US Warns It Cannot Guard Arizona Section of Border

Passing blame is a dangerous game.


Most Americans back new Arizona law, Washington Post-ABC News poll finds
www.washingtonpost.com...

Toni

Originally posted by awakentired
reply to post by Antoniastar

 

....

Do you know what the insignia represents on the hats?

I believe that is the insignia of the "Zetas"... but I could be wrong.

reply to post by Maxmars


That would be the Zetas insignia.




[edit on 17-6-2010 by daskakik]

Originally posted by awakentired
reply to post by Antoniastar

 

WoW what a haul! Enough weapons to outfit a company and coming into the US!

Do you know what the insignia represents on the hats?

Hi awakentired,

Yes isn't it quite the haul!! Vehicles and all. So I guess that means that they decided that walking across the border wasn't fast enough?

You know, I asked myself the same exact question about the insignia on the hats. I have no idea what they mean or where they're from.

Toni

Ok OP
Not a problem.
I don't think Big John Cannon 's gonna be to happy. I'll call him and let him know though.

Man he's gonna be pssd.

reply to post by Antoniastar

Seizure at Arizona Border - Why we Must Support Arizona

Really, this happened on the Arizona border?

From what i found out, thanks to the Spanish captions on the pics, this seizure happened in Mexico in Higueras, Nuevo Leon.

Nuevo Leon isn't even near Arizona.

Well if we cannot defend that section, I say we close down one of our overseas military bases and build a new one right smack dab in the center of this uncontrollable area. Move all the troops to that location and give them a side duty of patrolling the outskirts. Seems like the logical solution to me if we can't built a fence or control the area.

reply to post by ExPostFacto

Well if we cannot defend that section,

We can defend it. It is as simple as getting the Department of Interior to allow border Patrol to do their job.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Oh. Hmmm. So is Arizona's governor one of the ones warned about having state militias? So from the federal government we get this: We can't guard your border (as is our mission) but you can't guard it either. What the heck?

Hello, everyone I am new here but, have been keeping up with all that is going on.It seems the gov. in Az. is pressing hard ball with the so-called president to get off his a--- and do something however, when he knows what is going on and defies everything that american people, including congress and govenors "don't matter, it is a very strong message to all of us he doesn't give a rat's a--- about anyone but his election and green energy program I for one am in Az. and it won't be long before regular people and civilians will be having to get involved on the borders.

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by Antoniastar

 

Seizure at Arizona Border - Why we Must Support Arizona

Really, this happened on the Arizona border?

From what i found out, thanks to the Spanish captions on the pics, this seizure happened in Mexico in Higueras, Nuevo Leon.

Nuevo Leon isn't even near Arizona.

Hi Jam 321,

Thank you for your post. Oh how confusing! The seizure happened in Mexico according to the captions. Not that I don't believe that, I certainly seek the truth whatever they may be, but I'm wondering if there is any other indication of the actual geography of the seizure, other than the captions. Maybe I'll check into that.

I wonder why the soldiers - I am assuming they're soldiers, I don't have actual proof, they could be dressed up like soldiers...I wonder why they aren't Mexican. Or maybe they're fair-skinned Mexicans. I do know one of those, her name is Tina. She is full-blooded Mexican but with blonde hair, blue eyes and flesh-colored skin.

Well it would be much better, though still not good, if the seizure happened in Mexico, far from Arizona.

Toni

[edit on 17-6-2010 by Antoniastar]

reply to post by Antoniastar

The Mexican military has discovered a major training camp run by the notorious Zetas drug cartel and stocked with an arsenal of military weapons, including 140 semi automatic assault rifles and 10,000 rounds of ammunition—all of them believed to be purchased in the United States, U.S. law enforcement officials tell Declassified. The discovery last week of the training camp in the town of Higueras, just 70 miles south of the U.S. border in the state of Nuevo León, provides fresh evidence for Mexican President Felipe Calderón

www.newsweek.com...

Does this video look familiar?

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is warning people in the Arizona Desert with 13 signs about the dangers of drug and human smuggling on the border.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c36a2a0faf43.jpg[/atsimg]
This is the sign you'll see.

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by realmatrix

 

AZ should hire a contractor and then take this to the Supremes, where I think the State would win in lieu of the Feds not following their constitutional obligations!

