|
19 Jan 09 - 04:32 PM (#2543379) Subject: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Wesley S As I recall this story has stirred up some interest before. CNN Story |
|
19 Jan 09 - 04:54 PM (#2543394) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Bill D Not sure why he had to wait till the last day...but it's about time. |
|
19 Jan 09 - 05:07 PM (#2543409) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: pdq This was very important to many true Conservatives. These border agents were lynched for doing their jobs and risking their lives. About time. |
|
19 Jan 09 - 05:13 PM (#2543413) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Richard Bridge Why should the President have the power of pardon in his own dicretion? Is the concept of the rule of law no longer relevant in US jurisprudence? Or does the President have a modern variation of the divine right of kings? |
|
19 Jan 09 - 05:14 PM (#2543415) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Ebbie Hmmmmm. If the news account is correct, I don't think that the border agents were simply "doing their jobs". At the least it appears they over-reacted. That said, I agree that tensions of such a job may easily cause one to over-react. |
|
19 Jan 09 - 05:54 PM (#2543463) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Uncle_DaveO Richard Bridge asked, Why should the President have the power of pardon in his own dicretion? Is the concept of the rule of law no longer relevant in US jurisprudence? Or does the President have a modern variation of the divine right of kings? The power to commute sentences (which is what is involved here, not pardon) which the Executive sees as excessive is very solid in US law. At the moment I can't tell you whether it's constitutionally based or legislatively based, but it's been around from the birth of the Republic. And I believe we got it from English law, and that the King/Queen has such power. And the same with the power to pardon. I am confident that the governor of every state has such power with relation to his/her state, also. It just may be helpful to remember that, in the US system, the President is not only the head of government (like the UK prime minister) but also the head of State, (like the Queen). Now, as to "why", it's part of our culture. It has been part of our history for centuries, and is seen as being right. Dave Oesterreich |
|
19 Jan 09 - 05:58 PM (#2543470) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: McGrath of Harlow Or does the President have a modern variation of the divine right of kings? Well, he is a monarch though a temporary and elected one, with the same kind of powers and status as kings had in the 18th century. ...................................... "...doing their job..." - these border agents must have an interesting job description if that is the case. |
|
19 Jan 09 - 06:18 PM (#2543484) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Q (Frank Staplin) So, is it now legal to shoot a government witness to your crimes? That is what the pardons imply. |
|
19 Jan 09 - 07:07 PM (#2543522) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: artbrooks Commuted to time already served - in other words, a reduction of the sentence - rather than pardoned. The issue of guilt or innocence was determined at their trial, and this decision by almost-former President Bush doesn't change that one bit. |
|
19 Jan 09 - 09:01 PM (#2543602) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Riginslinger In any event, I don't think they'll have any trouble finding another job. |
|
19 Jan 09 - 09:09 PM (#2543613) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Amos pdq; It was no part of their job description to shoot an unarmed, fleeing criminal in the back. Their job was to apprehend illegal immigrants; they failed to do that, having shot huim dead instead. I have no ax to grind for the "victim" who put himself in that situation completely by trying to smuggle pot across the border. But don't give me that "just doing their jobs" bull. A |
|
19 Jan 09 - 09:12 PM (#2543617) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Peace Can a president pardon himself? (Serious question.) |
|
19 Jan 09 - 10:40 PM (#2543645) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: pdq ...from a man who actually knows what he's is talking about: on October 21, 2006 at 2:27 am Luis Delgado I went to school with Ignacio Ramos, who we all called Nacho. I have always known him to be a good guy, in a city that one can easily decide to go the other way. I am very saddened by this news and to see him and his family suffer. But it's the border, and the traffickers of people and drugs have all the power. Sure we see the arrests of the so-called smugglers on television. But what we don't see enough of, is what we, that come from that area know, are the true criminals being held accountable. Those that hide their criminal activity behind titles, positions, and influence. So when their activity is threatened or exposed, the common man, mule, or in this case law abiding government employee, becomes the scapegoat. Someone sends a message. So what's the message they are sending with this witch trial? To those that have and continue to dedicate their lives defending, supporting, and trusting in their government, it has to be that we must always follow procedure without fail. To those that dedicate their lives to crime, it must be that whenever you get caught, just make sure you either have the right connections and/or simply know that our government will grant you immunity from anything, if you can help them with their agenda. But most importantly, to those that live a more relaxed existence, not having to defend their lives, family, or country on a daily basis. The message is that their is no real war on drugs. It's all made up. Because in a war, soldiers protect each other. The generals we praise in our history books, are legends. They were men that at times fought side by side with their men. They protected them with honor. They respected the sacrifice. So if there is a war on drugs, where is the general? Where is he during this fight? Since when does errors in procedure not only cost a soldier his career, reputation, and freedom, but also, have his own general grant the enemy immunity for helping to prosecute his own soldier? This isn't a war, it's a business. A business that is so deeply stitched into our history, our culture, and our level of acceptance, that we can't even imagine how to change it. Who is the guilty