Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The absolute lack of appreciation and respect for the protections accorded by our Constitution is troublesome to say the least.
Remember, boys and girls -- our president only supports "law and order" .
from Why Did Obama Free This Terrorist?
On January 17, 2017, as one of the final acts of his presidency, Barack Obama commuted the sentence of 74-year-old Oscar Lopez Rivera, the Puerto Rican nationalist who had served 35 years of a 55-year conviction for the crime of “seditious conspiracy,” as well as attempted robbery, explosives and vehicle-theft charges. Thanks to Obama’s intercession, Lopez will be freed in May.
...
Most Americans may not have heard of Lopez, or the organization he helped lead, the Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional (FALN), a radical Marxist Puerto Rican independence group. With the focus of post-9/11 terrorism falling almost exclusively on Islamist radicals, the violent nationalists of yesteryear—Puerto Rican, Cuban, Croatian and Jewish—have faded into obscurity. But during the FALN’s explosive heyday under Lopez’s leadership, the group was anything but obscure. In fact, from 1974, when the group announced itself with its first bombings, to 1983, when arrests finally destroyed its membership base, the FALN was the most organized, active, well-trained and deadly domestic terror group based in the United States.
The FALN was responsible for over 130 bombings during this period...
The absolute lack of appreciation and respect for the protections accorded by our Constitution is troublesome to say the least.
True. And so also Arpaio -- the problem is "the left does not"
The Sheriff was enforcing the Law passed by congress. That point does not change.
I love this quote from the OP
"In fact, the United States Department of Justice admitted before trial that it is “unaware of facts” that would support “that Defendant and other MCSO officers detained plaintiffs on the basis of race."
Many/most American citizens (even voters) believe that taking the Sheriff's Oath of Office means that the Sheriff is sworn by an oath - to uphold the Law. To carry out orders "I can lawfully execute" as stated in that oath.
Presumably Arpaio took such an oath of office.
Many have argued that a Sheriff that is condemned because he chooses to uphold the laws in America - violates Constitutional intent and the written law of the land.
A pardon for someone who chose the LAW over leftism is what is being discussed.
==== as opposed to pardon members of domestic terrorist groups like FALN
What law did the judge 'invent'?
Wow! Sorry but it is trump and the Sheriff who have signalled their absolute disdain for law and order. Saying you support law and order whilst refusing to obey the rulings of judges irrefutably demonstrates this.True. And so also Arpaio -- the problem is "the left does not"
way to ignore everybody's rebuttal and repeat your argument .
The "new one" invented was the one that says it is now illegal in Arizona to uphold the law passed by congress regarding immigration into the United States.
No such law exists, and no judge in existence has invented it. Please making up lies, thanks,The "new one" invented was the one that says it is now illegal in Arizona to uphold the law passed by congress regarding immigration into the United States.
Your facts have already been proven wrong by the rebuttals.Thanks .. the facts do not change "with added emotion"
Wow! Sorry but it is trump and the Sheriff who have signalled their absolute disdain for law and order. .
Not in "real life" -- in real life they are upholding the law of the land passed by congress on the issue of immigration.
Both sides admit to this glaringly obvious detail. Emotion does not change fact.
the fact that the sheriff was found guilty of breaking the law. Sorry but once again your hatred and loathing of law and order, and the rule of law is apparent.Not in "real life" -- in real life they are upholding the law of the land passed by congress on the issue of immigration.
Both sides admit to this glaringly obvious detail. Emotion does not change fact.
No such law exists, and no judge in existence has invented it. Please making up lies, thanks,
the fact that the sheriff was found guilty of breaking the law .
Three days before Donald Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio, he stated that the former Maricopa County, Arizona, sheriff was "convicted for doing his job." -- Upholding existing law passed by congress.
It's not a Leftist Roadblock, there are states that capture and detain Illegals all the time LEGALLY.The leftist roadblock against Arpaio was that Arpaio would be guilty of upholding federal immigration law.
IN this case - a federal judge told him to cut it out, -- that is the federal judiciary trying to smack State Law enforcement for failure to ignore federal law.
The question is not ignoring federal law, but how one enforces it. it was his tactics that fell foal of the law! As I have said if the police suddenly decided to shoot all suspect shoplifters would that be lawful?What law? the new one?? Is there a law that requires that state law enforcement ignore federal law???
Remember - emotion does not change fact.
What law? the new one?? Is there a law that requires that state law enforcement ignore federal law???
It's not the job of local law enforcement to enforce federal laws. That's what federal immigration law enforcement agencies like ICE, and INS are for.Again .. emotionalism does not change fact.
Three days before Donald Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio, he stated that the former Maricopa County, Arizona, sheriff was "convicted for doing his job." -- Upholding existing law passed by congress.
The leftist roadblock against Arpaio was that Arpaio would be guilty of upholding federal immigration law.
IN this case - a federal judge told him to cut it out, -- that is one lone member of the federal judiciary trying to smack State Law enforcement for failure to ignore federal law.
Indeed, and that is what this judgement is all about, the enforcement of a law, and who's responsible for enforcing it.According to you there is a Law that makes it Legal to Ignore Federal ones somehow.
But it's not really about that, it's about How they enforce the Law.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?