Rand opposes using military for deportations

[jmdrake]

There you go again.
ONE report doesn't equal "All of the evidence turned out to be fake"
That's you lying about what you said that I responded to.

I gave you a SPECIFIC EXAMPLE and you said that SPECIFIC EXAMPLE was "false" which makes you a liar. Actually I've given two SPECIFIC EXAMPLES in this thread. You don't have a single SPECIFIC EXAMPLE that has been verified. There's a whole thread with probably about a thousand posts now on the subject. You don't get away with lying and saying "there's all this evidence" when every bit of it has been debunked so far.

Yes there is.




Yes he is.

Bullshyt.

I didn't say it was, but I bet I could find some.
That's not the point, the point is that the same people running it are the ones importing the destructive immigrants and creating the propaganda you repeat about them.

That's your whole MO. "I bet I could find some." You're just on a fishing expedition to find something to support your BS and, failing to do so, you pivot to the next BS.

Not all hispanics are satanists, although a lot of them are, but it was EVERYONE who voted down ***** marriage everywhere the voters were given a voice, and it wasn't a "Republican dominated" SCOTUS, it was a left leaning uniparty SCOTUS.

Anthony Kennedy was appointed by Ronald Reagan. The Republicans had a majority. Deal with it. And it wasn't "everyone" who voted down gay marriage in California. It was a 52.24% majority against a 47.46% minority. 51% of whites voted NO to proposition 8 and 70% of blacks and 53% of hispanics voted YES.

See: https://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/CAExitPollGayMarriage.pdf

So if it had been up to your and [MENTION=3169]Anti Federalist[/MENTION]'s people, proposition 8 would NOT have passed. That exit poll didn't break out Muslims but based on what happened in Deerborn Michigan they most likely voted yes to proposition 8 in high numbers.

The muslims aren't satanists, just anti-Christians who seek to overthrow our country and impose Sharia law.

Well then it's a good thing that most of the immigrants coming to the U.S. are actually Christians. https://www.workingimmigrants.com/2018/07/religious-affiliation-of-immigrants/

Another pot calling the china black.

 

[jmdrake]

Nullification is for unconstitutional laws.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.



Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

It's unconstitutional under the 10th amendment for the Federal Government to try to force state governments to enforce federal law.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS97/rpt/olr...text=In a concurring opinion, Justice,at 2385).

 

[Swordsmyth]

I gave you a SPECIFIC EXAMPLE and you said that SPECIFIC EXAMPLE was "false" which makes you a liar. Actually I've given two SPECIFIC EXAMPLES in this thread. You don't have a single SPECIFIC EXAMPLE that has been verified. There's a whole thread with probably about a thousand posts now on the subject. You don't get away with lying and saying "there's all this evidence" when every bit of it has been debunked so far.

There you go lying again, I responded to your entire sentence which claimed all the evidence had been disproven, and now you are repeating that lie.
You gaslighting about some of the evidence and just dismissing or ignoring more of it doesn't count as it all being disproven.

That's your whole MO. "I bet I could find some." You're just on a fishing expedition to find something to support your BS and, failing to do so, you pivot to the next BS.

You are the only one who said anything about immigrants and drag queens, but do you remember when you tried to claim the pervert artist was a white native and he turned out to be an immigrant POC?
If I cared (which I don't) I can guarantee that I can find immigrant drag queens, they have made a special issue of importing pervert immigrants as "refugees".

Anthony Kennedy was appointed by Ronald Reagan. The Republicans had a majority. Deal with it. And it wasn't "everyone" who voted down gay marriage in California. It was a 52.24% majority against a 47.46% minority. 51% of whites voted NO to proposition 8 and 70% of blacks and 53% of hispanics voted YES.

See: https://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/CAExitPollGayMarriage.pdf

So if it had been up to your and @Anti Federalist's people, proposition 8 would NOT have passed. That exit poll didn't break out Muslims but based on what happened in Deerborn Michigan they most likely voted yes to proposition 8 in high numbers.

You picked one of the most liberal states in the country, that is deep in the grip of election fraud, then you assumed that all hispanics are immigrants and illegal migrants along with blacks, meanwhile you ignored that everywhere else that voted on it rejected ***** marriage too.
You're also assuming that the exit polls were accurate and that nobody was lying about their vote to hide from leftist persecution and that everyone chose to answer at all.

SCOTUS was a left leaning uniparty court, Kennedy and multiple other so called "Republican" justices lurched left after getting their lifetime appointments.

Well then it's a good thing that most of the immigrants coming to the U.S. are actually Christians. https://www.workingimmigrants.com/2018/07/religious-affiliation-of-immigrants/

Right, if you call hispanic cartel death cultists and Haitian voodoo worshipers "Christian" just because they pretend to be on the surface.
And there are many other reasons to throw them out besides religion, like being communists and criminals.

 

[Swordsmyth]

It's unconstitutional under the 10th amendment for the Federal Government to try to force state governments to enforce federal law.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS97/rpt/olr...text=In a concurring opinion, Justice,at 2385).

