quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
Perhaps someone can answer some questions for me.

Can the TX governor shut down his border?

If not, why not?

If so, why in the hell has he not done it?

Governor Abbott is an absolutely feckless governor. He's been whining about Biden doing nothing to stop the invasion for months. He should be deploying the National Guard to repel them right at the border, no detainment, no processing, nothing. If need be, call other GOP governors for support. Remember back in the beginning of Zero's presidency when Governor Perry threatened to deploy his NG, and Zero was actually forced to do something?

I don't buy any argument that it is not within his purview to stop the invasion when the POTUS fails to do his duty under Article 4, Section 4 of the US Constitution. The states certainly did not sign up to join the union and then sit back while the federal government allows third world primitives to overrun their states.

Tucker Carlson's interview with TX Congressman Chip Roy a few nights ago was great and well watching the few minutes where he says Abbott should be stopping the invasion with his NG.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/...rding-this-president

Biden's first border chief accuses administration of destroying security, misleading Congress

https://justthenews.com/govern...-security-misleading

In a stunningly blunt warning to senators, President Joe Biden's just-departed Border Patrol chief is accusing the administration of intentionally eroding security to bring illegal aliens into the country and misleading Congress about the severity of the crisis.

Rodney S. Scott, a 29-year career law enforcement officer who retired last month as the U.S. Border Patrol chief, wrote the Democratic and Republican leaders of the Senate and its Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that career experts have offered numerous recommendations to slow the crisis but have been repeatedly rebuffed.

"Common sense border security recommendations from experienced career professionals are being ignored and stymied by inexperienced political appointees," Scott wrote in the letter sent earlier this month and obtained by Just the News.

"The Biden administration's team at DHS is laser-focused on expediting the flow of migrants into the U.S. and downplaying the significant vulnerability this creates for terrorists, narcotics smugglers, human traffickers, and even hostile nations to gain access to our homeland," he wrote Sens. Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell, Gary Peters and Rob Portmann in a letter dated Sept. 11.

You can read the full letter here: https://justthenews.com/sites/...20Rodney%20Scott.pdf

File
Honorable Rob Portman US Senate Secuirty Concerns - Rodney Scott.pdf
Scott, who was appointed by President Trump and served as the first border patrol chief for Biden, declared border security has rapidly deteriorated after the enormous gains during the Trump administration. "In my professional assessment, the U.S. Border Patrol is rapidly losing the situational awareness required to know who and what is entering our Homeland," he warned.

Congress, he added, was not getting an honest picture of the vulnerabilities.

"The experienced civil service staff within CBP, ICE and DHS have provided multiple options to reduce the illegal entries and reestablish some semblance of border security through proven programs and consequences, yet every recommendation has been summarily rejected," he wrote. "Secretary Mayorkas is choosing to ignore the sound recommendations of career government leadership despite his own admissions that he agrees with them.

"Of grave concern, is the fact that the Secretary and other political appointees within DHS have provided factually incorrect information to Congressional Representatives and to the American public. Furthermore, they have directed USBP personnel to allow otherwise ineligible aliens to remain in the U.S. inconsistent with the ... established legal processes and law."

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), who provided a copy of the letter to Just the News, said Scott's warnings suggest "we are in a perilous moment" when it comes to security.

"He's writing a letter just talking about how the administration is lying to the American public," Johnson said in an interview to be aired Tuesday on the John Solomon Reports podcast. "They're ignoring advice from career customs and border patrol officers. They obviously ignored the advice from the outgoing administration in terms of what they do to keep the border secure. And he's just laying out this big crisis as the illegal flow is and what that is going to do to our society."

Just the News reported over the weekend the crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border is so serious that CBP has asked agents from other ports and borders to leave their posts and come south as reinforcements, a change Scott warned is creating security holes. Johnson said he is deeply troubled by the reassignments.

