ADVERTISEMENT

Seriously, how can anyone support this?



🇺🇸 AIR FORCE GENERAL: BORDER CROSSINGS PLUNGE 97% | DRUG ACTIVITY DOWN 60% UNDER TRUMP

Air Force Gen. Gregory Guillot told Newsmax that legal border crossings have dropped by 97% and illegal drug activity by over 60% since Trump returned to office.

He credited executive action and coordination with Customs and Border Protection for the sharp decline.

The challenge, Guillot said, has been adapting to the diversity of cartel operations, each with its own specialty.

Gen. Gregory Guillot, Air Force:

"There's dozens and dozens and they're all different, and they have different specialties."

Source: Newsmax
 
  • Like
Reactions: Allornothing
How do you justify this?

Babylon Bee is satire, which I'm sure you're aware.

They way I would defend the satirical headline is that due process is an undeniable Constitutional protection for all people on our soil (full stop)--while folks who cross the border illegally may not have respected our laws, we (as a country) have an obligation to observe the supreme law of the land. Maybe you and I are just talking past each other. You keep referring to "full" due process. That does not mean that illegal immigrants are entitled to a 12 person jury trial that takes 2 or 3 years. There are administrative courts that handle most cases. This guy didn't go through that process.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374
Babylon Bee is satire, which I'm sure you're aware.

They way I would defend the satirical headline is that due process is an undeniable Constitutional protection for all people on our soil (full stop)--while folks who cross the border illegally may not have respected our laws, we (as a country) have an obligation to observe the supreme law of the land. Maybe you and I are just talking past each other. You keep referring to "full" due process. That does not mean that illegal immigrants are entitled to a 12 person jury trial that takes 2 or 3 years. There are administrative courts that handle most cases. This guy didn't go through that process.
Are you saying that the millions that were herded in under Biden were fully and constitutionally vetted? Does catch and release count as a full vetting for asylum with no judge. Babylon Bee or not that headline is true.
 


Are people figuring out yet? Even a little bit?

1. Who created/controls/funded the cartels and their gangs with our taxpayer cash? Who brought them in as imported muscle to run the trafficking networks and handle operations targeting US citizens?

2. Who profited from the human/child/sex/drug trafficking these cartels/gangs run for them in DC?

3. How a significant amount of our Congress are actually embeds of the nternational ntelligence [C]onglomerate/[M]ilitary ndustrial [C]omplex/international [C]rime yndicate?

Take this guy right down there in that video clip.

How many of you know about his CIA connections?

Ball park figure?
 
  • Like
Reactions: fatpiggy
Grok says that's a lie

'Yes, several prominent Democrats visited western North Carolina after Hurricane Helene struck in late September 2024. President Joe Biden visited on October 2, 2024, taking an aerial tour of the damage with Governor Roy Cooper and announcing 100% FEMA reimbursement for six months. Vice President Kamala Harris visited on October 5, 2024, assisting at a donation center and meeting with local officials and residents. Governor Cooper also toured affected areas multiple times, coordinating recovery efforts.'


But Trump abandoned them after he got your vote so he's a bigger POS.



Chew on this libs. Jeep up the food work.

 
  • Haha
Reactions: fatpiggy


You can't kill a false narrative with fire, but I'll take a whack at it.

What SCOTUS actually said last night is that:

1. Trump can't deport **the particular Venezuelans in this case** who are in jail in Texas

2. while they have case in litigation in the federal courts

3. The SCOTUS left the door open for gang members to be deported under the AEA who **don't** have a case in litigation in the federal courts.

And this is not gonna take months, this will be resolved in a matter days.
 
Ban bet that the definition of person isn’t exclusive to citizens?
The founders definition of person excluded a lot of people right? There were a lot of people within our country that were not considered “persons”. What you’re implying certainly doesn’t seem to mean what they were meaning. Seems like a reach knowing how certain founders felt that they were referring to everyone that can make it to the border. How much do you know about Jefferson on this topic?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls
Just disagree with your interpretation that illegal aliens have constitutional protections on a full level. Trump is operating on an emergency directive also.
Emergency action? I remember when you got real sad about the government using emergency measures in 2020.


Just like you said, they still make me wear a mask everywhere I go. I even drive with one on.
 
