you think he never committed one? The Clintons were never indicted for Whitewater but it has been proven time and time again that they are guilty. Politicians from every party have been getting away with breaking the law since the beginning of this nation. And might I remind you that Eric Holder is still in contempt of congress? That is a crime of which he is clearly guilty. Obama gave material aide and support to the enemy with the Bergdahl trade. What about Fast and Furious? How about Lois Lerner and Elijah Cummings, just to name a few, and the IRS scandal? And let’s not forget about Obama’s many executive orders that clearly violate the constitution. Plus VA officials broke the law with their phony waiting lists that cost some veterans their lives.Even many liberal Democrats admit all of these pesky little facts. And once again, most of your reply is full of denial and juvenile name calling. Just because a president signs fewer executive orders doesn’t mean that none of them are a violation of the constitution, which you really should read sometime. Speaking of which, I’d be willing to bet that you believe that the separation of church and state are contained in the constitution. And finally, the Republicans’ assertion that Obama broke the law by changing the ACA is inarguable.Even Democrats admit this. That is why it is the only violation for which Obama’s being sued. It’s an open and shut case. Not to mention the Republicans had to do at least something to throw their constituents a bone.You are exercising your God given right to express your opinion and I fully support it. I am expressing my God given right to state incontrovertible facts. Huge difference. But I have just reminded myself of another fact. Trying to argue blind opinion with facts is a fool’s errand and a colossal waste of time. So I will be moving on to something that makes at least a modicum of sense now. God bless you and yours.

      • Fast and Furious, started under George W Bush. Bush’s program. Obama does not even know Lois Lerner, she does not work for him, she works for the IRS. Eric Holder’s contempt a 100% partisan vote because you had nothing on him, nothing. VA has been having troubles forever. under all Presidents, each and every one of them. Obama has issued less Executive Orders than all Presidents dating back to Herbert Hoover, Just FAKE or, as the President put it, “PHONEY” scandals. Again right winger, WHERE ARE THE INDICTMENTS?????? Scooter Libby INDICTED under the Bush Administration, 138 Reagan officials indicted or forced to resign for crimes. RIGHT WINGER, WHERE ARE THE INDICTMENTS???????

      • right winger, you can type all day long, and post irrelevant stuff from right wing sources that have been working 24/7 to find a scandal on the President in vain. THERE IS NOTHING THERE, RIGHT WINGER, NOTHING. Nobody is even talking about it anymore, only you. Republicans have DROPPED all of their bogus investigations because they have LED to nothing, right winger, NOTHING. Again, show me an indictment. Show me a conviction. YOU have NOTHING, right winger, ZERO — just “PHONEY SCANDALS,” as the President put it, lol

      • Right Winger, when your right wing Congress filed a lawsuit against the President (lol) why was the only thing that John Boehner could come up with is that the President delayed the Employees mandate in the ACA? If anything you listed was true, which they are not, they are laughable, Mr. Boehner would have included some of your fantasies, lol. right Winger, get it in you head: The President has VIOLATED NO LAW, no Constitution, YOUR SIDE, the far right, has just made it all up! NO SCANDALS right winger, NONE!!!

      • Right Winger, NOTHING that you have listed is a crime on the part of the President. NOTHING! Learn to live with it. The President is a honest law abiding man. He’s not a crook like bush and Cheney, who lied us into a war, and got Americans killed for nothing. He is NOT a crook like Reagan, who illegally sold weapons to the terrorist nation of Iran. He is NOT A CROOK, like Bush 1, who treasonously pardoned the remaining Iran Contra crooks, thwarting an investigation by the Republican Special Prosecutor, Lawrence Walsh, an investigation leading toward the Indictment of Bush 1. No right winger, Obama has done nothing like that. Those are real crimes, what you are listing is within the boundaries of Presidential Authority, you are just trying to embellish nothing into something, lol.

      • Congress most likely did approve these appropriations. You – and West – need to understand Congress doesn’t approve every check the executive writes; instead, it very often approves the funding of programs. The executive then has leeway in how those funds are spent so long as he sticks to the general rules of the appropriation. You may think of these as discretionary funds (not to be confused with discretionary spending with relates to the budget process) that have some strings.

