Bragging rights

Westy - you are living proof that you may need to consult an advisor to get your thought process aligned. Using your (lack of) logic, people drown because a barrier was placed to keep them from coming and their deaths are now the Governor's responsibility? Do you drive over a cliff because you think nothing will happen to you? Why do you have a front door or even a lock on your car? Do you purposely veer into oncoming traffic and not expect to get killed? Are you even aware that these victims were forced into the river by the human smugglers? This country has always welcomed immigrants but vets them before they come here. I am one of those. Do you let anyone into your house without even asking who they are? Your logic is warped to say the least but keep on wallowing your confused state of mind. Your last paragraph sums it all up.

Westy... why do we see so many unaccompanied adult males streaming across the border? These are not tired, poor huddled masses yearning to breathe free. There are those who cross the border for economic opportunity. If they choose to request legal entry and comply with statutory requirements as countless others from Latin America, Asia, and Africa have done... I say let 'em in. The reality is so much different. Yes, perhaps it's unfair to paint so many undocumented border crossers with the same broad brush used to paint opportunists who have violated and murdered young American women. What is even more unfair? It's unfair to every American who should be safe within our borders that your candidate who was charged with addressing the causes of unchecked migration miserably failed to do so. Your candidate had three years to make a difference, and things only got worse. If you would like to see what can happen as a result of unchecked migration, take a look across the pond at England.

Ray, it is the job of congress to implement immigration reform. For 30 years they have refused to do so.

Westy - another faux pas. It is not the role of our legislative branch to implement immigration control. They only make laws that are to be executed by the President. There are are sufficient and quite complete laws on the books to control immigration but the executive branches have ben reluctant, and even refused, to implement, and that includes both Rs and Ds. However, Biden' inaction, and even encouragement, took it to a new level, so your finger pointing is wrong, again!

Hi, Westy... sorry I did not get back to you earlier. I have been busy most of the day. You deserve better.

Dirk is correct... Congressional majorities... both D and R... have failed to move meaningful immigration reform legislation through the House and Senate. However, the executive branch has authority to take action to secure the border. Remember someone who said that they had a phone and a pen and they knew how to use them? Start with Section 212(f)... it has been used by Presidents Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden. It provides broad powers to deny entry to certain aliens when entry may be detrimental to the interests of the United States. The challenge for Biden... or any president... is to issue an order that does not conflict with other provisions of the immigration law. Trump used it more broadly than previous presidents, and Biden cancelled Trump's orders. Joe does not have to wait for Congress before crafting and implementing policy based on Section 212(f).

If I'm reading the tea leaves correctly, this is what DHS asked for and got... if border crossings averaged 4,000 in a seven-day period, DHS has the authority to shut down the border... but they are not required to do so. That means more than 200,000 more migrants could continue to flow into the US annually unchecked. However, if DHS did shut down the border, up to 1,400 migrants would be allowed to cross at ports of entry on a daily basis and the rest would be turned away. That's over a half million possible entries annually. That doesn't look like a secure border.

Coming full circle... border security is one of the top issues for Americans, and their elected officials... on both sides of the aisle... have failed to take meaningful action. Has Biden and his border czar implemented policies to control the flood of migrants coming into the US? No.

Americans along the border are not xenophobic because they worry about their safety as they see migrants moving across their property and away from the southern border. Americans watching migrants given free transport 1,700 miles to New York attack police officers on the street only to face minimal consequences are not xenophobic. They're scared, and they should be scared. What is so perverse is the progressives' call to "Say their names!" when they believe someone vulnerable has been brutalized or killed. But why aren't we hearing them saying Laken Riley, Lizbeth Medina, Jocelyn Nungaray, Rachel Morin or Kayla Hamilton's names?

Trying to shift blame for the flood of illegal border crossings to an ineffective Congress when the incumbent and the DNC's anointed 2024 nominee have failed to take action to protect those scared Americans is a canard... a canard that doesn't fly.