"There are such gaps in our border right now," Johnson said. "And when they're having to take Border Patrol off of other parts of the border to surge them into places like Del Rio, you're just opening up huge areas where people can just flow through again."

Scott Kirby isn't about to do a 180 on his stance...he's too far up Biden's anal sphincter. But it's good to know he'll get opposition!! Consider donating to CPAC...

CPAC Letter

United's 'draconian' vaccine mandate rejects free market principles, CPAC warns
Vaccine mandate 'plays right into the hands of those who would try to nationalize airline companies,' letter warns

The Conservative Political Action Coalition warned United Airlines to abandon its "draconian" COVID-19 vaccine mandate, claiming that the mandate will enable dangerous government overreach.

CPAC addressed the letter, which the organization exclusively provided to Fox News, to United CEO Scott Kirby.

"United Airlines’ ham-handed and broad financial prosecution of its own employees, who have already had COVID or do not want to take the vaccine for religious or personal health decisions like fertility, plays right into the hands of those who would try to nationalize airline companies and move away from a democratic, representative government," the letter argues.

[snip]

More at link...

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
I tend to believe a governor with a monster set of stones 'could' declare a state of emergency for the state and step in and shut down the border, and call the Fed's bluff doing it. What would the alternative for the Fed's be to stop it from happening?

For one thing, I don't think either the Texas authorities or the Feds on the border (and there are a royal ba-shitload of them) are in any hurry to physically fight with each other.

For another, everyone seems pretty clear on the separation of powers thing. What happens if California seizes it's part of the border during a Republican administration and simply leaves it open?

Only then can we talk about the manpower to control the entire border (lest the Feds open their own crossings, right?) and somehow trying to pay for it.

Guess that's why I'd make a terrible politician. I would not allow such things to happen to a state I was elected to represent. California would not be my concern as the governor of Texas. If the feds refuse to do their job protecting this country and enforcing US law, then I believe it is incumbent on the governor to develop and implement a solution. And I'm sure he could find and negotiate help/support from other governors. Squabbling about separation of powers with the human excrement in Washington can be debated later. First, the door needs to be slammed shut tight.

As I understand it, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that immigration is the exclusive province of the federal government. The high court also affirmed that local law enforcement and federal law enforcement can communicate and cooperate in determining the legal status of an individual. The state can declare emergency, and I am unclear what the state can do to control the border in an emergency. There is nothing to prevent the state from building walls on state property. We are told that alerts have gone out to Texas Guard units for deployment to the border, probably in support roles to law enforcement. If the governor tells Biden KMA and the state starts prohibiting entry at the border, the feds will go to court to try to stop them. I think the border states are ready for that fight. Perhaps that is what is needed to clarify the border states' authority to protect their borders. Something's gotta give.

quote:

Originally posted by HayesGreener:
If the governor tells Biden KMA and the state starts prohibiting entry at the border, the feds will go to court to try to stop them.

And just for the sake of argument, what happens if the court finds for the Feds and instructs the state to cease and desist, and the governor simply ignores the court order? What's the Fed's recourse? Personally, I can't think of anything they could really do. Everything in this country regarding the law is a very delicate balance of all the parties. I for one want to know what comes when one of those parties no longer agrees to cooperate and essentially partner with the federal government in its own demise.

quote:

Something's gotta give.

Damn right. For border state governors to simply sit on the sidelines and allow this criminal and corrupt administration to trash the country in general and their states specifically is ridiculous.

quote:

And just for the sake of argument, what happens if the court finds for the Feds and instructs the state to cease and desist, and the governor simply ignores the court order? What's the Fed's recourse? Personally, I can't think of anything they could really do.

The Congress voted to exchange Indian lands in the East for new lands in the west. The agreements were supposed to be negotiated with the Indians, but many refused to agree, and were forced off their land by the government. The Cherokees of Georgia attempted to resist their removal by rather unique means: they filed suit against the State of Georgia (who was trying to remove them ) in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, under the stewardship of Chief Justice Marshall ruled in favor of the Indians and ordered the President to protect the Indians.