I imagine that the contractors will be prohibited from entering federal land and the SCOTUS will rule in favor of the fed.

You may indeed be correct, however, the curious fact is that the Military and Feds already use Contractors to protect US citizen ...albeit overseas. Why would US Citizens be deprived of similar protections against a foreign threat?

Would that type of Ruling put the Supremes in an untenable position of ruling against one of the main tenets of the constitution? That being to protect the citizens of this country against treats both Foreign and Domestic.

My other observation is that contractors are already running prisons so there does seem to at least be some basis for AZ to take this route.



[edit on 17-6-2010 by realmatrix]

reply to post by realmatrix


I'm not saying they can't try. I'm just saying it would be easier to get Salazar and Obama to change the policy. Think of all the money and time it will take to go through the courts.

I personally can't understand why a federal agent can't patrol federal land.

Would that type of Ruling put the Supremes in an untenable position of ruling against one of the main tenets of the constitution? That being to protect the citizens of this country against treats both Foreign and Domestic.

That would depend on interpretation. The fed would say they are on top of things and the state would say they aren't. Just a matter of who the SCOTUS believe. IMO, its the fed because its their terrirtory and they get to decide how far they will let things go on the border.


[edit on 17-6-2010 by jam321]

Originally posted by name pending
reply to post by airspoon

 

You know what it's laughable, if Obama deploys soldiers these same people would be screaming to the top of their lungs that army is deployed against US citizens. They will say Obama turned USA into police state and blah blah.

I agree! Can never please the liberals. What happened to everyone whining about the "racial profiling law."

I think I saw Osama bin Laden in the desert at the Arizona border. And if I had photoshop, I would post pictures to prove it.

I hope people can see what a load of crap all of our "security" measures are, and how pointless this "war on terror" is. If we cant keep out Joe Mexican, how are we going to keep out Al-Queda?

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

I think I saw Osama bin Laden in the desert at the Arizona border. And if I had photoshop, I would post pictures to prove it.

I hope people can see what a load of crap all of our "security" measures are, and how pointless this "war on terror" is. If we cant keep out Joe Mexican, how are we going to keep out Al-Queda?

I think we could stop Joe Mexican is we had one of these stationed off the coast of Tijuana with tanker refueling support so patrolling the boarder of California to Arizona was possible and it looks cool too.
USS REAGAN
When the Bridge pipes 'Man the Rail' there is a lot of rail to man on this monster: shoulder to shoulder, around 4.5 acres. Her displacement is about 100,000 tons with full complement.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/10d762ffc761.jpg[/atsimg]

Capability

Top speed exceeds 30 knots, powered by two nuclear reactors that can operate for more than 20 years without refueling

1. Expected to operate in the fleet for about 50 years

2. Carries over 80 combat aircraft

3. Three arresting cables can stop a 28-ton aircraft going 150 miles per hour in less than 400 feet

Size

1. Towers 20 stories above the waterline

2. 1092 feet long; nearly as long as the Empire State Building is tall

3. Flight deck covers 4.5 acres

4. 4 bronze propellers, each 21 feet across, weighing 66,200 pounds

5. 2 rudders, each 29 by 22 feet and weighing 50 tons

6. 4 high speed aircraft elevators, each over 4,000 square feet


Capacity

1. Home to about 6,000 Navy personnel

2. Carries enough food and supplies to operate for 90 days

3. 18,150 meals served daily

4. Distillation plants provide 400,000 gallons of fresh water from sea water daily, enough for 2,000 homes

5. Nearly 30,000 light fixtures and 1,325 miles of cable and wiring 1,400 telephones

6. 14,000 pillowcases and 28,000 sheets
But instead we have the policies of the Obama:USS BARACK OBAMA
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3a98b32f584f.jpg[/atsimg]
Details are vague.
But don't you worry..........he has a plan, Like Change You Can Believe In.
There is still the military option of the Clinton's: USS BILL CLINTON
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3bc7917fc17d.jpg[/atsimg]
The USS William Jefferson Clinton (CVS1) set sail today from its home port of Vancouver , BC The ship is the first of its kind in the Navy and is a standing legacy to President Bill Clinton 'for his foresight in military budget cuts' and his conduct while holding the (formerly dignified) office of President.