I was reading “confronting the presidents” today and Habeus Corpus has been suspended, at a minimum, twice before by previous presidents.

Edit: 4 times


Your argument of tradition being thrown out the window is not valid.

Yes, **habeas corpus** has been suspended by U.S. presidents in extraordinary circumstances, primarily during times of war or national emergency. Below are the key instances:

1. **Abraham Lincoln (1861–1863, Civil War)**
- **Reason**: During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to suppress rebellion and maintain Union control, particularly in areas with Confederate sympathizers. He aimed to detain suspected rebels, spies, or those aiding the Confederacy without immediate trial.
- **Details**: Lincoln first suspended habeas corpus in 1861 along the route between Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., due to riots and threats to Union supply lines. In 1862, he expanded the suspension nationwide for cases involving military arrests. The Supreme Court questioned his authority in *Ex parte Merryman* (1861), but Lincoln justified it under his war powers, arguing necessity to preserve the Union. Congress later ratified the suspension via the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act of 1863.
- **Duration**: The suspension lasted intermittently from 1861 until the end of the Civil War in 1865, though its application varied by region and was lifted in some areas earlier.
- **Impact**: Thousands were detained without trial, including suspected deserters, draft dodgers, and political opponents, though exact numbers are debated.

2. **Ulysses S. Grant (1871, Reconstruction Era)**
- **Reason**: Grant suspended habeas corpus in parts of South Carolina to combat the Ku Klux Klan’s violent campaign against Black citizens and Reconstruction governments.
- **Details**: Under the Enforcement Act of 1871 (also called the Ku Klux Klan Act), Congress authorized the suspension to allow federal troops to arrest and detain Klan members without immediate judicial review. This targeted white supremacist violence in nine South Carolina counties.
- **Duration**: The suspension was limited to specific counties and lasted from October 1871 to mid-1872, when conditions stabilized.
- **Impact**: Hundreds of suspected Klan members were arrested, weakening the organization’s influence in the region.

3. **Franklin D. Roosevelt (1941–1945, World War II)**
- **Reason**: Habeas corpus was effectively suspended in Hawaii after the Pearl Harbor attack under martial law to maintain order and security.
- **Details**: Following the December 7, 1941, attack, Hawaii’s territorial governor, with FDR’s approval, declared martial law. Military authorities detained suspected subversives, including Japanese-American citizens, without habeas corpus. The Supreme Court upheld martial law in *Duncan v. Kahanamoku* (1946) but ruled after the war that civilian courts should have retained jurisdiction.
- **Duration**: The suspension lasted from December 1941 until October 1944, when martial law was lifted in Hawaii.
- **Impact**: Thousands were detained, and military tribunals replaced civilian courts for many cases.

4. **George W. Bush (Post-9/11, 2001–2008)**
- **Reason**: While not a formal suspension of habeas corpus for U.S. citizens, the Bush administration’s policies after 9/11 effectively denied habeas rights to “enemy combatants” detained at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere during the War on Terror.
- **Details**: The Military Commissions Act of 2006 attempted to strip habeas corpus rights from non-citizen detainees. The Supreme Court, in *Boumediene v. Bush* (2008), ruled that Guantanamo detainees had a constitutional right to habeas corpus, as the base was under U.S. control. For U.S. citizens like José Padilla, habeas rights were initially restricted but later restored through court challenges.
- **Duration**: The effective suspension for non-citizens lasted from 2001 until the 2008 ruling, though legal battles continued. For citizens, restrictions were case-specific and typically overturned by courts within a few years.
- **Impact**: Hundreds of detainees, mostly non-citizens, were held without access to courts for years, prompting significant legal and human rights debates.

### Notes:
- **Legal Basis**: The U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9) allows suspension of habeas corpus “when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” Presidents have relied on this clause or congressional approval, though Lincoln’s unilateral action sparked controversy.
- **Congressional Role**: In most cases, Congress either authorized or retroactively approved suspensions, except during parts of Lincoln’s presidency.
- **Modern Context**: No president has formally suspended habeas corpus since World War II, though post-9/11 policies raised similar concerns. Recent discussions on X and web sources suggest ongoing debates about habeas corpus in the context of national security, but no new suspensions have occurred as of April 17, 2025.