party? It's so well organized and complicated that sometimes the guilty parties don't even know they are guilty. They simply accept the benefits of the business. Why shouldn't they, there is always a scapegoat. What we do know are the victims. The users, dealers, transporters, government agents, the families of each, and even the traffickers. The ultimate pawns. One king sends it across and the other king counters with a badge. And at the end of each battle, the two shake hands and play again, leaving behind a trail of victims. And in this case, Nacho, Compean, and their families are the obvious victims. Regardless of failed procedure. Stories involving border patrol agents being prosecuted and drug traffickers being the victim, usually include theft of drugs and money. So if these men are bad, and do not deserve to protect our border, then why did they not secure the van and keep the drugs? Why didn't they just ask for some money to look the other way? If they would have, they would still have their jobs, still have their reputations intact, still have insurance for their families, still be able to afford their mortgages, and still be home with the family for Christmas. So what's the real message being sent by the kings to the pawns? Good luck Nacho and congrats. You just became immortal. Because we will not let this end without a fight. We will not forget your bravery. We will not forget your sacrifice. You have proven to be more man than most. I am honored to know you and hope to see and speak to you again soon. And to all of those brave men and women working our borders, you have a voice. Use it. Because, this battle must be won to protect you when you have to react to a potentially deadly situation. The confidence of support and trust in instinct must remain intact. After all, they didn't issue you a gun because the other side plays fair and uses a policies and procedures manual. They issued you a gun so that you can make it home. It may take 10 years, but Nacho and Compean will make it home again. Respectfully, Lui….. Proud ex-classmate of a hero |
|
19 Jan 09 - 11:48 PM (#2543664) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Q (Frank Staplin) What has this to do with his lawful conviction for a crime? He remains a convicted criminal. He and his partner will never serve in law enforcement again. Artbrooks, thanks for the correction. Some of us are sloppy in our language, or only hear the inaccurate reports on CNN. |
|
20 Jan 09 - 06:46 AM (#2543818) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Riginslinger Blackwater will be happy to hire them! |
|
20 Jan 09 - 06:49 AM (#2543820) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Riginslinger "Can a president pardon himself? (Serious question.)" I don't think so. If he were actually accused of something, I think he would have to face the music. I don't see how he could pardon himself speculatively either, since there would be nothing to pardon himself for. |
|
20 Jan 09 - 08:42 AM (#2543902) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Uncle_DaveO Pardons are occasionally granted preemptively, before any actual charge is made. But I shouldn't think that a president would be able to pardon himself. Don't ask for legal citations, because I don't have any, but that's my off-the-cuff feeling on the thing. Dave Oesterreich |
|
20 Jan 09 - 09:15 AM (#2543935) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: artbrooks U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2: "The President {irrelevant material omitted} shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." Anything that would limit his power to pardon himself, before or after an offense or a charge, would require a Constitutional amendment...unless, as I read it, the charge is brought under Congress's impeachment powers. A bill was brought before Congress back in the 1930s that would require a conviction before a pardon could be granted, but it died. |
|
20 Jan 09 - 09:50 AM (#2543962) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: kendall First, I am a retired federal law enforcement agent. One of the first things I learned in the Treasury School of law enforcement and criminal investigation was, NEVER shoot a fleeing felon. If you want to be a gun slinger, get into movies. Second, In Maine we have a truth in sentencing law that requires you to do the time you were given when convicted. An acquaintance of mine was convicted of murder. His lawyer was a clod. After he served about 15 years, I asked the governor, another almost friend of mine about a pardon and he told me that he had no power to pardon the man because of truth in sentencing. When he developed Alzhiemers, the review board let him out anyway. |
|
20 Jan 09 - 10:13 AM (#2543985) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Greg F. Kinda reminds me of that other Great American Patriot and Hero : Oliver North. He was just doing his job, too- unfortunately, that job was an illegal one. |
|
20 Jan 09 - 10:18 AM (#2543990) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Riginslinger It's a little different, Greg. The job the border agents were doing was legal. The illegal alien drug dealer just happen to stick his ass out in the path of a speeding bullet. Oliver North was illegal out of the gate, though he's being paid well for it now. |
|
20 Jan 09 - 07:56 PM (#2544558) Subject: RE: Bush commutes sentences on Border Patrol From: McGrath of Harlow Surely it would have been that the governor had no power to commute that sentence, kendall. As pointed out by someone earlier, a pardon involves a decision that someone is innocent, and that therefore any sentence handed down ceases to apply. |
|
20 Jan 09 - 08:31 PM (#2544595) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: John on the Sunset Coast "Their job was to apprehend illegal immigrants; they failed to do that, having shot huim(sic) dead instead." Factually untrue. They shot him, a drug smuggler, while he was fleeing. He was wounded and captured. The agents were not found guilty of shooting him, but of covering up the facts of the shooting in their report. The drug runner was given immunity from prosecution for his alleged crime to testify against the agents. The final irony: after testifying against Ramos and Campeon, the freakin' perp was later arrested doing it all over again. Anyhow, Pres. Bush commuted the sentences to time served, about two years. He did not pardon them, which would have made the whole thing go away for them. I think justice has been served in this case, |