Jackson responded "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

I would suspect if Texas, (and if any of) the other three states were to "close" the borders, it would likely result in federal funds and anything the federal government could "shut off" would occur as well as lawsuits filed.

Then the "media wars" would simultaneously occur along with the "big tech/social platforms" going full accusation and disinformation mode.

Like everything else, it will be "foment within" and create division and unease/unrest within the states themselves. (insert, Aunt Teefa, the Blim and such)

But I doubt (and never rule out) it would get to any physical confrontation by the Fed, unless they could put a few folks in place and incite a reaction.

Or, (as the late great JALLEN would say) "how the GDC do things."

This pathetic, confused, inept old FOOL has completely ruined our reputation and destroyed the trust we had earned with a whole lot of countries and it will be years to regain that if ever:


Biden Is Desperate to Regain Bases, Intel, Allies He Threw Away in Afghanistan

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
I would suspect if Texas, (and if any of) the other three states were to "close" the borders, it would likely result in federal funds and anything the federal government could "shut off" would occur as well as lawsuits filed.

Remember when Trump tried to cut off federal funds for Sanctuary states? Yeah, the courts jumped in and slammed the door shut on that pretty damn fast. So I don't think cutting off federal funding would be a real win for the retard administration.

quote:

Then the "media wars" would simultaneously occur along with the "big tech/social platforms" going full accusation and disinformation mode.

Like everything else, it will be "foment within" and create division and unease/unrest within the states themselves. (insert, Aunt Teefa, the Blim and such)

So the question becomes, do you eat the heat from the garbage in this country, and potentially save your state, or do you cower and knuckle under allowing your state to circle the drain? Many times the most important decisions are the most unpopular decisions, but in the longer run, they generate the biggest positive returns.

All of this 'needs' to come to a head and be dealt with. Unfortunately, I just don't see anyone with the stones or sense of responsibility to their constituents that is willing to weather the storm to do what is right and necessary.

I am not a Constitutional Lawyer, nor have I ever played one nor pretended to be one, but I do have a History degree, and I minored in Political Science, so I think I can read and understand the Constitution fairly well.

Article 4, Section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Article 1, Section 10, Paragraph 3:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

One could argue that the FedGov has failed in its duties to protect the several States from invasion. Given that many of those who have crossed the southern border are of military age, and that individuals with terrorist leanings have received military-style training, whether the invaders are a military cohort is open to interpretation.

This would be all for the Supreme Court to hash out as they have primary jurisdiction in any cases arising from the conflict between and among the States and the FedGov.

Could make for a very interesting Constitutional crisis.

quote:

Originally posted by 2BobTanner:
I am not a Constitutional Lawyer, nor have I ever played one nor pretended to be one, but I do have a History degree, and I minored in Political Science, so I think I can read and understand the Constitution fairly well.

Article 4, Section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

I think you understand it quite well.
Pretty clear, isn't it?

^^^Unambiguous, Crystal Clear Language....Much like the Bill of Rights!

But, it's a "living document" isn't it? /sarcasm off/

quote:

Originally posted by 2BobTanner:
This would be all for the Supreme Court to hash out as they have primary jurisdiction in any cases arising from the conflict between and among the States and the FedGov.

Could make for a very interesting Constitutional crisis.

The only problem with that approach is that this country would be totally occupied by invaders before this case ever got to the Supremes. And given the three liberal justices along with Roberts are totally unreliable when it comes to actually interpreting the Constitution as written, I'd suggest an act and ask forgiveness approach rather than waiting for a decision by this group. You know, exactly like the liberals do to us at every turn.

Well, bigdeal, there's at least some good news -

Excerpt from:

quote:

Texas Troopers Credited With Retaking Control Of Del Rio Border
Anna Giaritelli, Washington Examiner, 9/20/2021

State troopers deployed to the border by Gov. Greg Abbot are being credited for doing the federal government's job and stopping thousands more migrants in Mexico from illegally crossing into the United States after well over 15,000 made it through here last week.