If you want more details on a specific case or related legal precedents, let me know!
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls
Are you saying that the millions that were herded in under Biden were fully and constitutionally vetted? Does catch and release count as a full vetting for asylum with no judge. Babylon Bee or not that headline is true.
What do you mean by "fully and constitutionally vetted"? I'm not here to defend the Biden Administration's immigration policies--clearly that was a mess. But, the folks that are here have certain fundamental rights (of which due process is one), and you can't just ignore that because you don't think they should be here in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374
What do you mean by "fully and constitutionally vetted"? I'm not here to defend the Biden Administration's immigration policies--clearly that was a mess. But, the folks that are here have certain fundamental rights (of which due process is one), and you can't just ignore that because you don't think they should be here in the first place.

They should suspend Habeus Corpus. Invaders should not have any rights. That is the stupidest thing i have ever heard.
 
They should suspend Habeus Corpus. Invaders should not have any rights. That is the stupidest thing i have ever heard.

Sorry you hate America and it's laws.

America was Great When we respected our Laws and respected the Constitution. The irony of a group calling itself MAGA, while hating America is an interesting position.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dpic73
Sorry you hate America and it's laws.

America was Great When we respected our Laws and respected the Constitution. The irony of a group calling itself MAGA, while hating America is an interesting position.
Ahh.

So the 4 previous presidents that used it didn't respect the consitution?

Remember when Joe Biden said he was going to ignore the Supreme Ct ruling?

All the democrats actions are coming home to roost. Democrats realize they are just looking in the mirror.

Democrats want to rule with an iron fist, while they want Republicans to play pillow fight.

Suspend Habeus Corpus now. The precedent is there.
 
Ahh.

So the 4 previous presidents that used it didn't respect the consitution?

Remember when Joe Biden said he was going to ignore the Supreme Ct ruling?

Democrats want to rule with an iron fist, while they want Republicans to play pillow fight.

Suspend Habeus Corpus now. The precedent is there.

There is no precedent that applies to immigration. All previous cases were during an active,declared war.

Not the same at all.
 
They should suspend Habeus Corpus. Invaders should not have any rights. That is the stupidest thing i have ever heard.
Man this is beneath you. The due process in this case is just confirming they are here illegally or are the invaders you’re talking about.

Y’all are twisting what people are saying to support your dear leader.
 
There is no precedent that applies to immigration. All previous cases were during an active,declared war.

Not the same at all.
incorrect, sir

No, not all suspensions of habeas corpus were directly tied to war, though most were associated with significant national crises, often involving conflict. Below are key examples to clarify:
  1. War-Related Suspensions:
    • U.S. Civil War (1861–1865): Suspended by President Lincoln to detain Confederate sympathizers during a rebellion, clearly tied to war.
    • World War I and II (UK and U.S.): Suspensions or restrictions (e.g., U.S. Japanese-American internment, UK’s Defence of the Realm Act) were enacted to counter espionage and security threats during global conflicts.
    • Post-9/11 U.S. (2001–2008): The Military Commissions Act suspended habeas corpus for "enemy combatants" in the War on Terror, a conflict with non-traditional warfare elements.
  2. Non-War-Related Suspensions:
    • United States - Reconstruction Era (1870s): Habeas corpus was suspended in parts of the South to combat Ku Klux Klan violence under the Enforcement Acts. This was not a formal war but a domestic crisis involving widespread racial terrorism and civil unrest.
    • United Kingdom - Irish War of Independence (1919–1921): While involving armed conflict, this was more a colonial insurgency than a declared war. Habeas corpus was suspended under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act to detain suspected Irish nationalists, driven by political and security concerns.
    • India - Emergency Period (1975–1977): Prime Minister Indira Gandhi suspended habeas corpus during a declared "internal emergency" to suppress political dissent and maintain order. No war was involved; the justification was domestic political instability and alleged threats to national unity.
Summary: While most habeas corpus suspensions historically stem from wars or armed conflicts (e.g., Civil War, World Wars, War on Terror), some were driven by domestic crises like civil unrest, terrorism, or political instability without formal warfare. The common thread is a perceived existential threat to state stability, whether military or civil in nature.
 
