One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: Strycker
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 250 next>>
Apr 21, 2024 00:01:35   #
Ri-chard wrote:
In a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy, President Joe Biden is poised to withdraw all American troops from Niger.Following a c**p in Niger, the Biden administration has decided to evacuate U.S. military bases, marking a setback for U.S. counterterrorism efforts in the region, as the Daily Wire reports.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-forced-to-pull-u-s-forces-out-of-key-african-nation-thats-turning-to-russia-iran-china


Biden fiddles while the world burns. Has the fool gotten even one thing right?
Go to
Apr 19, 2024 18:14:17   #
permafrost wrote:
ttps://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2024/03/07/trump-unfounded-false-claim-biden-flying-migrants

IMMIGRATION
Claims Biden ad­min­is­tration is secretly flying migrants into the country are unfounded

What You Need To Know
In his victory speech Tuesday, former president Donald Trump echoed false statements on social media that the Biden administration had secretly flown hundreds of thousands of migrants to the United States

The false claims follow a report by the Center for Immigration Studies that said the administration refused to list airports where people arrived under a "parole" program for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans

But migrants are not being flown into the U.S. randomly: Under a Biden policy in effect since January 2023, up to 30,000 people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela can enter the country monthly if they apply online with a financial sponsor and arrive at a specified airport, paying their own way

Social media posts charge that the administration is doing this to bring in v**ers, but people admitted into the country under parole have no path to citizenship

Here's a closer look:

CLAIM: The Biden administration has secretly flown more than 300,000 unvetted migrants into the country.

THE FACTS: An article published on Monday by the Center for Immigration Studies examined a major example of how Biden has exercised his parole authority for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans.

Each month, U.S. Customs and Border Protection discloses how many people from these four countries were allowed to enter the country. On Jan. 26, the agency reported 327,000 were vetted and authorized for travel. There were more than 67,000 Cubans, 126,000 Haitians, 53,000 Nicaraguans and 81,000 Venezuelans.

The Center for Immigration Studies article says CBP approved flights that brought 320,000 to the United States last year. The author, Todd Bensman, learned they came to 43 airports but the government refused to divulge which ones, citing an exemption under the Freedom of Information Act for law enforcement-sensitive information.

Bensman said Wednesday that he doesn't consider the program secretive, but finds it "enigmatic" and lacking in t***sparency."

The migrants are not coming in from "parts unknown," as Trump charged. CBP vets each one for eligibility and publishes the number of airport arrivals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela.

Social media posts charge that the administration is doing this to bring in v**ers.

But people admitted into the country under parole have no path to citizenship. They can obtain work permits for a limited time but v**ers must be U.S. citizens.

Biden has exercised parole authority far more than any of his predecessors, which Trump calls "an outrageous abuse" that he will end if returned to the White House. Biden has granted entry — by land or air — to at least 1 million people using parole, not just the 327,000 who flew from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua or Venezuela though December.

Angelo Fernández Hernández, a White House spokesperson, said Wednesday that reports of secretly flying people into the country were "categorically false" and that Cubans, Haitian, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans were "thoroughly screened."

The Trump campaign and Musk representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday.
ttps://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2024/03/07/tr... (show quote)


From the article: "...he doesn't consider the program secretive, but finds it "enigmatic" and lacking in t***sparency."

Now there's a great example of the left's tendency to play with words. It's not secret. It's just lacking t***sparency.
Go to
Apr 18, 2024 16:03:23   #
Salvatore wrote:
Strycker
The Democrat Socialist Party lies right to our faces and Americans are "wise to the lies." They cannot hide what they have done on the Southern Border and what they continue to do! We will destroy them on November 5, 2024!
The American people will speak like never before with their v**es for Donald J. Trump! GOD bless America!


I keep hoping you are right but the American people have yet to show they have gotten "wise to the lies". Too many are now, directly or indirectly, living off a government pay check or hand out. They v**e on their own best immediate financial interests and not on the interests of the country or future generations.
Go to
Apr 18, 2024 13:24:30   #
Parky60 wrote:
The structure of the American government was designed by the Founders to prevent raw majoritarianism: the three branches of government and their checks and balances, the allocation of power between the state and federal governments, constitutional limits on the federal government's power, the differing composition of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and the E*******l College.