The ship is constructed nearly entirely from recycled aluminum and is completely solar powered with a top speed of 5 knots. It boasts an arsenal comprised of one (unarmed) F14 Tomcat or one (unarmed) F18 Hornet aircraft which, although they cannot be launched on the 100 foot flight deck, form a very menacing presence.

As a standing order, there are no firearms allowed on board.

This crew, like the crew aboard the USS Jimmy Carter, is specially trained to avoid conflicts and appease any and all enemies of the United States at all costs.

An onboard Type One DNC Universal Translator can send out messages of apology in any language to anyone who may find America offensive. The number of apologies are limitless and though some may seem hollow and disingenuous, the Navy advises all apologies will sound very sincere.

In times of conflict, the USS Clinton has orders to seek refuge in Canada .

just my thoughts, So don't get all Butt Hurt.

Originally posted by airspoon

US Warns It Cannot Guard Arizona Section of Border

www.newsmax.com

About 3,500 acres of southern Arizona on the Mexican border have been closed off to U.S. citizens because it cannot be defended, according to Fox News.

What happened to the "Minutemen?" Aren't they effective? I mean, they were finishing the border fence on their own, and they were patrolling the border. I thought government power was a horrible thing. Isn't this why we have the Second Amendment? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Well, get out there, patriots, and defend that border!

“It’s literally out of control,” Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu told Fox News. “We stood with Senator McCain and literally demanded support for 3,000 soldiers to be deployed to Arizona to get this under control...

Wait...wasn't this "papieren, bitte" law supposed to help with illegal immigration? What's the deal?

And Pinal County...is that on the border? Oh, that's right. That's the sheriff who walked the border with McCain for a campaign ad...even though his county does not border Mexico. So, he was out of his jurisdiction. Maybe that's why his "demand" is being ignored.

Since Babeu's jurisdiction isn't on the border, let's ask an actual border sheriff what he thinks.

The TV ad – shot in the border town of Nogales, Arizona – shows McCain talking with Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu about the need for tougher border security. Nogales is on the Mexican border, but it’s in Santa Cruz County – not Pinal County, which is 115 miles north in central Arizona. Meanwhile, the Santa Cruz County Sheriff who’s job would be to enforce the law in and around Nogales has been quite critical of Arizona’s race-baiting policies, such as the recently passed SB 1070. “Local law enforcement has a great relationship with the Hispanic community,” said Sheriff Antonio Estrada about the new law. “Something like this is really going to scare these people.” McCain strongly supports SB 1070.

The Sheriff of neighboring Pima County (which covers a large swath of Arizona’s border with Mexico) was even more blunt. Calling the law “racist,” “disgusting” and “stupid,” Sheriff Clarence Dupnik has gone so far as to say he will order his deputies not to enforce SB 1070 – even though it subjects such law enforcement to liability if they don’t start racial profiling. Somehow, I doubt Sheriffs Dupnik or Estrada will appear in a McCain campaign ad soon – even if the Senator insists on using Nogales as a backdrop.

It would help Babeu's and McCain's cause if McCain hadn't been against the border fence before he was for it.

2006: McCain Voted AGAINST Providing $85 Million And 800 New Staff For Immigration Investigation. Sen. John McCain voted against Sen. Sessions' amendment that would "appropriate an additional $85,670,000 to enable the Secretary of Homeland Security to hire 800 additional full time active duty investigators to investigate immigration laws violations." The amendment failed 66-34.

2006: McCain Voted AGAINST Providing Additional Funds To Build A Border Fence On Southwest Border. Sen. McCain voted against an amendment that would "appropriate an additional $1,829,400,000 to construct double-layered fencing and vehicle barriers along the southwest border and to offset such increase by reducing all other discretionary amounts on a prorata basis." The amendment failed 71-29.

2006: McCain Said Placing National Guard Troops At Border Is "PR"

2003: McCain Said We Can't Secure The Border With A Fence And More Troops

2003 McCain: "We Can't Secure Our Borders. We Can Never Build An Impenetrable Wall To The North And South Of Us."

2003: McCain Said Border Couldn't Be Fully Protected Because Good Jobs Would Continue To Drive Illegal Immigration.

So, when will we start to hear criticism of McCain from Arpaio Junior ?

I find it funny that the US can go around fighting wars in different countrys yet they can't even defend their own borders.

I guess you Americans will have to defend it yourselfs.