        I’m unsure what program these appropriations come from, but one can’t just nakedly declare they are an unlawful expenditure. Given how diligent the (R) have been on chasing down everything Obama does, if he wrongly used appropriated funds, you’d hear about it from a real news source, not just West and the Wingnuts.

        That’s how budgets work, consistent with the Constitution. If you want to declare these funds were not appropriated, then were did they come from. The executive has no slush-fund, All his money comes from Congress. If you want to make the allegation that Obama has broken the law, then you need to offer some proof. That’s the burden of moving forward – and that’s also considered to be part of the Constitution within the penumbra of Due Process.

      • Tru, you’re wasting your time. You’re talking to the KKK. Oliver North was Reagan’s go to man in illegally transferring weapons to the terrorist nation of Iran in the 1980’s in violation of the 1) US Arms Export Munitions control Act and 2) The 1979 United States Arms Embargo against Iran. But that was Okay to the racist right wingers, because Reagan was a racist and they loved him.

    • Allen West is a clown, a clown with a Black face, that came close to going to Prison while in Iraq, and came close to being court martial also. Allen West is like Stepin Fetchit, he is a white racists shoe shine boy. He tap dances for the KKK

  5. I will definitely be voting Republican, but I don’t want to hear one more Republican go on Fox News and say they have no intention of impeaching this President. If ever a President deserved impeachment, he’s the one. He has all but destroyed this nation.

    • If we get the Senate and keep the House we could go for Impeachment. But keep in mind this P O S has two years left and by the time all the hearings are over he’ll be out of office.But the next two years they sure can slow his butt down and that’s what he’s afraid of. He wanted them to start impeachment because he was hoping it would hurt the Republicans election in November. And if they would have started Impeachment earlier,,,the House could pass it but then he would have had to be tried and convicted by the Senate. Like Harry Reid would have let that happen. Yes he deserves to be Impeached. The only good thing if he gets impeached before he leaves office is we won’t be paying his salary the rest of his life.

      • Try it, right winger, try it. We Blacks will bury your kkk asses if you try that charade. You hear me, you KKK bastard, we Blacks will bury you white supremacist Nazi bastards

  6. How this guy and his wife got through law school and passed the bar is a mystery. Neither of them have an ounce of common sense.

      • They’re not lawyers? Then why was his teaching constitutional law? Did they never pass the bar exam? I was always under the presumption that they were both attorneys.

      • [[ They’re not lawyers? Then why was his teaching constitutional law? ]]

        Because that is the nature of libtard infested universities. Just look at O-boo-boo’s bomb making buddy Ayers. That cretin was a professor.

      • What is your lying problem, right winger. Did a black guy once steal your girlfriend? You are a complete lunatic. Can’t stand a black man calling the shots, can you. He kicked your fascist white supremacist ass in two consecutive elections, a BLACK man did. Makes you wanna cry, doesn’t it you White Supremacist Nazi sympathizer.

      • Sit down Left Nut Excrement. No one was talking to you. And have more respect for you father. And BTW, Obama is a half-breed. You white guilting twits keep forgetting that. How many bruthas do you know who vacation in Mathaaa’s Vineyaaaaad? Your ape POS POTUS is a worldwide embarrassment. Give ’em a reach-around punk. And change yer name kid. I’ll kick yer lame azz all over this forum.

      • They are getting their information from some absurd right wing source. These white right wing kooks are completely insane

      • sure passed but they both gave up their degrees, michelle at the tender
        age of 29, both were avoiding scandal that would have disbarred them.
        and bo has different names on his transcripts than on his law degree so
        that is what caused him to let his degree go rather than exposing this
        credentials

      • The next time you walk out of your trailer park, right winger, go to the library and look it up.

      • You’re a liar, right winger. Both of them passed the bar examination and were admitted to the bar. you are a damn liar, right wing heifer.

      • sure passed but they both gave up their degrees, michelle at the tender age of 29, both were avoiding scandal that would have disbarred them. and bo has different names on his transcripts than on his law degree so that is what caused him to let his degree go rather than exposing this credentials look things up before you comment. and before you judge i am not a left winger or right winger i think they should all go.

