Video: Arizona Sheriff, American Patriot Paul Babeu wants Mexican Drug Cartels labeled 'Terrorists'

Hard to argue with Paul Babeu on this one but a Democrat Judge in El Paso, TX does anyway. To understand this argument, one has to clearly define what a 'terrorist' is. Sheriff Babeu sets a pretty simple standard; if you cut off the head of a police officer in Mexico and then lay the body in front of the police station, that's terrorism. Conversely, go figure, Judge Veronica Escobar (D) would rather not go to such lengths because, well, 'Americans are fueling (the drug) war.'

Via CNS News:

Washington (CNSNews.com) – The federal government should designate Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations under U.S. law, according to the Republican sheriff of an Arizona county near the U.S.-Mexico border.

But a Democratic judge in Texas disagrees, saying such a designation would achieve little. Instead, said the judge, attention should be focused on illegal drug consumption by Americans.

Asked by CNSNews.com whether he would support designating Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) – as some lawmakers are suggesting as a way to target their finances – Sheriff Paul Babeu of Pinal County, Ariz. replied, “Absolutely.”

“They are terrorists,” said Babeu, a Republican elected official. “Literally 35,000 people have been brutally murdered in Mexico. The president just articulated we went and bombed Libya because we didn’t want possibly 1,000 civilians just killed – it would have been blood on our hands.”

“Wait a minute,” he continued. “That’s half way around the world. Look south –35,000 people killed and they’re not just regular people [but] judges, police chiefs, you know, anybody who stands up in their way.”

Here's the video of both Babeu and Escobar. Based on Escobar's logic, I wonder if she'd be in the camp of blaming the Qur'an burning pastor for Afghanistanis murdering people who had nothing to do with it.

Video: Obama's Kerry-esque Flip Flop on Debt Ceiling

In 2006, then Senator Barack Obama made quite the sound argument for not raising the debt ceiling. Then again, George W. Bush was president and arguing against Bush was more important. If you need a better example of how the Tea Party means what it says when it denounces the fiscal policies of George W. Bush, good luck finding it. In this case, many of them are actually saying they agree with the 2006 Obama. There's a small problem with that; we're facing the 2011 Obama.

Via ABC, here is what Obama said in 2006:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said. “It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

It's amazing what lengths ideologues will go to in order to be partisan. In an effort to oppose Bush - who was wrong - Obama made sense.

Now, however, in the wake of the Boehner-led budget deal 'cave,' Obama is saying that his opposition to raising the debt ceiling was a mistake. Here's Robert Gibbs's replacement, Jay Carney, giving America his best chicken little impersonation. Isn't it funny how whenever this government wants more money and runs into resistance, it plays the 'Armageddon' card?



He was not alone. Here is Harry Reid in 2006, decrying increased spending:

Video: Harry Reid Leaves out 'Under God' when Citing Pledge of Allegiance

Barack Obama really has trouble with the part of the Declaration of Independence that says, 'endowed by our Creator.' Harry Reid, while on the Senate Floor made reference to the Pledge of Allegiance and cited the part that says, 'One Nation.... Indivisible' without quoting that little part in the middle about being 'under God.' In an ironic twist, at the end of this short clip, Reid then says those words recall a responsibility to 'our conscience.' Lost on him, obviously, is that the notion of 'conscience' is divinely inspired.

Not only that but if there's a scintilla of 'conscience' left inside Harry Reid, it may have been responsible for his omitting 'Under God' from his little speech here. Reid is one of the perpetrators of evil against this country. Are such people so repulsed by God that they can't even refer to Him?

And the mask slips some more...



h/t Free Republic