A swarm of Texas Department officers, known as troopers, descended on the riverbank Saturday afternoon as a show of force to deter people in Mexico from wading across the Rio Grande. Approximately 150 black SUVs were still lined up Sunday afternoon on the dirt road that runs parallel with the river.

Their arrival on the scene Saturday had an immediate impact, stopping foot traffic from primarily Haitian immigrants who had been going back and forth between the U.S. and Mexico.

"With our DPS troopers, there have not been any crossings from that specific area," Lt. Chris Olivarez, spokesman for the department's South Texas Region, said in an interview on Sunday.

The impact DPS's arrival on the Border Patrol agents has been significant. Despite it being the responsibility of Customs and Border Protection to patrol the nation's borders, virtually all agents have been pulled from the field to transport migrants to and from holding facilities and then process and care for them once in custody.

Full original text at http://news.yahoo.com/texas-tr...ntrol-205500052.html

You see the logistical problem, though. 150 troopers for one small but slammed border crossing? The resources to control the entire border would need to be massive and to be left in place for an indeterminate period of time. I'm not saying you're wrong, but that's a tough commitment to make and keep.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:...

My point being that the Feds are not going to send F-15's and Nuclear weapons to Texas. (if Texas shuts to boarders)

But would put the stir stick in the honey pot and start swirling like crazy.

I do not think the leftists care what courts or people think.

Destruction is a rose of many colors no matter how you slice the name.

It will come to a head, heat applied, or leaving it alone to fester.

DHS chief can’t even give ‘ballpark’ estimate on illegal immigration numbers

https://nypost.com/2021/09/21/...immigration-numbers/

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on Tuesday insisted that the US borders are closed, but couldn’t give a “ballpark” estimate on how many of the 1.3 million illegal immigrants apprehended at the border this year are being held, were deported or released in the US.

“You have repeatedly stated that our borders are not open, they’re closed. Do you honestly believe that our borders are closed?” ​Sen. Ron Johnson ​(R-Wis.) asked him during a hearing before the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

“Senator, I do, and let me speak to that,” Mayorkas replied before Johnson cut him off, saying he had more questions. ​

The senator then referred to a letter sent to the Senate’s leaders by ​former US Border Patrol Chief Rodney Scott that blasted the Biden administration for its lack of enforcement of the immigration policies.

He quoted Scott in the letter saying that he has been “sickened by the avoidable and rapid disintegration of what was arguably the most effective border security in our nation’s history.”

“I witnessed the unprecedented seismic shift in border security and immigration policy that was initiated on Jan. 20, 2021. I believe this policy shift and the associated public statements created the current border crisis,” Scott wrote in the letter.



Sen. Hawley presses Mayorkas on border crisis
“Contrary to the current rhetoric, this is not simply another illegal immigration surge. This is a national security threat.”

Johnson told Mayorkas that he pledged to enforce the laws, but “you have not done that,” and accused the administration of putting out “factually incorrect information.”

“I want some numbers here,” Johnson said. “How many people have been returned? How many people are being detained? How many people have been dispersed to all points around America?”

After a few more tense exchanges, Mayorkas said he didn’t have the data.

“I’m looking for ballpark figures. Is it about half? Have we dispersed about half?” Johnson pressed.

Mayorkas eventually said he would get the figures to Johnson as time on the senator’s questioning expired.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:...

My point being that the Feds are not going to send F-15's and Nuclear weapons to Texas. (if Texas shuts to boarders)

But would put the stir stick in the honey pot and start swirling like crazy.

I do not think the leftists care what courts or people think.

Destruction is a rose of many colors no matter how you slice the name.

It will come to a head, heat applied, or leaving it alone to fester.

It will come to a head. If allowed to fester, it will be worse.
We hav tough times ahead. Stolen elections hav consequences.