Hi Ray, Thanks for your thoughtful reply. My point remains that demonizing immigrants by pointing out cases where they have committed violent crimes and using that as a broad brush is a deliberate method that is used to dehumanize immigrants. It is not actually reality. In fact, of the many people I have personally known who have been raped, the perpetrator was in all cases, as far as I know, a US born citizen. Does this mean that US born citizen's are rapists? No, it does not.

As for 212(f), it does not allow the president to interfere with or subvert other parts of the INA or other federal laws. That includes INA § 208, which grants people the right to seek asylum in the US. We should not deny people entry who will be killed if they return to their country of origin.

Things that might be helpful are: 1) Cracking down on large companies that subvert immigration laws 2) Funding the system for evaluating asylum cases more adequately so that people aren't waiting for years--give them asylum or deport them quickly. 3) Adequately funding technology solutions at border crossings 4) Stop the export of guns and ammunition from the US to Mexico and Central America 5) Support democratic elections in countries to our south (we tend to do the opposite in our national policies, because that's what corporations ask for)

But building a wall and putting floating barriers across the river have better optics with people who find it more comfortable to have a group of "aliens" to blame all problems on. My concern is that this is a tactic successfully used by authoritarians throughout history to justify horrors. Trump's kidnapping of children at our border (and deliberately destroying records so that their parents could not later be found), and banning Muslims from our country are just a precursor to how bad it could get.

Hi, Westy

Sorry again. Bad week. The washer stopped working. Nail punctured a back tire. PET scan. I'm in a waiting office now, so this reply will be a tad rushed.

You know... we agree on parts of this larger discussion. That's a good thing.

I... in no way... want to dehumanize persons crossing our border. I have in these pages advocated for more immigrants entering our country... but that doesn't mean knocking the doors off the hinges and opening up the border. What I do object to is not apprehending known violent criminals before they can murder Americans instead of letting them roam free. They are dehumanizing their victims. It had to stop. It's beyond sad you have known so many women who have been raped. It would be unusual to hear those assaults were not committed by US citizens... you live in the US. If you lived in France, such criminals would likely be French citizens... not immigrants to that country.

Section 212(f) can be used with greater effect without shutting down other aspects of the INA.

We agree... crack down on companies exploiting migrants and put more resources (including tech) on the border. Elections down south... yes, support people who choose democracy. What do you propose we do in the cases where the bad guys rig their own Elections?

Kidnapped? C'mon... There was no Muslim ban. We've had that discussion before.

Switching gears... do you feel making Kamala the presumptive nominee was done democratically? If so... why?

They're calling me. Gotta go.

TGIF...

Westy

My earlier post was rushed. I didn't have time to tweak my comments about immigration. Although we both would like to see immigrants moving to the US, I'm pretty positive you would favor letting a lot more folks into the US than I would. We see reports that 10 million persons may have come across the border during on Joe's watch. How many do you honestly believe were fleeing for their lives from their country of origin?

Gallup released a report last year that estimated 900 million or so adults worldwide would permanently leave their home countries if they could, and about 160 million of them seem to prefer the US as a new home. That's not ten million... that's tens of millions. How could Americans support such a swelling of our population? The US needs to secure its border and develop real immigration reform... given the current state of affairs... those things should be accomplished in that order.

You can have the last word. Have a great weekend.

Tafhdyd

The administration’s accusations that Border Patrol agents whipped Haitian migrants in 2021 was proved false. It didn’t happen. As the investigation dragged on through 2022, and as of last year, no apology. If that has changed, let me know.

Unfortunately, tens of thousands of persons dying from Fentanyl overdoses did happen… and it is continuing to happen. Exact numbers are hard to come by, but the CDC estimates about 75,000 overdose deaths can be attributed to Fentanyl in 2022 and 2023. No one has the data that says… this overdose was caused by a pill smuggled through a port of entry and this overdose was caused by a pill carried across the open border by a mule. In both instances, someone is dead.

It looks like you saw the CNN report from two days ago about the Border Patrol intercepting 4 million Fentanyl pills at a port of entry. With US resources spread so thinly across a porous border, does that increase the chances of successfully getting a large cache of Fentanyl into the US through a checkpoint? What do you think?