|
20 Jan 09 - 08:46 PM (#2544607) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""The illegal alien drug dealer just happen to stick his ass out in the path of a speeding bullet."" Oh, I see! It was his own fault, the border guard fired a warning shot, and he stepped in front of it. Stupid bugger. I'm not TOO surprised THAT one didn't persuade the jury to acquit. Don T. |
|
20 Jan 09 - 09:08 PM (#2544624) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Charley Noble pdq- It must be nice to have such faith in the judgment of border guards, when confronted with a fleeing person. Shooting him down really must make your day. Bush's pardon actually does make sense to me but your reasoning I find appalling. Charley Noble |
|
20 Jan 09 - 09:22 PM (#2544627) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: pdq The real problem here is with you, Ignoble one: you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground about this subject and are obviousy not interested in changing that. |
|
20 Jan 09 - 09:44 PM (#2544640) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: robomatic I heard that Lisa Murkowski requested that Ted Stevens be put on the pardon list. I haven't found if Uncle Ted got pardoned. |
|
20 Jan 09 - 09:47 PM (#2544642) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Riginslinger "Oh, I see! It was his own fault, the border guard fired a warning shot, and he stepped in front of it. Stupid bugger." No, no, no; he didn't step out in front of it, he stuck his ass out in front of it. There's a big difference. |
|
20 Jan 09 - 09:49 PM (#2544643) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: pdq No, Ted Stevens and "Scooter" Libby were both passed over by the great pardon-giver. Such a dangerous pair they are. |
|
20 Jan 09 - 11:48 PM (#2544684) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Ebbie Being 'dangerous' is not the only rationale for prosecution. In Ted Stevens' case he misused, he abused his public service position, his oath of office, evidently from a sense of entitlement. Libby is not 'dangerous' either- but you'd better not lie to the Feds. |
|
21 Jan 09 - 05:51 AM (#2544849) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: robomatic Yeah, just heard on the local news that Uncle Ted did not get a pardon. I believe he's still gonna fight it in court. Interestingly enough, among my many 'laskan friends and acquaintances the feelings about him are split about 50-50. I'd feel better about him if he hadn't of gone and named the Anchorage International Airport after himself. |
|
21 Jan 09 - 10:48 AM (#2545081) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: GUEST,Janice now in Western NY State A friend of mine served nearly three years in Danbury Federal Prison for refusing to serve in the Vietnam War. He was pardoned by Jimmy Carter, and although he will never get those three years back, he feels vindicated in his resistance to an unjust war. Those Border Patrol agents were not pardoned. They still stand convicted of federal felonies and will forever suffer both the indignaties and disabilities that come with being a felon in this country. What they did get back were years of their lives. Who got the better deal? I don't know, but personally I would have chosen the freedom of not being in jail. My draft resistor friend, however, felt differently. He could have left the country or could have avoided the draft by truthfully claiming that he was gay. Instead he chose to take a moral stand. It's all so confusing and complicated, but despite all the baggage, I am glad the US President has the power to grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons. |
|
21 Jan 09 - 11:08 AM (#2545108) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: pdq "Border Patrol agents were not pardoned. They still stand convicted of federal felonies and will forever suffer both the indignaties and disabilities that come with being a felon in this country..." Quite correct. They will not vote in the next federal election while millions of illegal aliens will. |
|
21 Jan 09 - 11:12 AM (#2545112) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Wesley S "while millions of illegal aliens will". Any proof of that or is it just wild speculation picked up from AM radio talk show hosts? The one I heard last night said there will never be another election ever. Yeah..... Right...... |
|
21 Jan 09 - 11:29 AM (#2545133) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Riginslinger We all know it happens, Wesley, but it's very difficult to prove. Just like the first Lorreta Sanchez election, they were able to prove some illegals voted, but they weren't able to prove enough illegals voted to overturn the outcome of the election. Most people who've looked at that election think there were more illegal votes, but still couldn't prove it. |
|
21 Jan 09 - 11:45 AM (#2545156) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: pdq If people want to learn something about the border problem with Mexico... read here If not, so be it. |
|
21 Jan 09 - 02:02 PM (#2545300) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Wesley S PDQ - Did you notice this disclaimer on the site referenced? : This site is maintained by supporters of the United States Border Patrol and is not an official government site. The contents of this site are privately managed and not subject to the direction of the United States Border Patrol. Still waiting for proof that MILLIONS of illegals voted in the last election....... |
|
21 Jan 09 - 02:08 PM (#2545302) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: pdq two points: Truth is what it is regardless of the source you are unlikely to find facts by "waiting"; try "looking" |
|
21 Jan 09 - 02:21 PM (#2545306) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Amos My apologies for the false statement. A |
|
21 Jan 09 - 02:24 PM (#2545311) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Riginslinger So now we are no longer looking for illegals voting, but we're looking of MILLIONS of illegals voting. It was the same way when we were trying to make the point that illegals were a significant component of the mortgage crisis. Everyone wanted to see the printed documentation. Now that it's finally out, they refuse to believe it. Believe it! |
|