      • You actually believe that crazy stuff don’t you? Don’t you realize that if this were true, it would be the main story on all major news networks? Where do you right wingers get this nonsense from? What right wing news source is floating around this fairy tale? Where did you get this crazy stuff from?And more importantly, why do you want to believe such nutzoid conspiracy nonsense. Therefore, I hate to do this, but I am going to call you a damn liar. However, I will give you the opportunity to submit to the thread, to me, a credible link to a credible news source with valid documentation that what you have said is true. You’re a right wing white liar. Prove me wrong.

    • “This guy”, if referring to Obama, is the President of the United States, and should be given that respect. You may not like Obama or his policies/actions, but he is the rightfully democratically elected President. Unlike “dubya” George W Bush, who won the presidentcy only be Electoral Votes, not by popular votes.

      • No requirement in this country to respect a moron because of his “rank”. His “rank” has nothing to do with how he handles himself and his business. And in the same comment that you say we need to respect the president, you give none to an ex-president (and probably didn’t when he was in office) which is ironic.

      • Obama is a POS. He is a Muslim sympathizer who hates this nation. I give him the same respect he gives ALL Americans. Screw him and screw the morons who kiss his azz. Just because 52% of this nation was stupid enough to put him in does not mean I have to respect him.

      • The Bush family is buddy buddy with the Bin Laden terrorist family of Saudi Arabia. And Ronald Reagan illegally sold weapons to the terrorist nation of Iran

      • The Bin Laden family is criminal? Got any proof for a change?

        If Barack HUSSEIN is not Muslim, why does he fund people who want to kill us? Obviously you two hate Americans.

      • Right Winger, 15 of the 19 September 11, 2001, terrorists which attacked America were from Saudi Arabia. The day after the September 11, 2001, attacks, no commercial planes were allowed the fly in America with the exception of ONE: George W Bush allowed a plane carrying the Bin Laden family to leave America on that day. the only plane allowed to leave America after 911. George W Bush allowed Bin Laden to escape at Tora Bora in Afghanistan in 2003, when the CIA had him trapped there. It took our GREAT current President, Barack Obama, to finally bring the killer of Americans, Bin Laden to justice. Bush turned a blind eye on him because of his allegiance to the Bin Laden family and their Carlyle Investment group. Bush was white trash scum that has an arrest record a mile long, including a DUI conviction. The Bin Laden family has long been suspected of financing terrorists.

      • http://globalresearch.ca/george-w-bush-and-the-bin-laden-family-meet-in-new-york-city-one-day-before-911/5332870

        Right winger, based upon your wild and outrageous extrapolations about the President, based upon zero evidence, using your logic, it would seem as though the Bush family has no business making deals with the Bin Laden family, and how Bush allowed Bin Laden to escape at Tora Bora, putting one and one together, and again, based upon the logic that you use in tying Obama to things, and the fact that the Bin Laden family never turned him in, they obviously supported what he was doing.

      • You can build all the straw man that you need in order to recover from the beating I’ve given you. I am also heartened to see a liberal actually admit his racism for a change. Gotta look out for those them there rag-heads. Right Cletus?

      • http://globalresearch.ca/george-w-bush-and-the-bin-laden-family-meet-in-new-york-city-one-day-before-911/5332870

        Now, had this been Obama’s father, meeting with the family of the terrorist that attacked us the day before the attack on 911, you would tie such a coincidental (?) meeting to all kinds of conspiracy theories about Obama and his support for Islamic terrorists, and right winger, you know damn well that you would. Such a meeting would be irrefutable evidence on your part that Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist that support terrorism. So, I am only applying your logic to this matter.

      • [[ Now, had this been Obama’s father, ]]

        You mean the drunken ho’ hopper.

        Get over it left-nut. The Bin Laden family was a well known business family for a looooong time. But I appreciate you letting it be known that you stereotype and profile Arabs. Typical left-sac racist.

        [[ I am only applying your logic to this matter.]]

        You mean lib logic which is no logic at all………………RACIST!

      • Oh, so right winger, it’s you, not Obama, who defends radical Muslims. The Bin Laden family has not been an American friend when it comes to fighting terrorism. And you defend them? Right Winger, it has long been rumored that the Bin Laden family funds terrorists, long rumored. In their country, they behead people for minor offenses, prohibit women from even driving a car, relegating them to 2nd class citizens, and refused to join America in Afghanistan, etc., where American soldiers have been fighting terrorists. And again, 15 of the 19 September 11, 2001, attackers came from Saudi Arabia. Right Winger, if this were reversed, and we would be discussing Obama in this role, the issue would not even be debatable from your standpoint. Obama would be coddling with a family that funds terrorists, that would be your right wing conclusion, so don’t deny it.