The DEA reports that China and Mexico are the main sources for IMFs (illicitly manufactured fentanyls) coming into the US. China sends precursors for manufacture to the US and Mexico… precursors sent to the US are smuggled into Mexico. Then, the cartels manufacture Fentanyl before sending it across the border. They also control the corridors into the US. We know how much Fentanyl is confiscated at ports of call and in the areas between those ports. We do not know how much gets through. Does it really matter? The administration’s open border policy has made it easier to smuggle Fentanyl into the US. The results are deadly.

You might have seen Anne Funder speak at the RNC convention last month. Her son, Weston, died from a synthetic Fentanyl overdose. What do you tell her… and tens of thousands of moms across the country? “Well, Mrs. Funder, you know that a lot of illegal Fentanyl comes straight through ports of call?” On the current administration’s watch, the border has been opened up to the point that both humans and Fentanyl are being smuggled into the US. Biden failed… Harris failed. Too many American families are paying the price.

But if you can get a solid breakdown of how Fentanyl is smuggled across the border, let me know. It doesn’t matter to moms like Anne Fender. What does matter is that failed border policies have contributed to the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans annually.

See you at noon…

Ray,

I understand what you are saying and we agree that border agents did not use whips and we agree that thousands die from fentanyl. What confused me was the way I read it I wasn't sure if you were tying the thousands killed by fentanyl to the untrue whipping when you said "you also left out" at the beginning of the comment which was the way you started the whipping comment.

I am not sure if it is of any help but I did see some figures about arrests and fentanyl traffic from the Cato Institute. If I remember right it was something like 90% of the arrests were US citizens.

"Almost all of the illegal fentanyl coming into the country is smuggled in by US citizens at secure controlled border crossings"

That could be the dumbest and most irresponsible thing I have ever heard - not to mention you are speaking from no point of authority - ya know what we call that? A liar.

Ah, Tafhdyd... I see the error of my ways. I was not very clear.

I pointed out that a previous reader had left out a debunked left aisle talking point that Border Patrol agents used whips on migrants. That talking point is untrue. At the same time, no mention was made by the same reader that the open border was contributing to Fentanyl smuggling and the effect of that smuggling on Fentanyl overdoses... and the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans... that's a right aisle talking point. I did not mean to conflate the two issues. Regardless, I think you'll agree there is entirely waaay too much Fentanyl coming across the border. It matters none to Anne Funder and other moms whether that Fentanyl comes hidden in the floorboards of a car coming through a port of entry or on the backs (literally) of mules squeezing through a section of unguarded border fence... their children are dead. Is there a nexus between the current administration's failures and those Fentanyl deaths? I think so. Does it really matter if most of that Fentanyl was carried across the border by US citizens? I think no. Here's the better question... why has so much Fentanyl been staged by cartels or TCOs for transport across our southern border into the US? Sending fentanyl across our border must seem like a low-risk proposition.

LittleFoot,

Please share with us the numbers you have that disprove my comment about citizens being the main source of smuggled fentanyl.

Hey, Tafhdyd

I don't want to steal LittleFoot's thunder. Everyone who frequents these pages is aware that huge amounts of Fentanyl comes across the border. Americans are not sending it over... the cartels are doing so. If an American is caught with cartel Fentanyl, who is really smuggling it? Yeah, a mule may get caught, but it's still the cartel's Fentanyl. Just thinking out loud... maybe more Americans actually carried Fentanyl across the border than foreign nationals... did they carry more volume? IDK Looking at it a different way... if a smaller number of foreign nationals carried a larger volume of Fentanyl into the US... what does that say for the greater number of Americans who smuggled a smaller volume of Fentanyl into the US? I guess the point is... it doesn't really matter how many Americans may have smuggled Fentanyl into the country. The question really is... why has such a huge volume of Fentanyl been staged by cartels for transport across our southern border? Looks like they see an opportunity to exploit an unsecured border.

You are a pathetic individual - you LIE UNapologetically - and then Ray responds to you with facts - and then you stay silent and dont defend your lies. Im confused if you are either a troll are just a moron. We are entering a different era - soulless liberal goofballs like you will not be entertained. Your energy is done.