21 Jan 09 - 02:27 PM (#2545312) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Uncle_DaveO PDQ said there were two points: Truth is what it is regardless of the source and you are unlikely to find facts by "waiting"; try "looking" And I say, "two points": The source is one of the legitimate things that one looks to in order to decide what "the truth" is. Is the source in an actual position to truly know "the truth"? Does the source have a vested interest in the question? Does the source have a prejudged position? If the source is indeed in a position to know the facts, it should be easy for him/her to back up the assertion. and If someone asserts a fact (here, the "millions"), and wants it accepted, the burden of proof is on the asserter of that "fact". It is quite legitimate for Wesley (and the rest of us) to "wait" for that proof to be put forward by the asserter, or for the proof to emerge independently from elsewhere. But there is no burden on a person who doubts or is at least unconvinced of an asserted fact to do the fact-sponsor's investigation for him. Dave Oesterreich |
|
21 Jan 09 - 02:44 PM (#2545326) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: pdq Uncle DaveO... sorry that I once confused you with a lawyer. You aren't one. As to "burden of proof", an average citizen is assumed to be correct and telling the trutrh. In law, the "burden of proof" is on the people who wish to impeach the person making the statement. {BTW, go read what in on that website...you may learn something} |
|
21 Jan 09 - 03:57 PM (#2545383) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Wesley S So we're supposed to assume you are correct because you are an average citizen? I'm an average citizen and the moon is made of green cheese. This is the internet. When someone makes a statement like millions of unregisted alians voted in the last election you can expect to be asked to back that up with facts. If you had claimed that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning I would have cut you some slack. And yes I'm still waiting for you to prove your claim. I don't think you can.Prove me wrong. |
|
21 Jan 09 - 04:05 PM (#2545393) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Uncle_DaveO PDQ, the burden of proof is not only a legal concept, it is a basic concept of persuasion in logic and in rhetoric. Dave Oesterreich |
|
21 Jan 09 - 04:06 PM (#2545395) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: GUEST,Janice now in Western NY State Whether convicted felons can vote is up to each state. All states have some process for restoring the right to vote. In New York State it happens automatically once a convicted felon's entire sentence has expired and she or he is no longer on parole, probation, or conditional release. In New Jersey, a period of time must pass (I believe 5 years, but I'm not sure) after the expiration of the sentence, unless the person successfully applies for an earlier restoration of her or his right. In Florida, the right to vote is never automatically restored. One has to apply to the state and prove that she or he has shown remorse, made restitution, and has led a productive and law abiding life. Even then, more than two-thirds of the applications are denied. |
|
21 Jan 09 - 05:55 PM (#2545446) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Riginslinger I don't think folks get too upset about felons voting as much as people who are not citizens and are not even legally in the country. |
|
21 Jan 09 - 06:08 PM (#2545464) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: artbrooks No illegal residents voted in the last election. |
|
21 Jan 09 - 06:13 PM (#2545471) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Riginslinger That's laughable! |
|
21 Jan 09 - 06:18 PM (#2545478) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: pdq artbrooks, I know you are a blind raging partisan Democrat, but I didn't realize you were completely blind. |
|
21 Jan 09 - 06:37 PM (#2545502) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: artbrooks Prove I'm wrong. |
|
21 Jan 09 - 07:38 PM (#2545563) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: kendall Old Maine proverb "No amount of belief can create a fact." |
|
21 Jan 09 - 07:46 PM (#2545572) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: pdq "In 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens. While that may not seem like many, just 3 percent of registered voters would have been more than enough to provide the winning presidenútial vote margin in Florida in 2000. Indeed, the Cenúsus Bureau estimates that there are over a million illegal aliens in Florida, and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has prosecuted more non-citizen voting cases in Florida than in any other state." total of votes cast in 2008: 132 million 3% illegal alien would mean 3.96 million illegal aliens voted, the huge majority voted for Obama |
|
21 Jan 09 - 07:52 PM (#2545580) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: pdq For residents of Maine, official goverment census figures put the illegal alien population of your state at 1000. 3% voting would be 30 people. |
|
21 Jan 09 - 08:23 PM (#2545597) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Riginslinger It makes a really big difference in places like New Mexico, Arizona, and California. Especially in some Congressional Districts. |
|
21 Jan 09 - 08:56 PM (#2545618) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: artbrooks Prove that any illegal residents voted. The allegation, if true, that there were ineligible people on the registration roles does not prove that they voted. If you are unwilling or unable to prove that "millions of illegal aliens" voted last time or will vote next time, why should I or anyone else accept a statement that only appears on ultra-right blog-sites (such as, where I found it, on the site of European Americans United) as proof of anything? |
|
21 Jan 09 - 08:59 PM (#2545621) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Q (Frank Staplin) How big a difference is a really big difference? # voters? # illegal? Let's see some figures. Gee, would we have that other guy as president if only the right people had voted? |
|
21 Jan 09 - 09:16 PM (#2545633) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: pdq Repeat for those who close their minds and ears when a fact appears that they don't like: "In 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens. ...the Cenusus Bureau estimates that there are over a million illegal aliens in Florida, and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has prosecuted more non-citizen voting cases in Florida than in any other state." According to artbrooks, the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the U.S. Cenusus Bureau and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) are all just the product of a "ultra-right blog-sites". |