      • And right winger, since you appear to suggest that it was racist to opposed the civil rights bills of the 1960s, explain your hero, Ronald Reagan, who vociferously opposed all of the civil rights bills of the 1960s. He was the governor of California, I believe, starting in 1966, but he made it clear, in numerous speeches, that he opposed all of the civil rights legislation. Reagan completed the transition of the racists democrats into the Republican Party. Hey, right winger, Reagan himself was a Democrat until about 1962 I believe. Additional proof. Your response, right winger.

      • So you have no proof as of yet and are now in hijack mode.

        Good for Reagan. I couldn’t care less. It’s you libtards who always chirp about your diversity and big tent. But when it comes down to it, your motley crew are the biggest racists in human history.

      • HISTORY OF RACISM IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

        The Racist Exodus from the Democratic Party

        Something
        that’s often overlooked is the Republican Party’s pandering to racist
        sentiments after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting
        Rights Act of 1965 under the Lyndon B Johnson administration. As
        African-Americans began moving to the Democratic Party (which up until
        recently, has been the party that catered to racist sentiments), the
        Republican Party took this opportunity to welcome disillusioned racists
        who would now abandon the Democratic Party. This strategy would become
        known as the Southern Strategy.

        As former Republican strategists
        Lee Atwater and Kevin Phillips have openly admitted, the Republican
        Party had lost the African American vote but would no longer need it, as
        they would cater to racist sentiment by focusing on issues like states
        rights (The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 came
        down from the federal government, overriding state laws) and decreased
        social spending (since it would largely affect African Americans, where
        poverty rates were high).

        The South begins voting Republican

        This
        seems to have worked. The electoral map shows that the South, which
        once voted overwhelmingly Democrat, would now vote Republican. In 1968
        the southern states went completely to George Wallace (who abandoned the
        Democratic Party and ran as an America Independent). From 1972 on, the
        south would vote Republican) which the exception of southern evangelical
        Christian Jimmy Carter’s first election).

        Ronald Reagan catered to Pro-Segregation Racist Sentiment

        Republican
        politicians certainly went along with this. In 1980 Ronald Reagan would
        give a speech in Philadelphia, MS, where 3 civil rights activists were
        murdered and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was still very unpopular. The
        speech would be about states’ rights and preventing the government from
        telling the states what to do. He would also express opposition to the
        Voting Rights Act of 1965, calling it “humiliating to the South.” Reagan
        would also popularize the notion of the “welfare queen” who collected
        welfare and drove around in a Cadillac.

        The Tea Party and other small government movements

        The
        Tea Party claims to be concerned about runaway government, taxes, and
        the deferral deficit. However, a study conducted by Forbes revealed how
        little they seem to know about tax rates and the size of government
        (they have an exaggerated sense of both). In fact, the size of
        government and tax burden here in the United States is lower than any
        virtually other industrialized country, and the wealth disparity is
        greater (resembling something closer to a developing country). The
        federal deficit has grown in the last few years far more due to lowered
        revenues from the Bush tax cuts and the lowered revenus that have
        accompanied the economic downturn than any increased spending. In
        addition to this, the 2009 deficit (where the deficit really spikes) is
        due mainly to policies implemented in 2008 (fiscal s009 started in
        October of 2008).

        Nevertheless, the Tea Party and other
        Republicans generally blame Obama for creating a socialist/nanny-state.
        Accompanying these misguided complaints are racist undertones,
        billboards, and statements.

        With his talk of civil liberties and
        smaller government, Ron Paul has drawn a large crowd of followers. These
        followers include well-known KKK members. How can this be? It’s quite
        simply; Ron Paul’s ideas of “civil liberties” means barring the federal
        government from telling states what they can/can’t do (for example,
        banning segregation). In fact, Ron Paul openly opposes the Civil Rights
        Act of 1964. His stated reason of course, is that the federal government
        shouldn’t have this much power (so if a state wants to allow racial
        segregation, suppress minority voting, remove women’s rights to end a
        pregnancy, or prevent same-sex relationships, the federal government
        should have no say in the matter).

