What do Russia/China have on these Dem congressman that's making them go on TV and publicly defend narco-terrorists?

[marvin martian]

Watching these dirtbags vigorously defending the cartels and their soldiers really makes one wonder what Russia and China are holding over the heads of these "elected officials" to make them throw their careers away by going on TV and saying these narco-terrorists are actually humble fisherman just trying to feed their families?

We know Venezuela is a narco-state wholly owned by Russia, and receives materials and assistance from China for making and transporting drugs. What do Russia and China have on these Democrats that got them on the team?

 

[Cassandro]

Just more Democrat scandal mongering. It would be refreshing if they offered new policy proposals, but that well seems to have run dry.

 

[MisterBeale]

There is no such thing as, "narco-terrorists."

It is a made up term and idea to give a fig leaf of legitimacy to unrestrained killing of criminals without a trial.

I just worry about when the next time the DNC has control of the executive and they decide to start drone striking, "stochastic terrorists."

Stochastic terrorism | Definition, Examples, Social Media, Criticism, & Facts | Britannica

Stochastic terrorism is the repeated use of hate speech or other vilifying rhetoric by a public figure that inspires one or more of the figure’s supporters to commit acts of violence directed at a targeted person, group, or community.

www.britannica.com

Ending the Right’s Reign of Stochastic Terror: Replacing <em>Brandenburg</em> to Modernize the First Amendment - Law Review

drexel.edu

Charlie Kirk and Stochastic Terrorism

The case of the "wind-blown embers" with the "dried-out forests"

sentinl.substack.com

It is the same damn game, a game of ignoring the constitution to give unlimited power to the government to do whatever the hell it wants.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Most of congress is compromised with ukraine, russian, chinese grift so they look away when venezuela has dealings with them. Id imagine russia and china have guttural laughs as venezuela offloads drugs to the US making the people stupid, incoherent, and dumber than a nail.

 

[toobfreak]

Watching these dirtbags vigorously defending the cartels and their soldiers really makes one wonder what Russia and China are holding over the heads of these "elected officials" to make them throw their careers away by going on TV and saying these narco-terrorists are actually humble fisherman just trying to feed their families?

Hey Marv--- these guys are just trying to feed their families! But not like how the J6 prisoners were trying to feed theirs!

That is just how these boatmen make their money, like apparently a lot of Democraps.

 

[ColonelAngus]

These corrupt politicians are getting paid directly or indirectly from the cartels.

Many are involved in NGOs that “HELP ILLEGALS”.

The NGOs are their gravy train.

 

[Hellokitty]

There is no such thing as, "narco-terrorists."

It is a made up term and idea to give a fig leaf of legitimacy to unrestrained killing of criminals without a trial.

Where did you hear it's a made up term?

Narco-Terrorism | Office of Justice Programs

www.ojp.gov

Might try a simple google search before parroting liberal media spin...

 

[MisterBeale]

Where did you hear it's a made up term?

Narco-Terrorism | Office of Justice Programs

www.ojp.gov

Might try a simple google search before parroting liberal media spin...

I didn't say WHO made the term up. . . but yeah, it is the authoritarians in government that made it up.

18 U.S. Code § 2331 - Definitions

www.law.cornell.edu

Judge Napolitano is a noted libertarian lawyer and judge, that ain't no lefty spin sister.

Just because this office insists drone strikes on Americans without a trial is O.K., or it insisting torturing prisoners of war is fine, doesn't necessarily make those true statements. . .

. . . anymore than "narco-terrorist," is a thing.

 

[marvin martian]

There is no such thing as, "narco-terrorists."

It is a made up term and idea to give a fig leaf of legitimacy to unrestrained killing of criminals without a trial.

I just worry about when the next time the DNC has control of the executive and they decide to start drone striking, "stochastic terrorists."

Stochastic terrorism | Definition, Examples, Social Media, Criticism, & Facts | Britannica

Stochastic terrorism is the repeated use of hate speech or other vilifying rhetoric by a public figure that inspires one or more of the figure’s supporters to commit acts of violence directed at a targeted person, group, or community.

www.britannica.com

Ending the Right’s Reign of Stochastic Terror: Replacing <em>Brandenburg</em> to Modernize the First Amendment - Law Review

drexel.edu

Charlie Kirk and Stochastic Terrorism

The case of the "wind-blown embers" with the "dried-out forests"

sentinl.substack.com

View attachment 1192384


It is the same damn game, a game of ignoring the constitution to give unlimited power to the government to do whatever the hell it wants.

