Patong2021

What's your point? Biased opinions were published in a known pay to play journal that has no credibility. It is then presented by someone with a political agenda as "scientific evidence', when it was not.

You are changing your narrative as the false statements are exposed. The historic treatment of Jews and Christians by muslim colonialist and occupiers has not been consistently fair or good. As previously stated, non muslims were forced to pay special taxes. Jews were specifically barred from multiple occupations, typically activities that might result in prosperity. . Jews in muslim countries were forced to live in walled ghettos. The Moroccans called them mellahs. It was a common occurrence for the muslims to go on slaughtering binges where dhimmis were mass murdered. Jews were forced off their historic lands as the muslim population expanded and grabbed the jewish land. There is no apartheid in Israel. Repeating a lie will not make it true. All Israelis have the right to due process and are emancipated. They have equal access to health and education services. Demolitions of buildings occur in buildings linked to violent activities. If someone wishes to use a building to cover for terrorist activity, then they accept the consequences.In 2023 24 buildings were demolished for terror related activity. In 2022, there were 11. Quite a contrast to the forced expulsion of jews from Egypt, or the seizure of all assets of the jews of Syria and Iraq.

The Denver area is not the city of Denver. Aurora where the buildings are located, is its own municipality and has a Republican mayor. The Republican mayor has never said that his city had a Venezuelan gan problem. There were only allegations made by a few people who wanted to be relocated from the slum tenements. Despite police surveillance, Aurora PD found no evidence of gang control of the buildings. The buildings were shut down for health reasons The landlord needed an excuse to justify the neglect of the property.

They are indeed the responsibility of state agencies. Where have you been for the past century? When a caregiver is incapacitated, detained or otherwise unavailable, the minor is placed in state custody. Prior to transfer of custody of a minor, it is a requirement that a review of the prospective caregiver be undertaken. All of these measures requires personnel, and money.

Which source is that? I do not purport to be a legal expert, but I am quite capable of reading statutes and making the appropriate reference. What have I stated that is factually incorrect?

So says the entity who has previously expressed its hatred for the USA.

I was last screened by the US government in April of 2024, and it included multiple interviews and intrusive information gathering. My employer background review update was more intrusive. However, as my work is not US military nor US national security related, I did not need the type of US security clearance referenced above. And if you read my response again, you will see that we really are not in disagreement. Security clearances are work related. Because of the amount of work involved to investigate and to clear people, commonsense is used. As I stated, junior ranks can and do hold high level security clearances, but it is because of their positions.

I don't see anyone gloating. The man is evil and if it was up to me, I would send his 68 IQ bloated body back to Libya. He is in the UK and walking around in large part because of people like Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abbott and George Galloway.

The reality is that Labour can still maintain its dominance. Labour -32.6% before the general election to 24.5%, Conservatives from 23.2% to 24.1%. Hardly a rebirth or a resurgence.Tories are still in big trouble. Liberal Democrats from 3.4 % to 18% Looks like people are willing to give the directionless party a try. Greens From ??% to 10%. Bad news for Social Dems and Labour because it splits their vote. Reform UK, from 0% to 6.7% Not good for the Tories as it splits the vote. My takeaway is that UK politics will remain a mess.

The US voters were allowed to review and to decide upon the selection of Harris as President. Trump does notwant Tulsi to appear before a senate hearing, thus denying a proper vetting of an important position. Nope. A commission in the reserves is not a guarantee of a high security clearance. Yes, she most likely has a Confidential rating, but Secret and Top Secret are role dependent. It is unlikely that Tulsi has a Top Secret clearance as it is associated with command and control responsibilities. The clearance holder must agree to keep personal, private, and confidential details secret and safe and she has not done that, as demonstrated by her embrace of wild conspiracy claims. It is also unlikely for Tulsi to have a Secret classification because it is used for people who have access to information that could cause serious damage to national security if released without authorization. There are non disclosure agreementsthat must be signed. Tulsi last served in Public Affairs, which is basically Public Relations. She did not have access to national security information. That is not a slight against her, as most PR reps do not have the highest level of security clearance. JD Vance did not have it when he was the PR rep in Iraq. Many reserve officers with junior ranks can have higher levels of security clearance , but they are actively involved in activities such as signals or planning.

Yes, that is usually what occurs. However, an arrest does not necessarily result in detention. On the contrary, almost all non violent accused are released either on a promise to appear, or on bond,or subject to other conditions. Unauthorized migrants are entitled to a hearing. New migrants are processed in under 24 hours and unless authorized to stay in the USA are now immediately removed. A migrant authorize to remain until another hearing is in effect "legal". I am not defending unauthorized migrants. I am however asking how you will care for the 4 million+ US children who will not have their caregivers available to care and pay for their upkeep. How do you propose to manage that? Did you even give it any thought? I have a better understanding of US law than you do. You obviously do not understand the Fifth Amendment and the concept of due process. Due process means that the government and its associated agents cannot deprive people of their freedom or property unless they follow the proper procedures. The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is fundamental to due process. The presumption of innocence is a constitutional right, is extended through this amendment. This position dates back to COFFIN v. U.S. , 162 U.S. 664 (1896), United States Supreme Court May 04, 1896. It has been upheld and expanded in multiple rulings since then. Your argument is one of absolute power for the police, and would allow a police officer to decide a person's guilt. Fortunately, this is not allowed and the USA is not a totalitarian state (yet). A principal function of police is the safeguarding of democratic processes through the upholding of the law. Nor do the municipal or state police have a mandate to enforce immigration laws. DHS agents and other federal agents do. In the USA there is a separation between federal and state powers & jurisdictions. Keep it up and the citizen militias, the posse comitatus groups, the sovereign citizen followers, Libertarians and independent conservatives will turn on you for advocating an absolute police mandate rule.

I suggest you take the time to understand the criminal code of the USA. Until one is convicted of a crime, one is not a criminal. The mayor of Denver has not objected to the removal of criminals, and supports the removal of violent offenders. What is your plan to deal with the 4 million+ US citizens who are at risk. Since you wish to rely on the law, please note that multiple US laws set out the following statutory rights of children in the USA; -Right to Legal Representation: A child has the right to be represented by an attorney in court. This attorney, often called a “guardian ad litem” or “child advocate,” acts as the child’s voice and ensures their best interests are taken into consideration during the legal process. -Right to Due Process: This means they have the right to a fair and impartial hearing, the right to present evidence and witnesses on their behalf, and the right to confront witnesses against them. -Right to Participation: Children may have the right to participate in certain legal decisions that directly affect them, such as child custody arrangements. -Right to Protection: Courts are responsible for ensuring the safety and well-being of children. This includes taking measures to protect them from harm or exposure to traumatic experiences during the legal process. -Right to Education: The legal system recognizes a child’s right to education, and court decisions should aim to ensure that educational opportunities are not disrupted unnecessarily. -Right to Timely Proceedings: Children have the right to have their legal matters handled in a timely manner, so as not to unduly prolong legal uncertainties or disruptions in their lives. -Right to Voice Concerns: Children have the right to voice their concerns and express their feelings about the legal process, especially when it directly impacts their lives. Aside from the cost of care for the millions of children who would be affected by the removal of their caregiver(s), the federal government would be obliged to provide legal counsel to the children to respect their statutory legal rights. Where are you going to find the billions of dollars to pay for this. More importantly, where are you going to find the tens of thousands of people needed to undertake this activity?

There are an estimated 4 million+ US citizens who are minors and who are the children of unauthorized migrants. The US and the state where the minors are domiciled have a legal (and moral) duty of care for the minors. Encouraging their removal to countries/regions where the children would be at risk will open multiple civil liabilities against the US government. It may even be grounds to stop their departure. Your position that If the parents don't want to take their children with them then legal relatives will be given an opportunity to take them in is not sustainable. Those relatives themselves may be unauthorized, or they may be financially unable to care for the children. All prospective foster or assigned care givers would need to be screened and supervised as is the situation now. They most likely would require financial support. Have you costed out this option? You claim that there are many NGOs that will sponsor an adoption program for any "unwanted" kids. You are very wrong. Children currently languish in care homes. There are approximately 400,000 children in state sponsored care, primarily through foster homes. Of this, 115,000 children are waiting for adoptions. How do you expect a system which cannot not care for the children currently in care, to care for millions of additional children? There are not enough foster homes, or care beds available. Amending the US Constitution will not occur. Even if it did, there would still be millions of US citizens in need of care.

There is an obvious distinction between activities intended to promote a political position and those of personal religious belief. The wearing of a modest cross or star of david is not an intrusion. It can be considered a fashion accessory for some. It is not inappropriate for US nationals to wear a US flag pin in their lapel when they are in the USA or are representing the USA in an official capacity. After all, they are citizens of the USA, and in the USA. It is also acceptable for other people in other countries to do similar.

Thailand has a large foreign fishing fleet.The ships operate throughout the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Thai vessels have been hijacked and taken hostage. (Not all incidents are publicized.) A submarine allows an alternative option for protecting that fleet and for protecting cargo vessels and oil tankers that are service the Thailand trade route.

I find that visual aids facilitate comprehension. A few brown bills and it's like someone swallowed the Rosetta Stone of languages. There are also different methods; German: Yell louder. British: Be more condescending. Nordic: Smile and just meekly give up American: Just keep talking and making reference to people and relatives that have no relationship to the matter at hand Australian: Go have another beer.

Is the NUJ and TUC action justified? Was the Telegraph factually incorrect?

It is not encouragement. It is coercion and workplace bullying. It is inappropriate and viiolates the supposed neutrality of the workplace. The BBC purports to be neutral and apolitical, and it should not allow the advocating of a political position that is not directly related to the operations. The NUJ has violated every journalistic principle on non bias with this; The National Union of Journalists (NUJ), which represents many BBC staff, endorsed the event, sharing the call to action with its members. If people want to support political causes, they can do so on their own time at their own premises.

No one is arguing against the removal of a "wanted criminal, discovered after 10 years of hiding from the law". BTW, how do you propose caring for the millions of US children who will be left without financial support once their paying parent is removed? What's your plan?

Or perhaps where the VIP cabins will be located and whether or not there is room for a soaking tub, and extra large mattress.

Hopefully, it won't leak and be mechanically unreliable like the submarines the UK cheated Canada with.

25+ years have passed. Alleged inappropriate acts done in the past do not excuse current inappropriate acts. The fact is, times have changed. Clinton was censured. He had to apologize too. None of the Republicans has done that. And since you wish to recite the past as a justification, the Gaetz ethics report should be released. The House has done so previously for both Democrats and Republicans who had resigned. You want it both ways. - Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.) resigned from the House of Representatives in 2010, just hours before the Office of Congressional Ethics was set to release a report on its ethics investigation into his actions, it was undoubtedly to protect his ongoing gubernatorial bid from any backlash. The report was released. - Rep. Donald "Buz" Lukens R-Ohio was found guilty of having sex with a 16-year old. Additional sexual harassment charges were filed. He resigned. The House ethics committee report was released after he departed Congress in 1990. -Rep. Bill Boner, D-Tenn., who resigned in 1987 following an investigation that involved the misuse of campaign funds, improper gifts and the acceptance of a bribe. His report was released after he resigned. - Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., resigned in 2006 when it was revealed he had sent inappropriate text messages to House pages, the Ethics Committee deposed several sitting members to determine what they may have known about the matter and released a report.

The Denver area, is not the city of Denver. There is no evidence to support the claim that apartment buildings in Denver have been over run by gangs. To date, the allegations relate to apartment buildings in Aurora and appear to be an excuse put forward by what is described as a slumlord for the neglect of its property(s). The reality is that the county health agency has now closed one of the buildings down because of building neglect and is moving to take action against others. The premises were over run with bedbugs, and rodents and basic repairs were not done. The property owner has tried to excuse their neglect by blaming the presence of a criminal gang. A simple visit to the local news would have shown many articles on the situation, all of them highlighting the exploitation of residents and poor upkeep. The Mayor of Denver has not said that he would block the removal of criminals. His issue is one of fairness and his comments are in respect to the immigrants who have lived in the USA for a long time,and who have been doing the menial low wage jobs, been law abiding, paying taxes and keeping a low profile. Much of the unauthorized immigrant population has been here for 10 years or more . The mayor is trying to prevent a human catastrophe that could destroy social service agencies and create unintended child abuse consequences. Have you seen the Pew Research data on the unauthorized immigrant demographics? Of the 11 million+ population; - In 86% of these households, either the householder or their spouse is an unauthorized immigrant. - Almost 70% of these households are considered “mixed status,” meaning that they also contain lawful immigrants or U.S.-born residents. - About 4.4 million U.S.-born children under 18 live with an unauthorized immigrant parent. They account for about 84% of all minor children living with their unauthorized immigrant parent. Altogether, about 850,000 children under 18 are unauthorized immigrants in 2022. How do you propose to care for 4.4 million children if you remove their parent(s) who is currently paying for their care? By law, the children cannot be removed from the country, and must be cared for by the state, which means the taxpayer. Depending on the state, it can cost anywhere from $10,000- $20,000 a year per child for basic care. Do the math. Now tell me where you will come up with a minimum $44 billion a year to pay for the obligation to care for US citizens.

That's rubbish. Libya has 140+ individual tribes and within those tribes and at any given time, they were feuding with each other. The feuds could be bloody and petty. Ghadaffi came to power in a military coup in 1969. From that time until his own overthrow, he suspended fair judicial process and forbid free elections. He ruled with an iron fist and publicly executing political dissenters.His government abolished private property ownership other than one dwelling, nationalized retail and manufacturing and restricted access to bank accounts, seizing depositor savings to fund his grandiose schemes. This is why there were multiple uprisings.

How do you know that the kid was responsible? For all you know the stepfather could have been abusive and violent. It wouldn't be the first time a drunk step father came home to beat on his wife or to accost the children. Perhaps it would be prudent to refrain from offering polemics on the state of Thailand youth, until the facts of the incident are established.