Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can't say I read the entire thread. On account of I didn't. But had you read, i.e., paid attention, to the links from the State Dept. you will find much more info than a travel warnings. Sppecifically the most violent states in Mexico, info on the gangs, murders of Americans, etc. So very clearly, there is no news blackout. The information if freely available to anyone.
But you'd have to read the entire link. Not just the headlines.
A news black out would consist of news not being broadcast on network television or radio. Information freely flowing as opposed to information one would have to look up, i.e. government travel warnings.
Any president who cared about this country would have declared war on Mexico a long time ago.
Mexico is like a little brother that won't stay out of your room
you lock the door and if he sneeks in he get's an attitude
adjustment War in my opinion is not needed just secure
the border the entire length and let the corrupt Mexican
government deal with their problems
Seeing that our Government refuses to secure the border
I'd call it common sense
Our gun laws have nothing to do with the border problems though. As long as I can remember it's been legal to wear a gun, except in certain places...like bars, but that's changed now too. You CAN carry in a bar but you can't drink. And now that we don't have to have a CCW permit, well nobody knows who is and who isn't carrying. Maybe that's not such a bad idea and might make criminals think twice. But the vast majority of people don't carry a gun at all, and I think people know that, so who knows?
When I lived in Detroit I had a CCW permit, due to the area where I worked, and only once did I ever show my weapon. I was REALLY glad I had it though. Made those folks think twice, for sure!
Sorry, but I just don't believe that. I realized several months ago that something fishy was up with the BP as far as confronting armed drug smugglers. Give me a link to a story about the BP shooting at armed smugglers. BP knows where the drug routes are. They know what hilltops lookouts are on. They could probably find some armed smugglers every day if they really wanted to.
I mentioned this lack of confrontation to Glen Spencer of American Border Patrol. He told me he had heard the same thing, that BP was avoiding it.
Didn't say anywhere that the BP is "shooting at armed smugglers". The entire BP has heard that they are "avoiding it" (the area) but they say that, no, they aren't. Hearing something and seeing it are two different things. This sheriff, evidently, got his story from a BP agent and his FAMILY. His family isn't supposed to be privy to BP business.
You'd be surprised at the busts the BP makes. It just doesn't get reported in the media that often, even though some of it is. Especially the bigger busts but even those aren't reported that often.
Didn't say anywhere that the BP is "shooting at armed smugglers". The entire BP has heard that they are "avoiding it" (the area) but they say that, no, they aren't. Hearing something and seeing it are two different things. This sheriff, evidently, got his story from a BP agent and his FAMILY. His family isn't supposed to be privy to BP business.
You'd be surprised at the busts the BP makes. It just doesn't get reported in the media that often, even though some of it is. Especially the bigger busts but even those aren't reported that often.
Just do the political calculus. If the BP was routinely getting into shootouts with armed drug smugglers, there would be a lot of dead and wounded BP agents. There would then be calls to put armed national guard on the border. Obama and Nappy are trying to tell us the border is secure in preparation for their coming amnesty/citizenship. Serious shootouts would mean it is not secure. What's the easiest way to avoid such confrontations? Pass the word down that BP should not engage armed smugglers.
Just do the political calculus. If the BP was routinely getting into shootouts with armed drug smugglers, there would be a lot of dead and wounded BP agents. There would then be calls to put armed national guard on the border. Obama and Nappy are trying to tell us the border is secure in preparation for their coming amnesty/citizenship. Serious shootouts would mean it is not secure. What's the easiest way to avoid such confrontations? Pass the word down that BP should not engage armed smugglers.
Exactly, most Americans are not aware that USBP agents are little different from their local cops in terms of firepower. Yes, each BP sector has a tactical unit for SWAT type duties however the vast majority of agents go out on patrol with nothing more then a baton, pepper spray, and a .40 HK P2000 pistol. Only in certain situations (at the discretion of their patrol supervisor) can they carry an M4 carbine or a Remington M870 shotgun. Obviously, as civilian LEOs they are not trained for combat duties so it would be relatively naive to expect them to confront heavily armed drug smugglers and rogue Mexican Army units in the employ of the cartels.
Just do the political calculus. If the BP was routinely getting into shootouts with armed drug smugglers, there would be a lot of dead and wounded BP agents. There would then be calls to put armed national guard on the border. Obama and Nappy are trying to tell us the border is secure in preparation for their coming amnesty/citizenship. Serious shootouts would mean it is not secure. What's the easiest way to avoid such confrontations? Pass the word down that BP should not engage armed smugglers.
I know that the Border Patrol is NOT getting into armed battles with anyone.
Yuma Sector Chief Patrol Agent Paul Beeson responds to article which cited Cochise Co. Sheriff Larry Dever stating BP agents were told to stay out of certain areas because they are considered "dangerous".
CNSNews.com - EXCLUSIVE: Arizona Sheriff: Border Patrol Has Retreated from Parts of Border Because It (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/71105 - broken link)
Sheriff Dever's irresponsible, inaccurate and unsubstantiated slurs about the US Border Patrol were quickly refuted by Yuma Sector Border Patrol Chief Paul Beeson.
So Dever got his hot info from "talking to some agents"? And he feels free to repeat this nonsense to the press? What a jackass.
What is CNS, anyway? The Clown News Service? Based on some of these statements on the record out of Arizona pols and LE officials, I don't think they should be giving press statements after they've had a few beers.
We need to put our military on the border in tanks and other protected equipment.
Time to stop this once and for all.
Order should go out that anyone crosses the border will be handled as a criminal terrorist trespasser that is armed and dangerous.
Close the border down completely, no one in and no one out until we can get control of the border.
Our border patrol people are getting murdered, stoned and attacked and we sit on our butts to please the left wing appeasing sissy's.
Time to put the tanks where they belong and give them orders to stop anything coming across the border.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
War in my opinion is not needed just secure