        Cecil J Cloud is an avid student of economics, taxes economics, Republican racism, the Tea Party, the Ron Paul 2012 movement, the Obama healthcare plan, the housing crisis, GDP, revenues, and the history of the middle class.

      • How lame. You steal some term paper from a student, fail to link it, and hang your hat on it? Op-ed from another libtard? You are to be mocked. laughed at and pitied kid.

      • Right winger, thousands of articles have been written on this subject, which is a FACT, not an opinion. The Republican party took in the old racist Democrats, and that is why the GOP is so racist today.

      • right Winger, simple voting patterns of minorities in this nation prove also, the racism of the GOP. Hispanics voted Democrat, in the 2012 election, by like 72%. Blacks voted Democrat by I believe 93-94%. They are not stupid, they vote their interest, and they know that the Republican Party is a racist party now that has been seized by white supremacist black and hispanic haters like you.

      • So if blacks vote dem, in your feeble mind that means the GOP are racists? You claim the dems have the black’s best interests at heart. Hmmmmmmmmmm………….

        http://libertyalliance.com/2014/03/lbj-ill-niggers-voting-democratic-next-200-years/

        LBJ: I’ll Have Those Niggers Voting Democratic For The Next 200 Years.

        ALLENBWEST.COM, ARTICLES, EMAIL 40 COMMENTS

        Share1.6K Tweet153 9 Share2.6K

        by Allen West

        On March 20, 1854 the Republican Party was established in Ripon, Wisconsin. Referred to as the GOP or Grand Old Party, it established for one reason: to break the chains of slavery and ensure the unalienable rights endowed by the Creator of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would be for all Americans.

        The Republican Party was created to achieve individual freedom. Then, as now, the antagonist to the Republican party has been the Democrats, the party of collective subjugation and individual enslavement — then physical, now economic.

        The first black members of the US House and Senate were Republicans. The first civil rights legislation came from Republicans. Democrats gave us the KKK, Jim Crow, lynchings, poll taxes, literacy tests, and failed policies like the “Great Society.”

        Read the rest of this Liberty Alliance article here: http://libertyalliance.com/2014/03/lbj-ill-niggers-voting-democratic-next-200-years/#Lsxb55Hp91UeG4Rr.99

      • Right Winger, if White Supremacist Republican racists like you, quit spending time trying to deny your racism, and work on improving yourself, ridding your soul of the racist tradition of your fathers and grandfathers, you would win some of the minority vote. You have also lost women because you are also a sexist party along with a racist party. You cannot deny how people vote, right winger. WE VOTE AGAINST YOUR KIND, because you are a racist, and we know it.

      • LOL Right Winger, I kicked your butt in the debate tonight. I proved that the current Republican Party evolved from the old Racist segregationist Democrats from the past, And I got your Ronald Reagan number packed down so tight, you are too afraid and uninformed to even debate me on that subject. You don’t even want to go there. Right Winger, I kicked your ass in the debate tonight.

      • Sit down left-nut. The “up votes” are in and you’ve lost.

        Obama is a Muslim -check
        Obama funded/funds terrorists- check
        KKK started by Dems-check
        Dems are racists-check
        98% of racist Dixiecrats went Dem-check
        Proved that GOP passed the CRA of 1964-check
        Proved that JFK voted against the CRA of 1957-check
        Proved that Dem LBJ wanted to buy “ni##ers” votes-check
        Slapped the crap out of yet one more libtard-double check

      • George W Bush and Dick Cheney allowed the terrorist to attack us and kill 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001, in order for them to initiate a fake invasion of Iraq in order for Halliburton, the Carlyle Corporation (The Bush and Bin Laden Families) to enhance their profits at the expense of the blood of innocent Americans. CHECK

        George W Bush is a convicted drunk, has been arrested three times, maybe more, even rumored to have been arrested for cocaine, and did community service hours at a Houston Texas youth program to avoid going to jail. CHECK

        George W Bush went AWOL in the Texas Air Guard in 1972, and Dick Cheney cowardly dodged the draft, claiming four deferments. CHECK