incorrect, sir

No, not all suspensions of habeas corpus were directly tied to war, though most were associated with significant national crises, often involving conflict. Below are key examples to clarify:
  1. War-Related Suspensions:
    • U.S. Civil War (1861–1865): Suspended by President Lincoln to detain Confederate sympathizers during a rebellion, clearly tied to war.
    • World War I and II (UK and U.S.): Suspensions or restrictions (e.g., U.S. Japanese-American internment, UK’s Defence of the Realm Act) were enacted to counter espionage and security threats during global conflicts.
    • Post-9/11 U.S. (2001–2008): The Military Commissions Act suspended habeas corpus for "enemy combatants" in the War on Terror, a conflict with non-traditional warfare elements.
  2. Non-War-Related Suspensions:
    • United States - Reconstruction Era (1870s): Habeas corpus was suspended in parts of the South to combat Ku Klux Klan violence under the Enforcement Acts. This was not a formal war but a domestic crisis involving widespread racial terrorism and civil unrest.
    • United Kingdom - Irish War of Independence (1919–1921): While involving armed conflict, this was more a colonial insurgency than a declared war. Habeas corpus was suspended under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act to detain suspected Irish nationalists, driven by political and security concerns.
    • India - Emergency Period (1975–1977): Prime Minister Indira Gandhi suspended habeas corpus during a declared "internal emergency" to suppress political dissent and maintain order. No war was involved; the justification was domestic political instability and alleged threats to national unity.
Summary: While most habeas corpus suspensions historically stem from wars or armed conflicts (e.g., Civil War, World Wars, War on Terror), some were driven by domestic crises like civil unrest, terrorism, or political instability without formal warfare. The common thread is a perceived existential threat to state stability, whether military or civil in nature.

There was one non war use in America and it was used to confront a lawless American Terrorist Organization. Not anything to do with immigration.

The precedence you are claiming isn't applicable or even remotely the same.
 
The precedence you are claiming isn't applicable or even remotely the same.

We will have to agree to disagree.

It doesn't have to be the same as anything previously. The only question is if he has the power or not. He absolutely does.
 
We will have to agree to disagree.

It doesn't have to be the same as anything previously. The only question is if he has the power or not. He absolutely does.

And the courts and judges say he doesn't. Their opinions count, yours doesn't.

In fact, yours is wrong and has been judged to be wrong.
 
And the courts and judges say he doesn't. Their opinions count, yours doesn't.

In fact, yours is wrong and has been judged to be wrong.
We will see, i suppose.

Lol if you think it's over and we are just going to allow 20 million democratic voters to stay. Trump has 3.75 more years to figure it out. Something tells me he won't wait that long.
 
And the courts and judges say he doesn't. Their opinions count, yours doesn't.

In fact, yours is wrong and has been judged to be wrong.
Biden was judged to be wrong too. But he didn't let that stop him

As i said, this is a good exercise. Democrats are looking in the mirror and realizing they just see themselves.
 
Biden was judged to be wrong too. But he didn't let that stop him

As i said, this is a good exercise. Democrats are looking in the mirror and realizing they just see themselves.

Again, what did Biden do? He went back, changed stuff and it was then judged to be legal.

What problem do you have with this? You are literally being mad that the court is treating Trump exactly as they did the previous admin.
 
He's trolling. Same with the Habeas Corpus thread.
You will see.

Let's see what starts to trend in the news nextcouple weeks on this issue.

You think Trump is going to lie down on this when he campaigned strong on it?

I don't think so.
 
You will see.

Let's see what starts to trend in the news nextcouple weeks on this issue.

You think Trump is going to lie down on this when he campaigned strong on it?

I don't think so.

So you suggest and are perfectly fine with breaking US Law and the Constitution.

That's who MAGA is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tboonpickens
So you suggest and are perfectly fine with breaking US Law and the Constitution.

That's who MAGA is.
Joe Biden - I am going to ignore the supreme court ruling.

Joe Biden is as sharp as a tack.

Democrats looking in the mirror.
 
You realize that there are more kids with measles in America than NCAA trans athletes?

Interesting what MAGA really cares about. Thanks for that great priority.

Not to mention, who walks into a bathroom and pulls their dick out in front of everyone in the room? You do realize that girls bathrooms have stalls right?
Do you remember asking who pulls their dick out? Guess who. But he said he was a woman so it’s cool I guess.

 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT