It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Arizona Now Has 'Whopping 30' National Guard Troops and 15 Billboard Signs Warning Citizens About Dr

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
It seems people are ignoring what IMO is the most important issue in the OP. The signs saying, in effect, that our federal government - now under obama - has effectively ceded control of parts of AZ to the mexican drug cartels.

It's actually now not safe to drive along stretches of a U.S. interstate highway (I-8)!!!

Doing NOTHING about that right here right now, to me, is treason and definitely qualifies as a "high crime and misdemeanor".



Uh huh. I live on the AZ/MEX border. I drive I-8 all the time.

Where exactly has Obama ceded control of AZ to the Mexican drug cartel?




posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
As far as the signs, most of this is due to the Department of Interiors refusal to change their policy and allow border patrol to do its job. What is even more astounding than that is that Congress is aware of this policy and has made no effort to pass legislation to mandate that border patrol be allowed to do its job.

As for the National Guard, I am getting the impression that many here think they are going down there locked and loaded and ready to fight. But from what I understand they are going to help the border patrol. The national guard will replaced the border agents so the agents can attend to the border rather than be tied down with paperwork. I have several friends who have applied to go because they say it it is good easy money.

As for the sky is falling in Arizona, well I will let the State Attorney of Arizona do the talking at a hearing he attended on 7/22/2010. Bold emphasis mine.


the level of violence from the Mexican cartels has been accelerating for nearly a decade. But what we have seen in the last three years is an alarming increase in open, brazen, and deadly violence just south of our border. I stress south to dispel any suggestion that Arizona itself is a dangerous place for law-abiding people.



It is not. In fact, violent crime within our state has dropped nearly 20 percent in the last five years. People who suggest otherwise, either purposefully or naively, are misinformed and further confuse an already complex situation.


PDF file

This isn't an Obama only problem.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


The signs saying, in effect, that our federal government - now under obama - has effectively ceded control of parts of AZ to the mexican drug cartels.




“On October 6, 2006 roughly 3,500 acres, or 3 percent of the Refuge, was closed to public access due to human safety concerns. At that time there was a marked increase in violence along the border due to human and drug trafficking.


www.greeleygazette.com...

The above source seems to indicate Bush ceded first.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
As far as the signs, most of this is due to the Department of Interiors refusal to change their policy and allow border patrol to do its job. What is even more astounding than that is that Congress is aware of this policy and has made no effort to pass legislation to mandate that border patrol be allowed to do its job.



This happens on the Native American reservations also.

One near me would not let either the border patrol or the minute men on a specific piece of land. Actually - the minute men were arrested for trespassing and interfering with Tribal Law.

Its a delicate balance in cooperation there.

The Native Americans tend to be sympathetic to poor Mexicans just trying to find work to support his family. I don't know if they've had any problems with the ever increasing brazenness of the Cartel and Coyotes.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321


“On October 6, 2006 roughly 3,500 acres, or 3 percent of the Refuge, was closed to public access due to human safety concerns. At that time there was a marked increase in violence along the border due to human and drug trafficking.



There have been areas and parks in Los Angeles closed for violence and drugs. I'm sure areas all over the country have had these difficulties.

It does not have to be on the border.

And what happens - - if you crack down in one area - - they move to another area. I remember when the crack down was in San Diego. They moved to Yuma. Then when they cracked down in Yuma they moved further east. The main problems now I think are further east like Tucson.

They'll crack down in Tucson - - and the cycle will start all over again.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by Annee]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
I just can't believe they would even bother sending 30 troops..

heck, the "first lady" would have more gaurds than that for a shopping trip.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalM
I just can't believe they would even bother sending 30 troops..

heck, the "first lady" would have more gaurds than that for a shopping trip.
true to that



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   
I think a better question is this, What are 30 National Guard Troops going to do about Hezbollah car bombs on our border, are the 15 or more Billboard warning signs going to help?

I know they are very aware that Hezbollah has contacts working with the Drug Cartels.
I'm not trying to take over or derail your thread, but is another reason we need to wakeup.
What well be said to us, if and when the first car bomb or suicide bomber blows up in Phoenix, AZ. or Laredo, TX. or another city.
What well they have to say, when it is discovered that the point of entry to our cities and our innocent wifes, husbands and CHILDREN, was through our Southern Border?

Why isn't Obama's Department of Homeland Security concerned?

www.washingtontimes.com...
In short, a well-known international arms dealer was trying to orchestrate an arms-for-drugs deal in which coc aine from FARC - the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, which works with Mexican drug cartels to take coc aine into America - would be traded for thousands of weapons housed by a Hezbollah operative in Mexico.

Why would Hezbollah need thousands of weapons in Mexico? Why are members of Hezbollah willing to work with FARC? Perhaps to exchange weapons for drugs? If Hezbollah has guns in Mexico and wants drugs, isn't it logical to assume that it is trading with more accessible Mexican drug cartels?
By Rep. Sue Myrick
-
The Washington Times



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by guohua
I think a better question is this, What are 30 National Guard Troops going to do about Hezbollah car bombs on our border, are the 15 or more Billboard warning signs going to help?


What do you want them to do? Line up along the border holding hands like a human chain?

Hezbollah?

Are any of you even aware of this? Chinese invasion underway in Arizona

In a stunning example of history repeating itself, an invasion of Chinese illegal immigrants is underway in the American Southwest and the authorities are doing everything they can to stop it. In the Nogales Sector of Arizona, 78 Chinese nationals were apprehended while trying to enter the US illegally through Mexico in October of this year alone. Between October 2008 and the end of August 2009, the Tucson Sector arrested 261 Chinese nationals according to Patrol Agent Colleen Agle. In the previous year only 30 had been captured. That is an 1100% increase in one year for Arizona. Texas has also seen a major increase in illegal Chinese traffic.

www.alipac.us...



[edit on 2-9-2010 by Annee]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by damwel
Obama must be doing a great job. The number of illegals entering the country has dropped considerably. I don't understand why people keep saying that the government hasn't done anything. They have cut it amazingly. Of course Fox News and the republicans won't admit what a good job Obama has done, of course not so you can believe the facts or you can believe Fox News, it's up to you.


Yeah right !!!
The downturn in the economy and the lack of jobs because of the downturn did it not Obama.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


No, Holding Hands would not do any good, but, more than 30 N. G. and patrols with the authority to detain and arrest and defend themselves would be nice.

But, we are talking about the Obama Clan here. He would rather Bow and Apologize or Blame some one else than fight or just do the right thing for the American People.
I'll have to assume you did not read the article from the link I posted.

I've lived in AZ. much longer than you have, actually born in Globe, AZ. when it was still a mining town and had more bars than home phones and they still had drunken shoot outs on main street after the bars closed.

What exactly does Chinese Illegals have to do with Hezbollah?
My wife is not an Illegal.
But then if you'd taken the time to read my profile, you'd know I live in Arizona.



[edit on 2-9-2010 by guohua]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by guohua
But, we are talking about the Obama Clan here.


Oh - give it up with the Obama bashing.

The border has been there since before he was born. And the same problem has always existed.

What about McCain - - "Mr Arizona" - - who had many years to do something and didn't. Who also supports amnesty.

What about Bush who changed control of the National Guard from the governor to the Presidency. And then swiftly sent these young untrained soldiers to Iraq.

Enough with the scapegoat.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by guohua
I've lived in AZ. much longer than you have, actually born in Globe, AZ. when it was still a mining town and had more bars than home phones and they still had drunken shoot outs on main street after the bars closed.


Then you know what border towns think of Phoenix.

Might as well be New York.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by guohua

But then if you'd taken the time to read my profile, you'd know I live in Arizona.


You mean where it says: Location: Phoenix

Most people aren't even aware of the Chinese illegally crossing the border. I wonder what else they are doing down their in Mexico.

Oh - I forgot - - the Muslims are the bad people.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Areas in the northwest are having problems with "peasants" growing bud on public lands. Area like Mendocino Ca are hard hit as they just don't have the resources to keep up with the growers.
www.theunion.com...



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
What about Bush who changed control of the National Guard from the governor to the Presidency. And then swiftly sent these young untrained soldiers to Iraq.


Argh! READ PEOPLE, READ! The National Guard is under the control of the Governor of the state that the National Guard is based in. The "federalization" of said guard simply says that the Feds CAN order the guard to do something, but the Governor still has the power to task the guard.