I'm sure you don't know this, but Barack Obama droned multiple American citizens during his administration, so you don't need to (pretend to) wonder about what "would happen", because it already happened.

None of these Democrats had any problem with what Obama did. Actually, most of them celebrated it.

 

[MisterBeale]

I'm sure you don't know this, but Barack Obama droned multiple American citizens during his administration, so you don't need to (pretend to) wonder about what "would happen", because it already happened.

Did you not read the post just before you posted this?

Just because this office insists drone strikes on Americans without a trial is O.K., or it insisting torturing prisoners of war is fine, doesn't necessarily make those true statements. . .

. . . anymore than "narco-terrorist," is a thing.

This office also insisted that America was not bound by international bans on torture either.

The very fact that you are aware that this bureaucracy has acted unconstitutionally before, does not excuse this office from pushing authoritarian unconstitutional policies now.

Why is it OK now, but it wasn't OK before?

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[Marchimedes]

What do Russia/China have on these Dem congressman that's making them go on TV and publicly defend narco-terrorists?​

Polaroids of them on Epstein Island.

 

[SeaMajor7]

There is no such thing as, "narco-terrorists."

It is a made up term and idea to give a fig leaf of legitimacy to unrestrained killing of criminals without a trial.

I just worry about when the next time the DNC has control of the executive and they decide to start drone striking, "stochastic terrorists."

Stochastic terrorism | Definition, Examples, Social Media, Criticism, & Facts | Britannica

Stochastic terrorism is the repeated use of hate speech or other vilifying rhetoric by a public figure that inspires one or more of the figure’s supporters to commit acts of violence directed at a targeted person, group, or community.

www.britannica.com

Ending the Right’s Reign of Stochastic Terror: Replacing <em>Brandenburg</em> to Modernize the First Amendment - Law Review

drexel.edu

Charlie Kirk and Stochastic Terrorism

The case of the "wind-blown embers" with the "dried-out forests"

sentinl.substack.com

View attachment 1192384


It is the same damn game, a game of ignoring the constitution to give unlimited power to the government to do whatever the hell it wants.

I'm sure the good people living in Mexico would disagree with your assessment, Mr. B.

 

[MisterBeale]

I'm sure the good people living in Mexico would disagree with your assessment, Mr. B.

Mexico is not the U.S.

I don't give a shit what they think or feel.

In the U.S. we have a Constitution which is supposed to dictate how our government operates.

Why won’t Congress fulfill the vision of the Founders?​

https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/5119460-congressional-powers-executive-authority/

". . . Recall that in 2019, the president, referring to the part of the Constitution governing the powers of the presidency, said, “I have an Article 2 where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.” Even President Biden pushed hard against the limits of his authority when he canceled student loan debt, or when he, as Baker put it, “declared in his final days as president that the equal rights amendment had met the requirements of ratification and therefore was, in his view, now the 28th amendment of the constitution.”

Baker quotes Jonathan Madison of the R Street Institute, a research organization based in Washington, who argues that Biden “‘used executive power in unprecedented ways after the November election’” and that “‘Trump’s first week in office has reinforced this shift’ in power.”

While Madison and others have focused their attention on the behavior of our recent presidents, I’d like to look at what’s happening at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, in Congress. When the constitutional division of powers is challenged, its very survival depends on how lawmakers respond.

Now, and in the recent past, Congress has failed the test and betrayed the vision of the Founders.

Its best articulation is found in the Federalist Papers, written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison, to explain and defend the provisions of the recently adopted Constitution. In Federalist 51, Madison laid out the Founders’ hopes and expectations.

He begins by noting that “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” This assertion summarizes observations he made in Federalists 47 and 48.

There, Madison said that while the president’s power “is carefully limited; both in the extent and the duration of its power,” the greatest threat to liberty would come from Congress, which is “inspired, by a supposed influence over the people, with an intrepid confidence in its own strength; which is sufficiently numerous to feel all the passions which actuate a multitude.”

“It is against the enterprising ambition of this department,” Madison said, “that the people ought to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions.” The key device for effectuating those precautions is the Constitution’s system of separation of powers and checks and balances. . . "




Anyone that really bleevs this is about drugs. . . is not very smart IMO. This is obviously about the oil in Venezuela and the folks that have the control over that energy.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Mexico is not the U.S.