        Laura Bush, George’s phony wife, KILLED her boyfriend, Michael Douglas, in 1963. She is a MURDERER- CHECK

        Prescott Bush, George W’s Grandfather was a Nazi sympathizer. CHECK

        George W Bush lost the 2000 election to Al Gore by 540,000 popular votes, lost Florida too until his brother, Jeb, the Governor of Florida at the time, rigged the vote count there, making George W the first so called President since 1888 to LOSE the popular vote but still, somehow, get into the Whitehouse. CHECK

        Blacks and Hispanics hate the Republican Party, and the Republican Party is 98% White because it is a racist party, whose roots come from the fact that after LBJ signed the civil rights bills into law, the racist Democrats slowly began migrating into the Republican White Male party because it appealed to their racism. Which is the reason that the GOP is so racist today, because they have the sons and daughters, the grandsons and granddaughters, of the old racist Democrats dominating their party now CHECK

        Ronald Reagan was a racist and a liar who illegally sold weapons to the terrorist nation of Iran, lied repeatedly about it, totally ignored the US constitution, and committed treason in paying ransom to terrorists CHECK

        Ronald Reagan Married the Biggest whore in Hollywood in Nancy Davis, later Nancy Reagan, who was known for her blow jobs on the Casting Couch, and once allowed actors Peter Lawford and Robert Walker to pull a gangbang on her CHECK

        In 1952, Ronald Reagan beat and raped a young Hollywood starlet name Selene Walters. CHECK

        In total, there were 138 members of the Reagan Administration indicted and forced to resign for crimes and ethical violation, by far, the worst, the most corrupt Presidential Administration in the history of this nation.
        CHECK
        lol

      • [[ George W Bush and Dick Cheney allowed the terrorist to attack us and kill 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001 ]]

        Wrong again terd………

        Catastrophic intelligence Failure – Clinton’s Bin Laden GATE
        Accuracy in Media ^ | September 24, 2001 | Cliff Kincaid – Reed Irvine

        Posted on 9/29/2001, 3:10:15 PM by majordivit

        CATASTROPHIC INTELLIGENCE FAILURE

        In 1995, the CIA and the FBI learned that Osama bin Laden was planning to hijack U.S. airliners and use them as bombs to attack important targets in the U.S. This scheme was called Project Bojinka. It was discovered in the Philippines, where authorities arrested two of bin Laden’s agents, Ramzi Yousef and Abdul Hakim Murad. They were involved in planting a bomb on a Philippine airliner. Project Bojinka, which Philip-pine authorities found outlined on Abdul Murad’s laptop, called for planting bombs on eleven U.S. airliners and hijacking others and crashing them into targets like the CIA building.

        The hijacking part of the plan got less attention than the planting of bombs. It required aviators like Japan’s kamikaze pilots who were willing to commit suicide. Bin Laden had no such pilots in 1995, but he set out to train young fanatics willing to die for him to fly airliners. Abdul Murad, whose laptop had revealed the plan, admitted that he was being trained for a suicide mission. Bin Laden began training pilots in Afghanistan with the help of an Afghan pilot and a Pakistani general.

        Project Bojinka was known to the CIA and the FBI. It was described in court documents in the trial in New York of Ramzi Yousef and Abdul Murad for their participation in the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. Since the CIA had been mentioned as one of the targets in Project Bojinka, it should have had an especially strong interest in any evidence that bin Laden was preparing to carry it out. The most obvious indicator, and one that should have been watched most carefully, was the recruitment of young, dedicated followers to learn to fly American airliners. That would require keeping a close watch on flight schools where that training is given.

        Foreigners, including many from the Middle East, flock to flight schools in the U.S. Visas are given almost automatically to those who apply to these schools. It is especially easy for those with Saudi Arabian passports. At Huffman Aviation International in Venice, Florida, about 70 percent of the students are foreigners. That is one of the schools where Mohammed Atta, 33, who steered American Airlines flight 11 into the north WTC tower, and Marwan Yousef Alshehhi, who flew United Airlines flight 175 into the south tower were trained. Both had back-grounds that would have sounded an alarm had the CIA checked them.