The Register is full of flaming liberals; I'm sure they did not expect these results and it hurt them to print this.

There are several charts I was unable to paste.

https://www.desmoinesregister....id-surge/8378224002/

Iowa Poll: 62% of Iowans disapprove of the job Joe Biden is doing as president

Stephen Gruber-Miller
Des Moines Register
Updated 8:30AM CT, Sep 21, 2021

Fewer than one third of Iowans approve of the job Joe Biden is doing as president, a steep drop from earlier this year.

Thirty-one percent of Iowans approve of how Biden is handling his job, while 62% disapprove and 7% are not sure, according to the latest Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll.

That’s a 12 percentage point drop in approval from June, the last time the question was asked. Biden's disapproval numbers jumped by 10 points during the same period. In June, 43% approved and 52% disapproved.

Biden’s job approval has not been in net positive territory in Iowa since March, when 47% of Iowans approved of his performance and 44% disapproved.

"This is a bad poll for Joe Biden, and it's playing out in everything that he touches right now,” said pollster J. Ann Selzer.

(chart)

The partisan breakdown of the poll shows Biden has nearly no support from Republicans. Just 4% of Republicans say they approve of his job performance as president, while 95% disapprove. Among Democrats, that number is largely reversed, with 86% approving and 7% disapproving. A majority of political independents disapprove, at 62%, while 29% approve.

Biden's job approval rating is lower than former President Donald Trump's worst showing in the Iowa Poll. The former Republican president's worst job approval was 35% in December 2017. Other recent presidents' worst Iowa Poll results: Barack Obama, 36%, in February 2014, and George W. Bush, 25%, in September 2008.

The poll of 805 Iowa adults was conducted Sept. 12-15 by Selzer & Co. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Poll respondent: 'The way we exited Afghanistan was pretty sad'

This summer Biden oversaw the final U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan as the Taliban quickly seized control of the country. As the country fell, the world watched thousands of Afghans, U.S. citizens and other allies flood the airport in Kabul, desperately seeking ways to leave the country.

Biden has defended the decision to end the 20-year war and pointed to the evacuation of more than 120,000 people from the airport. But his administration has acknowledged that about 100 American citizens remain in the country and want to leave.

Just 22% of Iowans approve of Biden’s handling of Afghanistan, while 69% disapprove and 8% are not sure — his worst rating out of several policy areas asked in the poll.

(chart)

“The way we exited Afghanistan was pretty sad,” said poll respondent Brad Singleton, 45, a political independent and pastor from Montezuma who used to identify as a Republican. “Not the fact that we left Afghanistan, because we probably should have done that a long time ago, but just the way we did that it felt like Americans were abandoned and it felt like we just left equipment there.”

Biden’s handling of Afghanistan is the policy area where he has the least support from Democrats among a range of issues tested. Just 61% of self-identified Democrats approve of how he's handled the issue, while 25% disapprove. In contrast, 89% of Democrats approve of how he's handled the COVID-19 pandemic.

More:How are Iowa's members of Congress reacting to Biden, chaos in Afghanistan?

Kimala Peterson, a 62-year-old Democrat and poll respondent from Spencer, said she approves of Biden’s handling of Afghanistan and likes that the United States got out of the country. But she said she still feels it could have been handled better.

“The thing that probably disappoints me the most is I think with Afghanistan that maybe that could have been handled better with getting the Americans out and the people who helped us,” said Peterson, a retired library administrative assistant.

Others were just happy to see U.S. troops come home. Jesse Guerra, a 52-year-old poll respondent and political independent from Cedar Rapids, said the military “had no reason being there.”

“He said he was going to get them out, and he did,” he said. “As far as I know, that’s the one good thing he’s done.”

Biden’s COVID-19 approval drops steeply

Biden’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, which represented his highest area of approval in earlier polls, has sharply fallen.