L*****ts are doing everything they can to eliminate these safeguards and create a system where a bare majority will control every level of political power. The E*******l College is a particular target of their vitriol and machinations.

The U.S. Constitution provides that the president of the United States is elected not by a popular v**e of the people but by the states. Each state has e*****rs, the number of which is equal to the number of representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives (which is determined by the state's population, established every 10 years in the census). After a p**********l e******n, each state's e*****rs cast their v**es for the candidate who has won a majority of the state's v**es. (All but two states have a "winner-take-all" e*******l v**e system; Maine and Nebraska allocate e*****rs roughly proportionately.) In theory, members of the E*******l College have the power to cast their v**es for whichever candidate they choose. (And there have been loud calls for them to do so, in 2016 and again in 2020.) In practice, however, they have abided by the decision of the v**ers in their state.

The objection to the E*******l College arises largely from the fact that the victor in a p**********l e******n can win despite losing the "popular v**e," as has happened five times in U.S. history, including the 2000 and 2016 e******ns. This is pitched as some kind of grave injustice. But the E*******l College was designed precisely to protect and preserve the v**es and voices of smaller, rural, less populated states.

Opponents of the E*******l College also claim it was put in place to protect s***ery. But a quick review of history disproves that. The Constitution was adopted in 1789. In 1790, at the time of the first census, the states in ascending order of population were Southwest Territory, Delaware, Rhode Island, Kentucky, Georgia, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Connecticut, South Carolina, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Of the 17 then-existing states, s***e states were four of the top six most populous. Virginia alone held almost 20% of the country's entire population. By contrast, the bottom nine least populated states -- including New York -- were free states.

In other words, at the time it was created, the E*******l College protected the v****g rights of less populated free states vis-a-vis the v**es of the larger states where s***ery was practiced.

Eliminating the E*******l College altogether would require a constitutional amendment, a process requiring either a convention of the states or passage by a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress followed by ratification by three-quarters of all state legislatures (38 out of 50 at present).

However, those trying to change the method of electing the president have found another way: the National Popular V**e Interstate Compact, which was launched in 2006. States join the NPVIC by passing legislation by which they agree to allocate their E*******l College v**es to the p**********l candidate who receives the largest percentage of the popular v**e -- even if that is not whom a majority of the state's own v**ers have chosen.

This week, Maine became the 17th state to pass legislation joining the NPVIC. (The District of Columbia has also passed legislation joining.) At this writing, the compact has 209 of the 270 v**es needed to trigger its application in a p**********l e******n.

The legislatures that have passed NPVIC legislation have effectively disenfranchised their own citizens, who should be irate that their v**es will be cast aside because of what has t***spired in other states.

There are additional reasons to oppose the NPVIC.

President Joe Biden signed an executive order in 2021 ordering the U.S. Census Bureau to count all U.S. residents -- including i*****l i*******ts -- as part of the census. Since that time, at least 10 million people have crossed the border illegally -- more than the populations of 40 states. Huge numbers of these have landed in California, New York and Illinois, bloating their population figures for both congressional representation and E*******l College purposes. California, Illinois and New York (all of which have joined the NPVIC) have 101 E*******l College v**es just between the three of them. They are also in the top 10 states with the highest number of i*****l i*******ts.

This explains Democrats' push to make all i*****l i*******ts citizens and give them v****g rights. That, coupled with the NPVIC, would give the most populous states de facto control over p**********l e******ns. A handful of states should not be able to decide the e******n of the president of all 50, particularly when they have padded their population via i*****l i*********n. Claims that the E*******l College "undermines democracy" are either ignorant or deliberately misleading. The United States is not a "democracy"; it is a constitutional republic. And it is not merely a country; it is also a federation of 50 semi-sovereign states, each of which has citizens.

NPVIC advocates, along with those who want to abolish the E*******l College outright and change the composition of the U.S. Senate, are pushing us toward a situation where a majority of states will nevertheless be home to a permanent, politically disenfranchised minority.