        A Huffman Aviation employee says that if the FBI had informed them that bin Laden had a plan to hijack our airliners and crash them into important buildings and had asked them to report any suspicious students, they would have cooperated. It was news to him that the FBI and CIA knew about this plan. It has been reported that a student who was training on a flight simulator at a Minnesota school wasn’t interested in learning how to land a plane. If true, that would surely have been reported if the school had been contacted by the FBI.

        Osama bin Laden apparently knew better than the FBI how lax our government was about checking out students who come here for flight training. He took full advantage of it. Now that we have paid a horrendous price for this intelligence failure, the FBI and the CIA are scurrying to learn more about young men from countries where bin Laden’s Al Qaeda has support who have taken flight training in recent years. The Washington Post reports that at least 44 of those the FBI wants to question are pilots. As of Sept. 20, we had seen no reports in the papers that had identified more than three of the 19 dead hijackers as pilots. That means that bin Laden still has an ample supply of manpower to continue Project Bojinka. Louis Freeh bears a lot of the blame for this, but he has already resigned. George Tenet, who heads the CIA, should resign or be fired

      • And suck this too………….

        Clinton Admits He Refused To Take Bin Laden – YouTube

        ► 0:47► 0:47

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qgKAsfp_lc

        Mar 4, 2007 – Uploaded by CafeNetAmericaClinton Admits He Refused To Take Bin Laden … Clintonrefused to kill bin Laden by Marc Landers 12,986 …

        And…………………

        Bill Clinton on Osama Bin Laden – YouTube

        ► 0:48► 0:48

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wvo2lQe81xk

        Sep 7, 2006 – Uploaded by paulwmendezAudio of Clinton admitting not doing anything about Bin Laden. … Clinton refused to kill bin Laden by Marc …

      • Respect??? What President of the United States has ever gone over to other countries and put down the Americans? Saying we don’t know what we want. We are spoiled. We are the problem. This guy doesn’t even like America and he shows it every day. He looks his nose down on us. So you say respect him. I’ll respect him the day he respects his office and the United States.

      • You’re a damn liar, right winger. He never put America down abroad. You’re a damn liar, right winger. If he questioned past US policies, he has a right to do that. What President illegally sold weapons to terrorists, a President that your racistg ass lov3es???? Ronald Reagan, jerk!

      • Right Winger, the biggest beneficiaries of Affirmative Action were White Woman. That doesn’t bother you,does it, jerk. Just black people are your concern, ohhh, that Black man in the White House drives your hateful right wing ass insane, doesn’t it?

      • Wow! Too bad we can’t have a conversation, as you are getting your exercise by jumping to conclusions. I have seen the impacts first hand and warn the boys and girls about how accepting its benefits can harm them. You think you know so much about everyone you disagree with that you must atttack. Sigh, what a sad person you must be.

      • White woman, racist, Jennifer, the white man had 300 years of Affirmative Action in his favor in America

    • Right Winger, he apparently has more common sense than your ignorant right wing ass. He is the President, YOUR President, right winger, by way of kicking racist white ass in two consecutive elections

      • He may be your “leader” but he certainly isn’t America’s leader. That would takes brains to do that and he doesn’t have them. Have fun in the hospital with your ebola virus and the entero 68. Your peeps in the hood should fair well once that starts hitting the ghetto like a bomb blast.

  7. The difference it makes is that now our children are dying from diseases and viruses brought to our shores by immigrants who do not go though any medical screening whatsoever.

    • peter, right winger, you are a damn liar. Cite an example of our children dying from diseases and viruses brought to the shores by immigrants. White people, when they began colonizing America, wiped out millions of native Americans with their filthy diseases etc.

  8. Bravo. Thank you for strongly putting in writing what the American people need to know. Hopefully those who read this column will pass it on – I know I will.

  9. His bucket head ass had no problem with the American people footing the bill for a frivolous lawsuit when the Republicans wanted and did sue the president knowing it would go nowhere.He’s a stinking hypocrite!!!

      • Right Winger, you hate this government, you hate this country. Since it is no longer 100% under white rule, you hate America. You are a criminal, right winger, a criminal to our constitution

      • [[ Right Winger, you hate this government, you hate this country. ]]

        Left nut. Unlike you I am no fan of your MB funding POS POTUS. You and he support terrorism. Both of you can push up daisies.