LittleFoot

We share some conservative underpinnings but oft times express them with different language. You have complimented some of my past posts, and that's always nice to hear.

I have said IMO there is more invective that comes from the left in these pages than the right. I still feel that's generally true but your response to Tafhdyd yesterday was unnecessary. A lively exchange of ideas is good but substituting ad hominem for ideas in such an exchange is not good. Oh, believe me, I had deleted some snark from rebuttals before posting them, and every time I did, I was glad I took a different tack.

There is a more important reason I recoiled upon reading your response to Tafhdyd. He is my friend. We socialize and talk about all manner of things... sports, whiskey, our past life adventures and current medical woes (we have plenty of those). When we do talk politics, we have fun doing so... there is no one-upmanship. I treasure his friendship more than winning a debate. I think if you knew him, you would not have posted such a mean spirited and IMO unnecessary comment.

LittleFoot, thanks for an accurate summary of our friend, Taffy. Perhaps Taffy is following the lead of his heroes, Biden and Harris, who also lie unapologetically, along with the mainstream media providing cover for their lies. Note that Taffy asks for data but when links or references are provided, Taffy never bothers to acknowledge them. And for good reason, Taffy has discovered he’s on the wrong side of history and Taffy’s misplaced pride won’t allow him to accept the truth. Also note that Taffy never provides valid references for his assertions. Thus, we get the same old, same old because Taffy can’t defend his lies.

What else can Taffy do? I’ve recommended Taffy stay away from making political comments (sometimes Taffy has valuable insights outside the political arena) but it’s that same misplaced pride that won’t allow Taffy to do so. BTW, I’m surprised Taffy hasn’t used his look in the mirror, or fantasy world, or alternate reality shtick on you this time. That’s Taffy’s go-to when he’s flustered.

LittleFoot,

It is easy to see that Trump is going down the drain by his uncontrolled attacks on everyone he disagrees with along with his personal attacks and name calling. He has nothing but lies and manure to feed his minions. His devoted gullible followers do the same. I suspect that you are a graduate of Trump University or watch reruns of Trump speeches on RSBN. Have you looked in a mirror lately? (Thanks for the shout out, Terence.)

When this started I commented that US citizens were responsible for transporting fentanyl into the US. Your reply was a personal attack. I asked for you to refute it and your next reply was even more disgusting than most of your comments. When I thought you were at the bottom, I found out you have a basement. You can still refute my comment if you have anything to refute it. I can wait, after all I have been waiting four years for Terence to give us his report on the bamboo fibers he bragged about.

BTW Terence, I don’t bother giving you sources or info be cause you don’t believe them anyway. That’s OK though, I know that if you ever accept the truth and facts that you would lose your membership in the Trump Gullible Society.

LittleFoot – it appears Taffy is still staying silent and is unable to defend his lies. Instead, we get hysterical screeching and your being the lucky recipient of Taffy’s mirror shtick treatment. You should also know that Taffy fervently believes in a historical Republican to Democrat party switcheroo conspiracy - which provides more insight into the depth of Taffy’s credibility, or lack thereof.

BTW Taffy, you don’t bother giving me sources or info because your sources aren’t reputable and their info is easily debunked (as I’ve easily done in the past) so all you have are feeble excuses. The sad part is that we know you have plenty of time on your hands to do research. After all, you did homework to figure out the number of Oberg’s LTEs and you did homework to peruse the Constitution for what you allege is a separation of church and state (although there are no words regarding “separation of church and state”). That’s OK, though. Just know that your misplaced pride and loyalty isn’t doing you any favors. If LittleFoot quickly and easily deconstructed your psyche, you know many of our dear readers have done the same, arriving at the same conclusions. Now when are you going to give us your report on your panda pie fiber study? You’ve been bragging about it for four years but like your assertions, you’re coming up empty.