That is not a prescription for "fairness" or "unity." It is a path to balkanization, calls for secession -- or worse.
The structure of the American government was desig... (show quote)


With the current makeup of the SCOTUS it would be very likely that such a move using the National Popular V**e Interstate Compact, if attempted, would not pass constitutional muster. Though it most likely would be a huge constitutional crisis. Trump's greatest most lasting achievement, purely by fate, was appointing originalist judges.

If blue states do manage to stack or regain control of the SCOTUS then all bets are off as liberal interpretation of the Constitution would result in no meaningful Constitution at all.
Go to
Apr 17, 2024 23:37:03   #
Milosia2 wrote:
Um ,
There were no high crimes or misdemeanors to report …..Again .


Many people have spent time in prison for refusing to follow the law and for lying to congress. Does that not follow the definition of high crimes or misdemeanors? Or are we just hold trials for regular people for no reason?
Go to
Apr 17, 2024 22:54:31   #
The Democrat Senators failed to uphold their oath of office by refusing to do their constitutional duty to conduct a trial and hear all the evidence presented by the people's house before passing judgement. Just declaring that something doesn't measure up to high crimes or misdemeanors without hearing the evidence does not by itself make it so. The Democrat's refusal to live up to their oath is itself a crime against the people.
Go to
Apr 17, 2024 18:21:53   #
dtucker300 wrote:
More proof that the Democrat party does not want to follow the Constitution.
Democrats sink both impeachment articles against Mayorkas on Senate floor without debate or trial
The two impeachment articles against Mayorkas alleged a "breach of trust" related to Mayorkas describing the southern U.S. border as secure as well as a "willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law."

By Nicholas Ballasy
Published: April 17, 2024 1:47pm

Updated: April 17, 2024 4:33pm


The Democratic-led Senate k**led both impeachment charges against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on Wednesday, cancelling the impeachment trial before it could get off the ground.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., offered a deal to the Senate GOP where senators would have time for floor debate and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, would be able to force v**es on a full trial as well as the establishment of an impeachment committee. Schumer said v**es on dismissing the impeachment articles would follow. Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., said on the Senate floor that he objected to v****g to dismiss the charges without a full trial.

After his objection, Schumer motioned for a floor v**e on the constitutionality of impeachment article one against Mayorkas. Schumer argued that it does not rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Cruz requested a v**e that the Senate move to a closed session to debate the constitutionality of impeachment article one, given that Schumer didn't outline evidence on the Senate floor to support his position. Schumer shot back, saying he gave the GOP a chance to debate the articles in public but Schmitt objected. The motion raised by Cruz failed to pass.

Schumer's motion to deem article one unconstitutional ultimately passed 51-48. He then made a motion to deem article two unconstitutional, which also passed 51-49. The Senate passed a motion to adjourn the trial.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said the Senate set a very "dangerous precedent" by ignoring the House's directions to have an impeachment trial.

"No evidence, no procedure. This is a day that's not a proud day in the history of the Senate," he said.

Lee called Schumer's move to cancel the trial without debate "historic," given that a verdict was never reached. He said that "nothing could be further" from the U.S. Constitution.

The two impeachment articles against Mayorkas alleged a "breach of trust" related to Mayorkas describing the southern U.S. border as secure as well as a "willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law."

Mayorkas told Congress under oath that the southern border was secure when migrants attempting to enter the U.S. was surging. Migrant encounters have continued to set records and the Biden Administration has been releasing millions into U.S. communities. House Republicans estimate that there have been 8 million migrant encounters to date under Biden. They also estimate that about 3.5 million migrants have been released into the U.S.

Senate Republicans had argued that the chamber should not set a precedent that lying to Congress to not an impeachable offense.

Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, noted that never before the history of the U.S. have impeachment articles been dismissed before impeachment managers have a chance to present their case.

Some senators such as John Thune, R-S.D., tried to make several arguments on the floor as to why the Senate should hold a trial, including that the "worst border crisis" in U.S. history has unfolded since 2021. The presiding office, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said the Senate was not in a debatable position and called for order.

"The Senate will be in order," she said.

Schumer said earlier on Wednesday that he would allow a floor debate on the impeachment articles but called on senators to dismiss the charges.