      • You support the Bush family, which are buddy buddy to the terrorist Bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia. You also support Ronald Reagan who illegally sold weapons to the terrorist nation of Iran in the 1980s

      • [[ You support the Bush family, ]]

        All except for Jeb.

        [[ which are buddy buddy to the terrorist Bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia.]]

        But not Osama. It would be like me hating your family because of the reprobate you are. It isn’t their fault you’re a mistake.

        [[ You also support Ronald Reagan who illegally sold weapons to the terrorist nation of Iran in the 1980s ]]

        And you support Obama who funds terrorists today. Next.

      • No, you are the criminal, right winger. You are a criminal to the United States of America with your hateful and polarizing right wing views

  10. Funding the lawyers is not trampling on the Constitution, its following the law.

    Signed into law by GW Bush, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 includes the following provision:

    “Access to counsel

    The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall ensure, to the greatest extent practicable and consistent with section 292 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1362), that all unaccompanied alien children who are or have been in the custody of the Secretary or the Secretary of Homeland Security, and who are not described in subsection (a)(2)(A), have counsel to represent them in legal proceedings or matters and protect them from mistreatment, exploitation, and trafficking. To the greatest extent practicable, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall make every effort to utilize the services of pro bono counsel who agree to provide representation to such children without charge.”

    Typically Immigration Courts do not provide lawyers because they are civil, not criminal hearings.

    Here, President Bush and the unanimous Congress thought having lawyers for the kids was important enough that it warranted funding.

    Yo – West, first, read the Constitution, then, read the law about which you are writing. It will save you getting embarrassed like this in the future.

    • What you have cited is of course, 100% accurate. However, Rush Limbaugh will find some way for them to shoot it back on Obama

  11. MEN,WOMEN,AND CHILDREN IF YOU ARE A FOREIGNER WITH NO VISA PLEASE DO NOT COME HERE. SEND THEM HOME. COME THE RIGHT,LEGAL WAY OR DO NOT COME. WE HAVE WAITING LINES, JUST LIKE DISNEY WORLD, IF YOU CAN CONTRIBUTE MORE THEY LET YOU BUTT THE LINE. ALTHOUGH HAVE NEVER LIKED THAT PHILOSOPHY EITHER. GOVERNMENT QUIT WASTING/SPENDING OUR MONEY! HOW IS FUNDING THE LAWYERS THE LAW? THE CHILDREN ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS SHOULD BE DEPORTED NOT HIRING LAWYERS.

      • WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO COMMENT, WE BOTH HAVE OPINIONS AND THEY ARE OUT THERE. JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

      • Check your history Exterminator. The Democratic party fought the civil rights movement tooth and nail. They are also the party of the KKK. You really should quit puking up MSNBC liberal tripe and do some independent studying/research. And your name, by the way, is ridiculous. I know many liberals, both Democrat and Republican, that would tell you that you lack any real knowledge about most of which you speak. You are hurting your own cause and helping that of conservatives.

      • I see the LIEberal fascist pines for the times of his great grand-pappy.
        We’ve already established that you hate all Arabs now you seem to hate Jews. Being a liberal tool we know you hate blacks as well.

    • Whites were illegal aliens when they sailed to America from their European prisons and stole this land from Indians.

      • and I am 3/8 Cherokee Indian,Floridian born and raised and what does race have to do with being foreign and coming here legally?

      • Poor kid. You’re reduced to parroting good material as you’ve run out of your own. My condolences.

      • You think that these right wingers would be going berserk if it were White Europeans being shipped over here? Of course not.

      • right winger, care to cite a document by the Indians to the Europeans inviting them over here?

      • Bad form to answer a question with a question. Next time you think about posting something stupid……..oh what the hell. You’l post it anyway, chew toy. But to answer your dumb azz, care to cite a document where we asked the illegals to come here illegally?

      • Another thing, you stupid uneducated right winger, quit asking for “proof” that the old racist Democratic party has transformed into the right wing element of the Republican Party. The undeniable proof is found in the voting. When the racist Dems controlled the South, the south voted solidly Democratic. When the racist Dems migrated into the GOP, now, they vote solidly Republican. No more proof is needed, you asinine fool.

      • C’mon kid. Give it a shot. Instead if stealing other people’s op-eds, come up with real proof of your rants.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here