Oh Dirk, you do so like to turn things about. It is you who are working off a mistaken view of reality. In fact, when Trump took office there were over 10,000 troops in Afghanistan. He introduced 3,000 addtional troops. Then he invited the Taliban to Camp David on the anniversary of 9/11 without consultiong our allies or allowing the Afghan government at the table. In Febuary 2020, the US and the Taliban agreed to a deal, the Doha Agreement, under which the US agreed to withdraw all troops by May 2021. Over his last 11 months in office, Trump continuously reduced the number of troops down to 4,500. Then in November 2020 he tweeted that the remaining US troops would "be home by Christmas"

September 28, 2021,

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Milley testified that, on November 11, he had

received an unclassified signed order directing the U.S. military to withdraw all forces

from Afghanistan no later than January 15, 2021. One week later, that order was

rescinded and replaced with one to draw down to 2,500 troops by the same date. He did not in fact leave enough troops to maintain the airbase, especially after he had pressured the Afghan government to release 5,000 Taliban fighters and had promised the Taliban that the US would withdraw by the deadline.

During the transition to the new administration, the Trump administration provided zero plans about how to conduct the final withdrawal (just as they refused to provide any transition plans about anything, thus putting our country at risk on many fronts).

Westy... I don't think anyone would argue against the notion that Trump wanted to withdraw our military forces before Joe's inauguration. You posted that Trump sent orders to Joint Chiefs Chairman Milley to make that happen. True. Your post continues by saying the order was rescinded. Who rescinded the order? Trump.

In doing so, he would not be able to finish "unfinished" business in Afghanistan. Joe took on that chore but in a way that proved disastrous. The sudden and complete withdrawal ordered by Biden left billions of dollars of military equipment to the Taliban, and Joe's plan left Americans and allies behind. Joe's withdrawal plans had other ill effects overseas. After watching the debacle created by the Biden administration in Afghanistan, seven months later, the Russians invade Ukraine.

NutSo, there were demonstrably not enough troops to secure the Afghanistan airport. There were 2,500 troops left when Trump was done. And Trump had done much to strengthen the Taliban before he left, including the Doha Agreement which committed the US to withdrawing and laid out a timetable for doing so, as well as forcing the Afghan government to release 5,000 Taliban fighters.

Could Biden's administration have done a better job with the pull out? Yes, I believe analyses have shown plenty of room for improvement. However, it is a tad nutso to blame the entire mess on one man. Many missteps were made, from not imposing economic sanctions on the Taliban in the 1990's when feminists around the world were calling out the atrocities against women, to Bush's ham-fisted invasion, to Trump's negotiating with the Taliban without the participation of our allies or the Afghan government.

And yes, every president owes it to the country to make a good faith effort for a smooth transition. Trump failed his country massively in that regard. Why do you think that having a plan and presenting it would require the next president to follow it? And why do you imagine that is a salient point in this discussion? I don't understand your reasoning there.

The airport was 100% secure and the only reason it would not have been is if Briben had removed troops. Regardless, it is JOE BRIBEN who was President, he owns it and is 100% responsible for the deaths of 13 US Soldiers. He's also responsible for what's occurring today in the Middle East, Russia and Ukraine. While Trump was President there were NO Wars and US soldiers were not being slaughtered.

Here's a book for you to read if you can put your ideology aside and seek the truth. https://www.amazon.com/Kabul-Untold-Bidens-American-Warriors/dp/1546005307

On August 26, 2021, a suicide bomber murdered 13 American service members outside Abbey Gate at Hamid Karzai International Airport in Afghanistan. The bomber was from an ISIS faction known as ISIS-K. In the two years since, the Biden administration has denied responsibility and repeatedly described the attack as unpreventable. As we detail in our new book, that narrative is false.

For starters, the suicide bomber — an ISIS-K operative named Abdul Rahman al-Logari who was captured in a joint operation by Indian intelligence and the CIA in 2017 — had been imprisoned at Bagram Air Base for years.

The Taliban freed Logari when it overran Bagram shortly after President Joe Biden abandoned the base despite vocal objections from military commanders. If Biden hadn’t rejected military leaders’ advice, Logari would still have been behind bars on August 26, instead of outside Abbey Gate.

"MORE THAN 200 AFGHAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, SECURITY FORCES KILLED FOLLOWING TALIBAN TAKEOVER: "

Moreover, three different officers told Pentagon investigators that the military and intelligence community were tracking the ISIS-K cells likely connected to the bombing in the days leading up to the attack. Crucially, they also described multiple opportunities to conduct a preemptive strike against those ISIS-K operatives.