"For the sake of the Senate's integrity and to protect impeachment for those rare cases, we truly need it. Senators should dismiss today's charges," Schumer said in a speech on the Senate floor. (this is the attitude Democrats should have taken during the Trump impeachments.)

"So when we convene in trial today to accommodate the wishes of our Republican Senate colleagues, I will seek an agreement for a period of debate time that would allow Republicans to offer a v**e on trial resolutions, allow for Republicans to offer points of order and then move to dismiss," he added.

McConnell, R-Ky., said on Wednesday that "tabling articles of impeachment would be unprecedented in the history of the Senate."

After the articles were dismissed, House Republican leaders released a joint statement condemning Schumer's handling of the trial.

"By v****g unanimously to bypass their constitutional responsibility, every single Senate Democrat has issued their full endorsement of the Biden Administration’s dangerous open border policies. Secretary Mayorkas alongside President Biden has used nearly every tool at his disposal to engineer the greatest humanitarian and national security catastrophe at our borders in American history," House GOP leaders said.

"Tragically, Senate Democrats don’t believe this catastrophe merits their time or a discussion on the Senate floor. Instead, they’re signaling to millions demanding accountability that the cabinet official directly responsible for this disaster – who has ignored the law and misled Congress repeatedly – is above reproach. The American people will hold Senate Democrats accountable for this shameful display," he added.
More proof that the Democrat party does not want t... (show quote)


The People's House called for a trial and the Democrat elitists in the Senate gave them the finger. It has become very apparent that The Constitution, Rule Of Law or any ethically behavior at all mean nothing to any and all Democrats. Both are only an inconvenient impediment to the democrat tyranny to come and will be ignored. I fear for freedom's future.
Go to
Apr 17, 2024 13:22:55   #
.....DON'T!!
Go to
Apr 17, 2024 09:49:44   #
Big dog wrote:
What’s the Bible say about this particular situation?


Eye for an eye, or, turn the other cheek. Your choice.
Go to
Apr 16, 2024 14:36:50   #
What in your opinion would be a measured response from Israel toward Iran? 300 missiles for 300 missiles? Much less or none at all? I don't think Iran's failure to hit a single target should enter into the equation.
Go to
Apr 15, 2024 19:34:24   #
Proud American Patriot wrote:
Ivy Leagues have gone down, down, down, down to crap. Wonder why she still makes about $17 x 18k per week for her $900k annual salary. Why are they keeping her around? So you see how tuition is wasted and see why tuition is so high. The Dem way.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/spencerbrown/2024/04/15/ousted-harvard-president-claudine-gay-to-teach-course-on-research-n2637808?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&recip=26013605


High tuition is government encouraged and controlled to financially overload the system followed by a bail out of the borrowers until people call for a government takeover of higher education and free college in the name of DEI. All controlled by the Dept Of Education.
Go to
Apr 12, 2024 00:36:56   #
AuntiE wrote:
Even The Washington Post Called Joe Biden for This Second Amendment Lie
Matt Vespa

Not that I care, but Joe Biden is wasting an inordinate amount of time on issues that won’t help his re-e******n. His side has lost all the landmark decisions on Second Amendment issues. It’s not close to being settled yet. We still have some things to clear up regarding the process of obtaining a concealed carry permit—may issue versus shall issue—and reciprocity agreements, but it’s getting there. After that, it’s about holding the line against anti-gun l*****ts.

Still, Joe likes to trot out this utter lie about the Second Amendment: you can’t own a cannon. Oh, Joe knows—he was a professor who taught this stuff, which is even more disturbing. The president repeated this lie in an interview with Univision. Fact check: you can own cannons. And even the Washington Post called him out two years ago [emphasis mine]:

“Everything in that statement is wrong,” said David Kopel, the research director and Second Amendment project director at the Independence Institute. After 1791, “there were no federal laws about the type of gun you could own, and no states limited the kind of gun you could own.” Not until the early 1800s were there any efforts to pass restrictions on carrying concealed weapons, he said.

“I think what he’s saying here is that the Second Amendment was never understood to guarantee everyone the right to own all types of weapons, which I believe is true,” said Kermit Roosevelt, a constitutional law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. “As phrased, it sounds like the Second Amendment itself limited ownership, which is not true.”