If there are only 30 National Guard troops assigned here (which is ridiculous, but whatever,) then it is because the Governor of Arizona has decided that she's not going to send them in, for whatever reason.

Can Obama overrule the Governor and order the troops to get to it, as per the "stop dragging your feet" rule of the Bush administration. Yes! Are they going to? No! You'd hear about "Obama sending combat troops to Arizona and occupying our own country!" ten seconds after he did that.

Being clueless allows the politicos to not only not address the problem, but pass the blame onto someone else, who's unlikely to do anything because it would just be digging his hole even deeper.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 

Ya mean like this: Governors lose in power struggle over National Guard

From Stateline.org:

A little-noticed change in federal law packs an important change in who is in charge the next time a state is devastated by a disaster such as Hurricane Katrina.

To the dismay of the nation’s governors, the White House now will be empowered to go over a governor’s head and call up National Guard troops to aid a state in time of natural disasters or other public emergencies. Up to now, governors were the sole commanders in chief of citizen soldiers in local Guard units during emergencies within the state.

It didn’t matter that ALL 50 governors objected to this concentration of power in the hands of the executive – the Congress simply moved forward by changing the balance of powers through legislation (once again).

More from the article:

Under the U.S. Constitution, each state’s National Guard unit is controlled by the governor in time of peace but can be called up for federal duty by the president.

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 forbids U.S. troops from being deployed on American soil for law enforcement. The one exception is provided by the Insurrection Act of 1807, which lets the president use the military only for the purpose of putting down rebellions or enforcing constitutional rights if state authorities fail to do so.

So what did Congress do to avoid this requirement? With the stroke of a pen, they just changed the requirement of the insurrection act to include “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident”

How does a “natural disaster” now qualify as an insurrection?? Who, then, determines what qualifies as a natural disaster? Will a snowstorm qualify for the president to control the guard, and send troops into our cities? Will a heavy rain? And, when will Congress use another “stroke of the pen” to add even more reasons to have federal military control policing our cities?

It’s not the abuse of power we’re most concerned with, it’s the power to abuse. This unconstitutional move by the federal government gives them, in writing, the power to do two things:

1. federal control of the guard, which is clearly under the jurisdiction of the states – except in “times of insurrection…”

2. Congress has once-again given itself the power to change the Constitution by pure legislation – not constitutional amendment. (this is even more dangerous)

To us, this is clearly an example of the federal government showing us that they can and will change the structure of power as created by the founders. Period.

We find it disgraceful that Congress would violate the original intent of Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, and enact legislation that has forced State citizen militias to ‘metamorphosize’ into a national organization that is now primarily deployed outside of the United States.

www.tenthamendmentcenter.com...



[edit on 2-9-2010 by Annee]



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


For pete's sake, READ WHAT YOU JUST POSTED! It says the same thing -- the Governor still has the authority to call out the National Guard, but the law gave the Feds the ability to do so, as well. So that, if a Governor is "falling asleep at the wheel" (ie: not calling out the guard when they are needed,) the Feds have the authority to say "get in there."

There is NOTHING preventing your Governor from assigning the National Guard to do what was asked in the original request, apart from whatever reason she has for not doing so.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by Annee
 


For pete's sake, READ WHAT YOU JUST POSTED! It says the same thing -- the Governor still has the authority to call out the National Guard, but the law gave the Feds the ability to do so, as well. So that, if a Governor is "falling asleep at the wheel" (ie: not calling out the guard when they are needed,) the Feds have the authority to say "get in there."

There is NOTHING preventing your Governor from assigning the National Guard to do what was asked in the original request, apart from whatever reason she has for not doing so.


Yes - - I am well aware it says the same thing.

How about - - "thanks for taking my post seriously - researching it - and posting an article that supports what I said".



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Yes - - I am well aware it says the same thing.

How about - - "thanks for taking my post seriously - researching it - and posting an article that supports what I said".


Because when you post an article decrying the change in the law and precede it with:


Ya mean like this: Governors lose in power struggle over National Guard


one comes away with the impression that you didn't realize that you were wrong until I pointed it out the second time.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join