|
21 Jan 09 - 09:22 PM (#2545635) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Riginslinger It takes a while to get these figures together, and it's not easy, but there's this from the Loretta Sanchez race in 1996. In 1994 Sanchez ran unsuccessfully as a moderate Republican for the Anaheim City Council under her then married name, Loretta Brixey. In 1996, she changed parties and recast herself as a moderate Democrat to run in the 46th District against controversial six-term Republican incumbent Bob Dornan. The bitterly fought race saw Sanchez charge that Dornan was out of touch with his constituency, especially after a distracting run for the 1996 Republican Presidential nomination. The 46th had always had a Democratic tilt, but became even more Democratic after the 1990 census when it received a considerably larger number of Hispanics than had previously been in the district. Sanchez won by 984 votes, and Dornan contested the election, alleging that many votes were cast by people who were not American citizens. A Congressional investigation found evidence that 624 votes were indeed cast by non-citizens. An additional 124 votes had already been thrown out by California officials. These votes were not enough to throw Sanchez's victory into doubt, so the investigation was halted and the outcome was upheld... making Sanchez the first American of Mexican heritage to represent Orange County in Congress. Dornan continues to assert that illegal voter registration of non-citizens was decisive in Sanchez's victory. In consultation with the INS, the House committee identified as many as 4,700 questionable registration affidavits;[4] however, the probe was dropped before these affidavits were investigated. |
|
21 Jan 09 - 09:24 PM (#2545637) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: artbrooks NO - it may be informative to read wht I wrote, which was that the statement you quoted "only appears on ultra-right blog-sites". I reached that opinion by putting the statement, quotation marks and all, into Google. The result was three hits on blogs and one hit on an ultra-conservative Arizona newspaper's op-ed page. I would willingly admit my error - if provided the appropriate links to official sources. |
|
21 Jan 09 - 09:31 PM (#2545643) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: pdq Good work, Rigs... With the fact that "A Congressional investigation found evidence that 624 votes were indeed cast by non-citizens." you have already proven that the artbrooks claim that "No illegal residents voted in the last election." is to be considered laughable indeed. |
|
21 Jan 09 - 10:29 PM (#2545689) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: pdq "In 1994, Mario Aburto Martinez, a Mexican national and the assassin of Mexican presidential candidate Luis Donaldo Colosio, was found to have registered twice to vote in California. A random sample of just 10 percent of the 3,000 Hispanics registered to vote in California's 39th Assembly District by an independent group "revealed phony addresses and large numbers of registrants who admitted they were not U.S. citizens." This problem may be partially explained by the testimony of a Hispanic member of the Los Angeles Police Department who had been a volunteer for the California-based Southwest Voter Registration Education Project. When she reported to her supervisor that her fellow volunteers were not asking potential voters whether they were citizens, she was reprimanded "and told that she was not to ask that question…only whether the person wished to register to vote." Similarly, the Dornan–Sanchez investigation produced an affidavit from a non-citizen stating that the Sanchez campaign's field director, an elected member of the Anaheim Board of Education, told him that it "didn't matter" that he was not a U.S. citizen—he should register and vote anyway." |
|
21 Jan 09 - 11:01 PM (#2545699) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Riginslinger It happens all the time. And the blind bigots who keep insisting that it takes "millions" of illegal voters are missing the point. If 200 to 300 illegal aliens voted for Al Franken in Minnesota, they cost Ron Coleman his senate seat, illegally. |
|
21 Jan 09 - 11:07 PM (#2545701) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: artbrooks Primary source, please. A statement in an Wapedia article or blog, without attribution, has no historiographical validity. By the way, just in case you hadn't figured it out, I really have no idea whether or not any votes have ever been cast by noncitizens. In fact, in 221 years of our democracy, I'd be amazed if there were not such votes cast. My statement was intended to be as farcical as the statement that millions of votes will be cast by illegal aliens in the next election (pdq at 11:08 am). If you can't prove something you present as a fact, and that statement about a future situation cannot be factual unless you have a time machine, than you should make it clear that you are actually expressing an opinion. |
|
21 Jan 09 - 11:21 PM (#2545707) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Ebbie "If 200 to 300 illegal aliens voted for Ron Coleman they cost Al Franken in Minnesota his senate seat, illegally." Right, Rigs? |
|
22 Jan 09 - 12:15 AM (#2545732) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Q (Frank Staplin) Oh, fer heavens sakes! The nonsense goes on and on. |
|
22 Jan 09 - 12:26 AM (#2545738) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: artbrooks Very true, Q. Nothing really relevant to the thread title has been said today. |
|
22 Jan 09 - 02:02 AM (#2545772) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity 14,000,000 ILLEGAL 'immigrants'...what else do you need to know? Sounds more like an invasion to me, while the 'keepers of the gate' (in Washington) are asleep at the wheel!...Oh yeah, remember that 'oath' of office, that they swore to, to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America??...oh, except that part about the borders...(among a few others)....oh wait, I forgot, there is 'exceptions' to that, if you're a so called 'liberal' representative'(???)! |
|