[…]

In fact, you do not have to look far in the Constitution to see that private individuals could own cannons. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 gives Congress the power to declare war. But there is another element of that clause that might seem strange to modern ears — Congress also had the power to “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal.”

What’s that? These were special waivers that allowed private individuals to act as pirates on behalf of the United States against countries engaged in war with it. The “letter of marque” allowed a warship to cross into another country’s territory to take a ship, while a “letter of reprisal” gave authorization to bring the ship back to the home port of the capturer.

Individuals who were given these waivers and owned warships obviously also obtained cannons for use in battle.


The publication awarded him four Pinocchios and added, “Biden has already been fact-checked on this claim—and it’s been deemed false. We have no idea where he conjured up this notion about a ban on cannon ownership in the early days of the Republic, but he needs to stop making this claim.”

Yes, he does.

Joe is a habitual liar who appears to have been part of every major American historical event. As Stephen Miller (RedSteeze) quipped, he's the Forrest Gump of presidents, but one who can't remember when his son died but will exploit his death to the most absurd limits to scrap up some political points.

Plus the fact he was an adjunct professor and only periodically taught a Constitutional Law course.
b Even The Washington Post Called Joe Biden for T... (show quote)


There are actually very few, if any, banned weapons in the US other than weapons of mass destruction such as bombs and chemical or biological weapons. Politicians are very creative in finding ways to restrict weapons without actually banning them. Work arounds such as banning manufacture, banning import, banning taking weapons across state lines, restricting modifications, and now tying to restrict ammo. Even the weapons that are usually cited as being banned are not actually banned on the federal level such as short barrel rifles, machine guns and switch blades. I have one friend that owns a working Gatling Gun. Bought it on EBay. It's even legal to own a tank so I'm sure cannons are no problem.
Go to
Apr 11, 2024 23:07:10   #
JFlorio wrote:
One of the truly finest and most r****t people in congress. If b****s wonder why they never seem to get ahead, look no further than the i***ts you elect.


It's difficult to get ahead when you elect people who profit from selling your victimhood as their product. They always need more product. More victims.
Go to
Apr 10, 2024 20:52:05   #
Kevyn wrote:
The Cheeto Faced S**tgibbon lost his third appeal to postpone his felony trial! Jury se******n starts Monday and he has no more cards to play! Accountability for his crimes is finally upon him!


Dream on. I expect some convictions in these blue districts but all should be overturned in the appeals process. The DA's and judges doing these trials know this but they only care about getting Trump before November to try to alter the e******n. This lawfare is the actual real i**********n to o*******w the Country.
Go to
Apr 10, 2024 20:44:26   #
archie bunker wrote:
I've, we've already won this little snit that jackass created. He did the same thing to some friends who purchased the 5 acres to the south of us about 10 years ago. It was unimproved, meaning, no fence, well, septic, or anything. Just 5 acres of grass and yucca.
They had it surveyed then, and the original survey pin is actually a few inches behind my corner post, on New Hampshire's side of the fence. It's a metal rod that was driven into the ground to mark the official survey. This guy is going off of orange painted wooden stakes. Not legit.
On top of that they found out that according to Texas law, if you have livestock, you can't use your neighbors fence to secure them. You have to have your own. When they bought that land, I let them start their fence off of my corner, and, my South fence is the boundary between our land. They rotate horses in, and out of there for the grazing ass the grass grows during the year. They even maintain my South fence. It's a neighborly kind of a thing. No big deal at all.
But, now that a blowhard has interjected himself, it ain't gonna be for him so much.
He borders, and disputes both of our property lines, but we are right according to Texas law. If he so much as turns a goat out there without his own fence between us to keep it in.....not sure, but I do look forward to the battle.
Nobody's seen, or heard from him in a few days, so, maybe he's getting educated himself. I don't know.
One thing I DO know, and the neighbors agree, WE aren't paying for another survey of our properties.
I've, we've already won this little snit that jack... (show quote)


If you found the one property pin then you can likely find the others with a metal detector. There should be one in each corner of the property.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 250 next>>
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.