Bunk.
Learn to read, that's about federal REGULATIONS and requiring states TO PASS LAWS, it's not about complying with federal enforcement of Constitutional laws.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The left is obstructing federal enforcement of Constitutional laws and is giving aid and comfort to the enemies of America, they are threatening not only noncooperation but active interference.

 

[Swordsmyth]

As for who's destroying our culture, I give you Exhibit C.

[h=1]Illegal Migrant Group Celebrates Pride Month with Drag Queen Show[/h]
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...-celebrates-pride-month-with-drag-queen-show/

I decided that if you cared so much I could accommodate you.

 

[Invisible Man]

What are the alternatives? Genuinely asking.

Half of the cities and states won't comply with Trump. Can we entrust municipalities to enforce this? How does the Trump admin go about deporting millions of illegals otherwise?

Will they take the long form approach that Ron championed of getting rid of the various benefits like marriage, birth, etc.?

What is it that you envision the military doing in these sanctuary cities that federal civilian policing agencies can’t do?

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

So....nullification for me but not for thee? SMH Rand. Just because the left overuses the word "insurrection" doesn't mean the right should do it. And Rand seems to be supporting military intervension while opposing it at the same time. From the "Insurrection Act."

Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.​

And who's going to "remove" the mayor of Denver?

The best way to handle "sanctuary cities" is to do what Governors Desantis and Abbott did and ship busloads of migrants to those cities util either the voters or the mayors get tired of it. Eric Adams was for New York being a sanctuary city...until he wasn't.

What were your thoughts on Rand saying pretty much that the State has no authority if the Feds disagree with them?

 

[jmdrake]

What were your thoughts on Rand saying pretty much that the State has no authority if the Feds disagree with them?

It's long settle law that the Federal government cannot "commandeer" state government to enforce federal law. If the mayor of Denver orders police to actively block ICE from rounding people up that's one thing. And using loaded terms like "insurrection" is not helpful on Rand's part. That would justify the use of the military to enforce immigration, something that Rand Paul in the same breath said he opposes.

 

[jmdrake]

Bunk.
Learn to read, that's about federal REGULATIONS and requiring states TO PASS LAWS, it's not about complying with federal enforcement of Constitutional laws.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The left is obstructing federal enforcement of Constitutional laws and is giving aid and comfort to the enemies of America, they are threatening not only noncooperation but active interference.

LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!

From the link I gave you.

FROM: George Coppolo, Chief Attorney

RE: State Sovereignty—Refusal to Enforce Federal Regulations

You asked whether recent U.S. Supreme Court cases such as Printz v. U.S. authorize a state to refuse to enforce federal regulations.

SUMMARY

Recent Supreme Court rulings based on state sovereignty concerns, including Printz v. U.S., prohibit the federal government from (1) requiring states to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program and (2) requiring state officials to administer a federal regulatory scheme. They do not prohibit states from voluntarily complying with federal law to make themselves eligible for federal grants. In fact, these rulings allow Congress to impose conditions on the receipt of federal funds provided the conditions are a proper exercise of Congress' spending power granted it by the constitution. The Court has articulated four standards to determine whether conditions of eligibility for federal grants are a proper exercise of this power. First, the exercise of spending must be in pursuit of the general welfare. Second, the conditions must be unambiguous. Third, the conditions must be related to federal interests in the national projects or programs involved. Finally, the conditions may not induce states to engage in activities that violate some specific federal constitutional right.​

 

[jmdrake]

[h=1]Illegal Migrant Group Celebrates Pride Month with Drag Queen Show[/h]
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...-celebrates-pride-month-with-drag-queen-show/

I decided that if you cared so much I could accommodate you.

Lame attempt at intersectionalism by the left which was rebuffed by Latinos voting for Trump in this last election. In one border town that is 97% Hispanic, Trump got 75% of the vote. That has to burn you up I'm sure.

 

[jmdrake]

There you go lying again, I responded to your entire sentence which claimed all the evidence had been disproven, and now you are repeating that lie.
You gaslighting about some of the evidence and just dismissing or ignoring more of it doesn't count as it all being disproven.

Bullshyt. You lied and doubled down on your lie. You lied about my specific examples PLURAL and you have doubled down on your lied because you don't have ANY actual verified evidence of the "Haitians eating cats" claim! There's a whole freaking thread on that subject with every claim you and others put forward being debunked MULTIPLE times! You even, in that same thread, tried to reuse the story of the "Haitian cat eater" that turned out to be a WHITE man.

 

[Matt Collins]

The Military is a perfectly valid response to an invasion.

First off it's illegal to use the military for law enforcement action. And for good reason.

Secondly, if they were to simply patrol the border, that isn't the worst idea. But to actively go round people up inside the US, that is actually IS indeed the worst idea. Yes the border needs to be secured. But you can't turn the US into a police state to go round people up.

 

[TheTexan]

This video is less than 6 minutes long and 30 seconds in it references Elon Musk speaking at the World GOVERNMENT Summit about his idea regarding turning humans into cyborgs.



Even someone with the attention span of a gerbil on crack should be able to digest that.

Edit: And here's the entire video of Elon Musk's speech at the World GOVERNMENT Summit. This happened in 2023, after Elon Musk supposedly came over to "our side."