22 Jan 09 - 02:42 AM (#2545780) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Joe Offer Well, it's relatively easy to register to vote, and you get a voter registration card when you register - and voter registration cards are often accepted as a form of identification. I would guess that many illegal aliens may register to vote so they can get identification - not so they can vote. So, the question still remains - do a significant number of illegal aliens cast votes in U.S. elections? Why would they want to vote in elections and risk being discovered? The question certainly has not been answered to my satisfaction. As for the Border Patrol Agents, I can see both sides of the argument. Border Patrol Agents have a difficult, thankless job. Like all law enforcement officers, they have to make split-second decisions when they are dealing with fleeing aliens. Were there mitigating circumstances in this situation, circumstances that warrented the commutation of the sentences of these officers? I don't know, and I can't tell from the information I've seen. I'd like to think that Bush commuted the sentences because there were mitigating circumstances. Whgatever the case, it's highly unlikely that these convicted felons will ever be employed by the U.S. Government again, and certainly not in a law enforcement position. Two questions, two situations where nobody here knows the answer. -Joe Offer, retired federal investigator- |
|
22 Jan 09 - 07:32 AM (#2545921) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Riginslinger "Why would they want to vote in elections and risk being discovered?" We'll we've proven they do it. They did it in the Lorreta Sanchez case. And they do it, if you will go to the Nation of Atlan Site and see for yourself, because they think they are the rightful heirs of parts of the US, among other things. Look how much Lorreta Sanchez has done for them. "'If 200 to 300 illegal aliens voted for Ron Coleman they cost Al Franken in Minnesota his senate seat, illegally." Right, Rigs?'" Actually, it's Norm Coleman, and no, when illegal aliens vote, it's been proven they almost always vote Democratic. |
|
22 Jan 09 - 08:40 AM (#2545977) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: artbrooks When did you prove they did it? I missed that. |
|
22 Jan 09 - 09:04 AM (#2545994) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Riginslinger artbrooks - Check the entry from Wikipedia on Loretta Sanchez 1/21/09 - 9:22. It talks about the Congressional investigation of the Congressional race in California. It was discussed on the floor of the House of Representatives and in Committee. IT'S WELL DOCUMENTED: If you want more detail, I'm sure you can find it in the appropriate issue of the Congressional Quarterly. If you look there, I'm certain you won't miss it. |
|
22 Jan 09 - 09:16 AM (#2546003) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Wesley S So far they haven't proved anything other than { according to their opinions } there was a potential that a few hundred - not millions - had the paperwork that would have enabled them to vote. Not that they actually voted - but they could have. Of course - no links to actual webites were provided. But since PDQ and Rig are regular citizens we are obligated to believe them. Keep in mind that we have no solid proof that either one of them is in the country legally either. |
|
22 Jan 09 - 09:44 AM (#2546024) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Uncle_DaveO PDQ, thank you for posting some documentation for your assertion about "million" or "millions" of illegal immigrants voting. That's what I was asking you to do. However, the statement "In 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens" is potentially misleading, or at least not conclusive. Note that "in just one U.S. District court" can cut both ways. As evidently intended in your use of the quote, one might assume that that percentage applies across the board across the country, and thus justify the "millions" figure. But which U.S. District Court? The jurisdiction with the highest number of illegal immigrants? The jurisdiction with the greatest proportion of illegal immigrants to total population? Or (and I'm doubtful that this is the case) the District which is most representative in those respects? Next, voter registration figures, as someone has pointed out, do not equal, even in theory, votes actually cast. An individual may have registered for other purposes than actually voting in the first place; and then some undeterminable proportion of even those who intended to fraudulently vote may have backed out for reasons of right/ethics/legality, or may have forgotten to vote, may not have been able to get off work, or chickened out for fear of criminal sanctions and/or deportation. But, while I question the impact of the quote, at least now I understand where you are coming from, and thanks. Dave Oesterreich |
|
22 Jan 09 - 10:56 AM (#2546086) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Riginslinger Dave O - It was the blind bigots who insist that documentation needs to be found for millions and millions of undocumented immigrants voting. The people on the side of truth and justice have pointed out several times that sometimes it only takes a handfull of illegal aliens to pervert an election. The documentation has been researched and posted. Your argument is not with the other posters; you argument is with the facts! |
|
22 Jan 09 - 10:56 AM (#2546087) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: pdq There are several people on this thread who are determined hold their breath until the Truth goes away. About the border agents, our geniuses in Congress pass the laws and make the rules. Most don't really want the illegals prevented from entering the country so they make the agent's job impossible to perform. Win-win for our certain members of Congress, Hell for the agents. The agents are supposed to find people crossing the border and ask them politely to go back. What Ramos and Compean found were advance agents of a Mexican drug cartel, a van with 734 pounds of drugs and armed suspects, one of which was ready to fire on them. We don't need the exact details of this case to know that the agents were undertrained and were working under an intentionally vague game plan. Repeat what I said before: this was prosecutorial lynching. |
|
22 Jan 09 - 12:05 PM (#2546153) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Riginslinger Yes, pdq, that's exactly what it was. And the poster who observed that these two men will not be able to hold government jobs again are probably right. They will have to apply in the private sector. They just might want to apply at Blackwater. |
|