The officers’ statements are memorialized in interview transcripts and sworn statements from two separate Pentagon reports about the Abbey Gate attack and the botched drone strike that killed civilians in Kabul three days later.

A senior officer interviewed during the drone strike investigation stated that he "conducted a targeting effort on ISIS-K threats leading into Kabul" and submitted a targeting package for a "deliberate strike" against an ISIS-K location days before the bombing. (At that time, it appears such requests were routed through Major General Chris Donahue and Rear Admiral Peter Vasely, to CENTCOM Commander General Frank McKenzie for approval.)

Donahue and Vasely, however, "determined conducting a strike was infeasible due to the negative response from [the] Taliban," according to that senior officer.

A second officer provided further context in a separate interview. He stated that his team submitted "a targeting packet and a request to strike only a few days prior" to the Abbey Gate attack, but the request was denied. The interview indicates that the target of the strike was an ISIS-K safehouse in Nangarhar Province that the miliary ultimately struck on the 27th — the day after the attack.

One of the ISIS-K operatives killed in that strike was Kabir Aidi, a terrorist who was involved in "attack planning," distributed "explosives and suicide vests," and was "directly connected to threat streams in Kabul" throughout the evacuation.

Aidi was "connected to the ISIS-K leaders that coordinated" the Abbey Gate bombing. McKenzie said the Nangarhar strike "had an effect on quieting down" ISIS-K and "disrupted some of their plans" for follow-on attacks — raising the important question of whether the strike might have disrupted the August 26 attack, too.

Taken together, the statements from both officers indicate that the military identified the location of an ISIS-K operative who facilitated the Abbey Gate attack, but they declined to strike his location days before the bombing, apparently to avoid angering the Taliban.

Similarly, an officer interviewed as part of the Abbey Gate investigation stated that "intelligence officers at HKIA knew that ISIS-K was staging in a hotel 2-3 kilometers west of HKIA, and [General Donahue] asked the [Taliban] to conduct an assault on the hotel, but they never did."

The statements of those three officers are consistent with Marine Sergeant Tyler Vargas-Andrews’s recent testimony to Congress that his sniper team was warned about an impending ISIS-K attack at Abbey Gate and received a detailed description of the suspected bomber.

Vargas-Andrews also testified that, "around 2 am, [intelligence officers] confirmed the suicide bomber in the vicinity" of Abbey Gate. Later that afternoon, the sniper team identified a man who matched the description and profile of the suspected bomber, and an Army PSYOPS team provided secondary confirmation.

When they asked for permission to shoot, however, their battalion commander replied that he did not have "engagement authority" and that he didn’t know who did. The suspected bomber disappeared into the crowd, and carnage ensued soon after.

The White House has never accounted for these facts, perhaps because no explanation is sufficient. It has never publicly identified Logari as the bomber — doing so would invite uncomfortable questions about who he was and where he came from.

It has never discussed the intelligence it received before the attack, even though it publicly warned about an impending ISIS-K bombing for days beforehand. And it has never responded to Vargas-Andrews’s claims. Worst of all, Biden has never publicly spoken the names of the 13 Americans killed in the attack.

The White House wants the public to forget about its deadly incompetence and move on without demands for accountability. But the Gold Star Families and the American public deserve the truth.

James Hasson is co-author of "Kabul: The Untold Story of Biden’s Fiasco and the American Warriors Who Fought to the End." He is an attorney and Afghanistan veteran who received a Bronze Star.

Rel - I actually think your response is despicable. If you cannot owe up to the fact that life under Biden has become less attractive, more dangerous and costly, you are a patsy without a soul. Just spend anytime at a gas pump and see how folks are putting in a minimal amount of gas because of cost. Go to any supermarket and see what folks are buying and are then told by the cashier that they don't have enough funding to pay for their purchases. I know, and I have helped customers pay for the difference. What do you do? Still extoll the virtues of a corrupt and incompetent administration? Did you notice todays' major plunge in our stock market? Shame on you!