Border Agent's Death Would Spark Impeachment Talks, Republican Says

[pisshead]

Border Agent's Death Would Spark Impeachment Talks, Republican Says
Kevin Mooney and Fred Lucas
CNSNews.com
Thursday, February 8, 2007 Weeks after accusing President Bush of "shameful" behavior over the imprisonment of two Border Patrol agents who shot an unarmed suspected drug smuggler along the U.S.-Mexico border, a federal lawmaker turned up the heat further Wednesday, suggesting the president should be impeached if either of the two men is murdered in prison.
Speaking after the Federal Bureau of Prisons confirmed that agent Ignacio Ramos was assaulted by inmates in his Mississippi prison over the weekend, California Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher had a warning for the White House.
"I tell you, Mr. President, if these men -- especially after this assault -- are murdered in prison, if one of them lose their lives, there's going to be some sort of impeachment talk in Capitol Hill," he told a press conference in Washington D.C.(Listen to Audio)
When Ramos and colleague Jose Compean began their sentences of 12 and 11 years' imprisonment respectively last month, Rohrabacher said of the president for not pardoning the men, "This is the worst betrayal of American defenders I have ever seen."
"It's shameful this was done by someone who is in the Republican Party," Rohrabacher added, saying Bush "obviously thinks more about his agreements with Mexico than the lives of American people and backing up his defenders."
The outrage has targeted both the administration and U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, who prosecuted the two and offered an immunity deal to the suspected drug smuggler, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, in return for his testimony against the agents.
Sutton has noted that the agents not only shot an unarmed man while he was fleeing toward the Mexican border, but also tried to cover up the crime by disposing of their shell casings and not reporting the incident to their supervisor.
After a two-week trial last year, the two were convicted by a jury on 11 out of 12 counts, including assault with a dangerous weapon, assault with serious bodily injury, discharge of a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence, willfully violating the illegal immigrant's constitutional rights, lying about the incident and failing to report the truth.

pisshead Reviewed by pisshead on 02-08-2007. Border Agent's Death Would Spark Impeachment Talks, Republican Says Border Agent's Death Would Spark Impeachment Talks, Republican Says Kevin Mooney and Fred Lucas CNSNews.com Thursday, February 8, 2007 Weeks after accusing President Bush of "shameful" behavior over the imprisonment of two Border Patrol agents who shot an unarmed suspected drug smuggler along the U.S.-Mexico border, a federal lawmaker turned up the heat further Wednesday, suggesting the president should be impeached if either of the two men is murdered in prison. Speaking after the Rating: 5

[pisshead]

Presidential Frontrunners Would Surrender America's Borders
Chuck Baldwin
Tuesday, February 6, 2007 Looking at the potential presidential frontrunners for both the Democrat and Republican parties reveals that virtually everyone of them would surrender America's borders. Not one of the presidential frontrunners from either party would protect our borders against illegal immigration. Just the opposite. They would continue George Bush's policy of wide open borders, including his determination to grant amnesty to illegals. In other words, when it comes to protecting our borders, there is not a nickel's worth of difference between the two major parties' leading presidential contenders.
Democratic presidential frontrunners include John Edwards, Barak Obama, and Hillary Clinton. Republican frontrunners include John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani.
In fact, virtually every Democratic candidate, and even the vast majority of Republican candidates, would provide no relief to America's border problems. And, yes, that includes Sam Brownback and Newt Gingrich. Notable exceptions include Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, and Tom Tancredo, with Tancredo at the head of the class.
Obviously, should Hunter, Paul, or Tancredo miraculously win the White House, the push for a North American Union (NAU) complete with a NAFTA superhighway and a trilateral, hemispheric government, would be stopped dead in its tracks. For this reason, the GOP machine (and the insiders who control it) will never allow someone such as Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, or Tom Tancredo to obtain the nomination.
It's time the American people faced a hard, cold reality: no matter who the two major parties nominate in November 2008, the push for open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, and the NAU will continue unabated. In other words, anyone one believes that unimpeded illegal immigration (and related issues) just might be the biggest threat to our national sovereignty and security (and count me as one who does) will not be able to vote for either the Republican or Democratic nominee in 2008. It's time to start preparing for that reality now.
Does that mean that Republicans should not do everything they can to help Tancredo, Paul, or Hunter gain the nomination? Of course not. If the vast majority of the GOP rank and file would get solidly behind these three men, one of them might have a chance of succeeding. However, the track record of the GOP faithful is not very reassuring.
Instead of supporting principled, uncompromising men of integrity, such as the three men named above, Republican voters will doubtless buy into the party mantra of pragmatism and help nominate another spineless globalist such as currently occupies the White House, which will leave us exactly where we are now.
So, here is the sixty-four million dollar question: What will principled conservative voters do in 2008? My hope and prayer is that after failing to receive their party's nomination, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter (or at least one of them) will leave the party and bring their (his) followers to the Constitution Party (CP). In all likelihood, the CP will have ballot access in over 45 states. It is already the third largest political party in the country and is currently the fastest growing political party in the nation. A national leader such as Paul, Tancredo, or Hunter would provide the CP with a very attractive alternative to the globalist candidates being offered by the two major parties.
By nature, I am not a single issue voter. However, I am sensible enough to realize that there are currently a handful of issues that will literally make or break America's future. And right now, the illegal immigration and emerging North American Union issues are at the very top of the list. Further failure on these issues will mean the end of America as we know it. And I mean very soon.
Regardless of what Hunter, Paul, and Tancredo ultimately do, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents who believe we must protect America's borders, stop the burgeoning North American Union, and secure our national sovereignty must be prepared to abandon the two major parties' presidential nominees in 2008 and support an "America First" third party candidate. Even a virtually unknown candidate with limited experience, but someone who understands the issues and has the backbone to do what is right, would be head and shoulders above what the two major parties are currently shoving down our throats.
Better start preparing yourselves for it now, folks.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

Border Agent's Death Would Spark Impeachment Talks, Republican Says.....

i'm rather surprised this hasn't come up on the boards before.

these two men, given sentences usually reserved for repeat offenders or murderers, are a perfect example of politics at its worst. for the crime of doing their jobs they have been railroaded by corrupt officials in an attempt to further their own careers and ignored by most legislators for the sake of a few votes once bush and the dems push through an amnesty bill. evidence was suppressed, perjury was committed and the charges were blown out of proportion; all by good old boys (and girls) loyal to the bush agenda. now these two men have been torn from their families and thrown into a federal penitentiary for defending our borders. one of them has already been severely beaten and it's only a matter of time before they are both killed by some of the very people they have been defending us against. the whole mess stinks.

i know that some of you may be likely to say "well they shot some poor unarmed guy who was just trying to import a little weed across the border", but any of you who have had dealings with the cartels will know that smuggling across that border is tightly controlled and violence is the norm. to believe that the smuggler involved was unarmed is naive, at best. any border patrol agent who does not fear for his life on an almost daily basis is either a fool or in bed with some truly nasty folks.

as weed smokers you all might tend to discount the smuggling, but as citizens you should all realize the importance of secure borders. any of you out there with a political bent might think about sending a little message to your representatives in support of these men. they may be on the other side of the war against MJ prohibition, but they are still an important part of keeping you safe in a world that is more and more frightening every day.


yeah, this whole deal really pissed me off.