22 Jan 09 - 12:25 PM (#2546169) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Donuel Art Brooks is correct again not only regardng the commutation but as well as every other issue regarding concern for the common man. pdq - try a litle tenderness |
|
22 Jan 09 - 07:18 PM (#2546540) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: fumblefingers The reason so many people are registered to vote, sometimes several times, is so when the vote counters "find" votes in the trunks of their cars and in warehouses, the totals won't exceed the number of registered voters, as has happened many times. This is election theft 101 and has been practiced for decades in certain areas. |
|
22 Jan 09 - 08:56 PM (#2546592) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: artbrooks Perhaps a slight exaggeration, Donuel. |
|
22 Jan 09 - 09:31 PM (#2546616) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Riginslinger "Art Brooks is correct again... regarding concern for the common man." As long as the common man we're talking about isn't a native born American worker. |
|
23 Jan 09 - 03:19 AM (#2546734) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Joe Offer pdq says:
In general, the agents were quite professional. I had questions about some of the detention officers, but the agents were ok. But no, they didn't politely ask illegals to go home - they caught them and shipped them back. The baloney sandwiches weren't bad - they used to let me have leftovers. Tasted much better than the baloney about the millions of illegal aliens voting. Riginslinger's Loretta Sanchez Wikipedia article did state that "A Congressional investigation found evidence that 624 votes were indeed cast by non-citizens" in a 1996 election in a heavily Hispanic district. If you assume even non-Hispanic districts have so many illegal voters, multiply that 624 by 435 congressional districts, and you still get a far cry from "millions." Try using facts when you argue, guys. -Joe- |
|
23 Jan 09 - 07:55 AM (#2546877) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: KEVINOAF If you want a proper insight into the attitude of the us border patrol you should read 'unrepentant sinner' by colonel charles askins then make an informed judgement |
|
23 Jan 09 - 08:11 AM (#2546888) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Riginslinger "'If you assume even non-Hispanic districts have so many illegal voters, multiply that 624 by 435 congressional districts, and you still get a far cry from "millions."' One more time - It was the blind bigots who hate native born American workers who were using the term "millions," and not those of us on the side of truth and justice. Most elections are decided by a few percentage points so any votes from illegal aliens can pervert most elections. |
|
23 Jan 09 - 09:00 AM (#2546931) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: artbrooks From pdq, 21 Jan 09, 11:08 AM: The first mention of "millions". "Border Patrol agents were not pardoned. They still stand convicted of federal felonies and will forever suffer both the indignaties and disabilities that come with being a felon in this country..." Quite correct. They will not vote in the next federal election while millions of illegal aliens will. Art Brooks A native born American worker |
|
23 Jan 09 - 11:09 AM (#2547035) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: pdq As far as "polite" to illegal aliens, I stick by that statement. Border Patrol agents are required to speak a dialect that Mexicans recognize and they are trained to be polite. If, on the other hand, a suspect starts to show resistance, the agent is trained to raise the level in degrees until the suspect realizes he should coopertate. Violent confrontations rarely occur. As far as the number of illegal aliens from Mexico voting, the Sanchez-Dornan Congressional race proves that at least 624 did vote in that one district that one night. That fact thoroughly impeaches artbrooks' clain that illegals never vote. How many illegal aliens from Mexico voted in the last Federal election, 4 NOV 2008? The number is between "a few" and "3.9 million". If anyone has solid facts or good data, please supply. Some of us are interested in the Truth. |
|
23 Jan 09 - 04:59 PM (#2547333) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Joe Offer OK, PDQ, you're right. All law enforcement officers in the US are supposed to be polite. It makes sense - because an impolite officer can easily escalate a situation into something dangerous. The Border Patrol sends officers who are overly rough to "charm school." But no, they do not politely ask people to go home - they apprehend them and ship them back. Art Brooks stated, "No illegal residents voted in the last election." I gotta say that sounds completely unbelievable, and I wonder why Art said it. Maybe he was trying to be funny, and it didn't work. I'm sure some illegals must have voted. But then, to use data from a 1996 election to support a claim of "millions of illegal voters" in the most recent election, is also quite ludicrous. I guess what I'd conclude from this thread is that it is really difficult to carry on a rational discussion on the Internet, because so much hot air gets wasted refuting statements that are truly idiotic. We could list lots of fallacious and misleading statements in just this one thread. Wouldn't it be nice if Mudcat could be different, if we could be a place where people have rational discussions based on actual facts? I guess that's why I usually stay out of the BS threads - too damn much bullshit. -Joe- |
|
23 Jan 09 - 05:25 PM (#2547358) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: pdq If you read the article on the Sanchez-Dornan race, local officials removed 124 votes because they were clearly corrupted. During the Congressional investigation, another 624 votes were disqualified beacause they were cast by illegal aliens. There were an additional 4000 ballots / voter registrations that were "suspicious" but the Conngressmen decided to stop there and certify the results. Some people think the 4000+ "qustionable" ballots were as corrupt as the 748 (thats's 624 + 124) for a grand total of 4748+. Take that figure and multiply it by 535 (the House and Senate seats combined) and you get over 2.5 million bad votes. I stick by all my statements and you will (I assume) will stick by yours. |
|