Now, 36% of Iowans approve of the way Biden is handling the pandemic, while 60% disapprove and 4% are not sure. That's down 17 percentage points from 53% approval in June. Still, Biden’s handling of COVID-19 represents his highest approval rating on a policy issue tested.

(chart)

The infectious delta variant has spurred a rise in COVID-19 cases in Iowa and around the country this summer, leading the federal government to step up its response to the virus.

Biden announced in September that businesses with more than 100 employees must ensure their workers are vaccinated against COVID-19 or tested for the disease weekly, a rule that could affect more than 80 million people nationwide.

Singleton, the political independent and a “reluctant” Trump voter last year, said the mandate “really upset me.”

“I think forcing people to inject something into their body isn’t the right way to handle it,” he said.

He said he thought the country was headed in the right direction with encouraging vaccinations, but he disagreed with the announcement of a mandate.

“Me, personally, I was hesitant to get the vaccine but I might have been swayed to do it,” he said. “But then when he said, ‘no, you have to,’ it just kind of steeled my resolve not to.”

Peterson, the Democratic poll respondent, said she appreciates Biden’s efforts to get the United States to achieve herd immunity.

“I like the fact that he is putting a mandate on some of the companies for over 100 employees having vaccines,” she said.

(chart)

Even among those who have already received the COVID-19 vaccine, only 50% approve of Biden's handling of the pandemic, while 46% disapprove. Among those who are unvaccinated and don't plan to be, 4% approve of Biden's approach to COVID-19 and 93% disapprove.

In past polls, Biden’s pandemic response drew some support from Republicans. He earned 26% approval from Republicans in March and 20% in June. But in the September poll, just 5% of Republicans say they approve of his handling of COVID-19.

COVID-19 is the only policy issue tested on which Biden receives the approval of more than one-third of Iowans.

On the economy, 32% of Iowans approve and 62% disapprove; on criminal justice, 28% approve and 54% disapprove; and on immigration, 25% approve and 67% disapprove.

Biden’s favorability continues to decline

Biden’s favorability has also declined from June. Now, 37% say they feel very favorable or mostly favorable toward Biden, while 61% say they feel mostly unfavorable or very unfavorable. Just 2% are not sure.

Those numbers are driven by extremes.

The percentage of Iowans who say they feel very favorable toward Biden dropped 10 percentage points from June, going from 21% to 11%. Meanwhile, the percentage of those who say they feel very unfavorable jumped by 11 percentage points, from 37% in June to 48% in September.

It’s the worst favorability rating Biden has had in Iowa since December 2013, when he was vice president. Then, 36% said they felt favorable toward him and 57% said they felt unfavorable.

(chart)

Iowans are also more likely to say things in the nation have gotten off on the wrong track than they were earlier this year. That number is at 70%, compared to 59% in June. The percentage of Iowans who say things are headed in the right direction has also dropped by 10 points, from 31% in June to 21% in the latest poll.

Those numbers show a clear partisan divide. Just 4% of Republicans say the nation is headed in the right direction, compared to 58% of Democrats and 18% of independents. And 94% of Republicans say things are on the wrong track, compared to 30% of Democrats and 70% of independents.

About this poll
The Iowa Poll, conducted September 12-15, 2021, for the Des Moines Register and Mediacom by Selzer & Co. of Des Moines, is based on telephone interviews with 805 Iowans ages 18 or older. Interviewers with Quantel Research contacted households with randomly selected landline and cell phone numbers supplied by Dynata. Interviews were administered in English. Responses were adjusted by age, sex and congressional district to reflect the general population based on recent American Community Survey estimates.


Questions based on the sample of 805 Iowa adults have a maximum margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. Questions based on the subsample of 620 likely voters in the 2022 midterm election have a maximum margin of error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points. This means that if this survey were repeated using the same questions and the same methodology, 19 times out of 20, the findings would not vary from the true population value by more than plus or minus 3.5 percentage points or 3.9 percentage points, respectively. Results based on smaller samples of respondents — such as by gender or age — have a larger margin of error.