One for your files [MENTION=40029]PAF[/MENTION].

It's called World Governments Summit. Governments, plural.

It's a forum for governments to share technology and innovation.

There's nothing inherently Globalist about any of that, and much less, speaking at such a conference.

Try again.

 

[PAF]

It's called World Governments Summit. Governments, plural.

It's a forum for governments to share technology and innovation.

There's nothing inherently Globalist about any of that, and much less, speaking at such a conference.

Try again.

Debt From Above: The Carbon Credit Coup


GREEN+ has been piloted in a handful of Latin American cities since its founding and is due to launch globally in just a few weeks time. Most of the GREEN+ agreements with “subnational” governments have remained focused on Latin America. Per the program, the subnational agreements have established the “rules and requirements to enable accounting and crediting with GREEN+ policies and measures and/or nested projects, implemented as GHG mitigation activities,” with GREEN+ being described as “the planet’s new subnational government advisory mechanism.”

Key to the program are the services provided by GREEN+ founding member Satellogic, an Argentina-founded company closely aligned with Peter Thiel’s Palantir and Elon Musk’s SpaceX that specializes in sub-meter resolution satellite surveillance. Satellogic, a contractor to the US government and whose founders were also previously contactors for the US’ DHS, NSA and DARPA, will provide surveillance data of the entire world’s “protected areas” to GREEN+’s governing coalition, composed of the NGOs CC35, the Global Footprint Network, The Energy Coalition and other “respected stakeholders.”



MUCHO more here as the article continues:

https://unlimitedhangout.com/2024/04/investigative-reports/debt-from-above-the-carbon-credit-coup/

​

Next article:

Get Ready for the Republican Carbon Market

 

[jmdrake]

It's called World Governments Summit. Governments, plural.

It's a forum for governments to share technology and innovation.

There's nothing inherently Globalist about any of that, and much less, speaking at such a conference.

Try again.

Nope. It's World Government Summit singular.

 

[sparebulb]

First off it's illegal to use the military for law enforcement action. And for good reason.

Secondly, if they were to simply patrol the border, that isn't the worst idea. But to actively go round people up inside the US, that is actually IS indeed the worst idea. Yes the border needs to be secured. But you can't turn the US into a police state to go round people up.

Personally, I don't care if they use stormtroopers to load illegal into railcars, just as long as they are removed.

But for some reason, we can't do this but every other country in the world gets a pass for doing essentially the same thing. Especially, Mexico.

No one ever makes mention of greasing up the pole, so to speak, that would make it difficult for illegals to stay.

Stiff penalties for employing them and cutting off all benefits, except for bologna sammiches and water for them in the detention camp and transportation back to where they came from. All entrants from Mexico or Canada should be returned there regardless of country of origin.

But no one in government or industry wants to solve this.

 

[PAF]

Personally, I don't care if they use stormtroopers to load illegal into railcars, just as long as they are removed.

But for some reason, we can't do this but every other country in the world gets a pass for doing essentially the same thing. Especially, Mexico.

No one ever makes mention of greasing up the pole, so to speak, that would make it difficult for illegals to stay.

Stiff penalties for employing them and cutting off all benefits, except for bologna sammiches and water for them in the detention camp and transportation back to where they came from. All entrants from Mexico or Canada should be returned there regardless of country of origin.

But no one in government or industry wants to solve this.

When did TRI-lateral contracts, enforced by government to boot, as opposed to Private Contract Rights between employer/employee, become popular here on the forum?

 

[Invisible Man]

Nope. It's World Government Summit singular.

Nevertheless, it looks like the gist of Musk's remarks there was pretty good.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politic...lead-end-civilization-world-government-summit

 

[TheTexan]

Nope. It's World Government Summit singular.

Go to their website and look in the top left corner, tell me what you see.

https://www.worldgovernmentsummit.org/

A lot of marketing material does say "World Government Summit" but their official name is "World Governments Summit".

Their old name was "Government Summit" and it was renamed to "World Governments Summit" in 2015.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

First off it's illegal to use the military for law enforcement action. And for good reason.

Secondly, if they were to simply patrol the border, that isn't the worst idea. But to actively go round people up inside the US, that is actually IS indeed the worst idea. Yes the border needs to be secured. But you can't turn the US into a police state to go round people up.

Reminds me of a comparison I recently made. There are those on the radical left right now that are hysterical about the potential for military going house to house to look for illegal immigrants. In fairness, I put the shoe on the other foot and tried to think of instances where "my side" has been afraid about government going house to house.

We often hyperbolically warn that the left would like to send military to go house to house to take our weapons. Is it an irrational fear? Didn't they actually do that after Hurricane Katrina?

Then there were Covid lockdowns. Was it police, military or both that a few times enforced stay at home lockdowns? IIRC, there were videos of them marching down residential streets, shooting pepper balls at people who didn't stay in their houses.

So, I can take a couple of things from that.

One, it's not an entirely irrational fear that troops (of some kind) could march down streets or go door to door.

Two, it's usually the leftist issues where troops (of some kind) are sent into the population.