23 Jan 09 - 06:03 PM (#2547390) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Riginslinger Frankly, I think there ought to be some basic threshold for voting, besides just being a legal citizen. I saw some exit interviews during the last election, and it was obvious there were people casting votes who had know idea what they were doing. I know that would be difficult, but... |
|
23 Jan 09 - 06:12 PM (#2547398) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Joe Offer OK, pdq. It's clear that you base your argument on idle speculation and outright prejudice. I guess it's not worth discussing the matter with you any further. Riginslinger, your proposal of a threshold test sounds like what they used to do to black people in the South when they wanted to register to vote. No, thanks. Besides, if they asked ME to make up the test, it would probably disqualify several participants in this discussion. -Joe Offer- |
|
23 Jan 09 - 06:28 PM (#2547411) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: pdq Perhaps you should engage in a little "truth in advertising" yourself, Joe Offer. You said on another thread that you want a wide open border with Mexico. You want all the people who try to get into the US to be able to do so without being impeded. That makes any praise or support of our Border Patrol coming from you seem a bit empty. In fact, I see no support for them from you at all. I am happy that Romos and Compean were set free. They tried to do their job not knowing that half the politicians in this country don't want them to succede. That ain't right. |
|
23 Jan 09 - 06:32 PM (#2547413) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: artbrooks Joe, I also said: "By the way, just in case you hadn't figured it out, I really have no idea whether or not any votes have ever been cast by noncitizens. In fact, in 221 years of our democracy, I'd be amazed if there were not such votes cast. My statement was intended to be as farcical as the statement that millions of votes will be cast by illegal aliens in the next election (pdq at 11:08 am). If you can't prove something you present as a fact, and that statement about a future situation cannot be factual unless you have a time machine, than you should make it clear that you are actually expressing an opinion." |
|
23 Jan 09 - 07:39 PM (#2547456) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Riginslinger "Riginslinger, your proposal of a threshold test sounds like what they used to do to black people in the South when they wanted to register to vote. No, thanks. Besides, if they asked ME to make up the test, it would probably disqualify several participants in this discussion." Yes, I know. That's why I pasted on the disclaimer, and I avoided using the word "test." Still some of those exit interviews were downright frightening. |
|
23 Jan 09 - 09:04 PM (#2547507) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Joe Offer I figured that's what you were up to, Art - but I think it didn't work. In the midst of a ocean of illogical statements, another one posted humorously just blends right in. PDQ, your lack of logic astonishes me. Yes, I do favor an open border - I don't know that I ever said "wide open" (this post may be the one you're talking about). The US should have identical border controls on its borders with both Mexico and Canada - not a Berlin Wall separating us from Mexico. Nonetheless, I worked with Border Patrol agents for 25 years, and I respect their training and professionalism. Certainly, there were a few bad eggs - it was my job to weed them out. But on the whole, the Border Patrol Agents were good people who did their best at a job that was often thankless and futile. I also have a great deal of respect for U.S. prosecutors and courts. Most of the time, they get it right - especially when a case goes to a full trial. If the court convicted the two agents, then I tend to believe that the agents committed a crime. But you contend there's no need to know the exact details of the case, because you're absolutely sure they were lynched by the prosecution. If the CNN Story is true, then it does appear there may be good reason for commutation of the officers' sentences. You'll find links and more information in this Wikipedia article. -Joe- |
|
23 Jan 09 - 09:25 PM (#2547518) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Riginslinger The standard of living in Canada is very similar to the US. There really isn't any reason for Canadians to sneak over the border to cut onions. The standard of living in Mexico presents a stark contrast to the US--though that may change as more economic realities surface. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the people who would be most able to bring about changes in Mexico are the very people who are leaving. |
|
23 Jan 09 - 09:29 PM (#2547521) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Joe Offer You're right, Rig. That's why East Germany built a wall - to stop the drain of workers from its economy. So, you're implying that we are doing Mexico a great favor by building a wall to keep its workers in. -Joe- |
|
23 Jan 09 - 09:33 PM (#2547525) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Riginslinger Joe - I hadn't thought that far into it. But the last election in Mexico was almost won by a man who might have been able to help the poorest Mexican people. It was close. With just a little more support, I think he could have won, and I think Mexico would be a better place today--especially for it's own people--if he had won. |
|
23 Jan 09 - 09:38 PM (#2547528) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Joe Offer I think I'd agree with you there, Rig. The best way to stop our border problems with Mexico, is for the economy and government in Mexico to improve. Incidentally, there have been far fewer illegal aliens coming to the U.S. since our economy went bad. -Joe- |
|
23 Jan 09 - 10:38 PM (#2547562) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: Riginslinger Joe - Yes, I've seen the figures. It's not a good thing that people suffer on either side of the border. |
|
24 Jan 09 - 01:39 AM (#2547618) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Remember all those jobs that illegals performed, because Americans didn't want them????...Maybe, if the Americans got them, there would be no reason for that rationalization any longer............I'll bet you 'those' Americans want them.....back... now! 5000 more from Microsoft, announced, just yesterday......... |
|
24 Jan 09 - 01:45 AM (#2547622) Subject: RE: BS: Bush pardons Border Patrol agents From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity first a '400', now a 100...what a night! |