I don't give a shit what they think or feel.

In the U.S. we have a Constitution which is supposed to dictate how our government operates.

Why won’t Congress fulfill the vision of the Founders?​

https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/5119460-congressional-powers-executive-authority/

". . . Recall that in 2019, the president, referring to the part of the Constitution governing the powers of the presidency, said, “I have an Article 2 where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.” Even President Biden pushed hard against the limits of his authority when he canceled student loan debt, or when he, as Baker put it, “declared in his final days as president that the equal rights amendment had met the requirements of ratification and therefore was, in his view, now the 28th amendment of the constitution.”

Baker quotes Jonathan Madison of the R Street Institute, a research organization based in Washington, who argues that Biden “‘used executive power in unprecedented ways after the November election’” and that “‘Trump’s first week in office has reinforced this shift’ in power.”

While Madison and others have focused their attention on the behavior of our recent presidents, I’d like to look at what’s happening at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, in Congress. When the constitutional division of powers is challenged, its very survival depends on how lawmakers respond.

Now, and in the recent past, Congress has failed the test and betrayed the vision of the Founders.

Its best articulation is found in the Federalist Papers, written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison, to explain and defend the provisions of the recently adopted Constitution. In Federalist 51, Madison laid out the Founders’ hopes and expectations.

He begins by noting that “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” This assertion summarizes observations he made in Federalists 47 and 48.

There, Madison said that while the president’s power “is carefully limited; both in the extent and the duration of its power,” the greatest threat to liberty would come from Congress, which is “inspired, by a supposed influence over the people, with an intrepid confidence in its own strength; which is sufficiently numerous to feel all the passions which actuate a multitude.”

“It is against the enterprising ambition of this department,” Madison said, “that the people ought to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions.” The key device for effectuating those precautions is the Constitution’s system of separation of powers and checks and balances. . . "




Anyone that really bleevs this is about drugs. . . is not very smart IMO. This is obviously about the oil in Venezuela and the folks that have the control over that energy.

You are pushing a hypothetical tragic future when the gov goes guns a blazing against the American People based on the LEGAL actions that President Trump is doing to protect our country.

That's ABSURD.

Of course OIL is in the equation, but ffs lay off the DRAMA. A vibrant Venezuelan economy is in the best interest of the People there, don't you think?

Narco-TERRORISTS are real, just ask them.

 

[MisterBeale]

You are pushing a hypothetical tragic future when the gov goes guns a blazing against the American People based on the LEGAL actions that President Trump is doing to protect our country.

Sure sure, w/e.

 

[Rogue AI]

Forget Russia and China, most liberal politicians probably have a Fang Fang in the closet. These liberals are supporting cartels because cartels are supplying slave labor and child sex slaves. Liberals love that stuff, why else would they vote for open borders.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Sure sure, w/e.

That seems off topic and nothing to do with what's going on in the Caribbean Sea.
Yes, as Bob Dylan sang "Everything is broken", I get where you're coming from.

Trump obliterating the drug trade, and thwarting the influences of China and Russia in our hemisphere, is alright by me.

Best regards.

 

[MisterBeale]

That seems off topic and nothing to do with what's going on in the Caribbean Sea.
Yes, as Bob Dylan sang "Everything is broken", I get where you're coming from.

Trump obliterating the drug trade, and thwarting the influences of China and Russia in our hemisphere, is alright by me.

Best regards.

I'm of the opinion that what Bush did, what Obama did, what Biden has done, and what Trump is doing, is not legal.



I posted that to prove to you it isn't hyperbole.

I am old enough to remember what this nation had been like fifty years ago, we definitely have far less liberty today. . . and if this type of behavior continues, we won't have any in the future.




. . . and I don't have much of a problem with what Trump is doing in regards to this drug running, if the DoJ would just give congress and the press the proof. But they won't.

For intelligent folks that love liberty, the very fact that the establishment is being intransigent on proving the justification for this policy?

That rings alarm bells for us.

 

[Anarchy666]

I'm of the opinion that what Bush did, what Obama did, what Biden has done, and what Trump is doing, is not legal.

There are both legal and illegal things that every president since at least Reagan had done while in office...