Jazz Shaw:
We now interrupt your flurry of Russian lawyer-based stories for a few brief observations on President Trump’s travel ban and how the Democrats are responding to it. While this case will show up yet again at the Supreme Court this fall, there’s one other test taking place on a daily basis, and that’s in the court of public opinion. Whether Trump wins or loses in front of any particular set of justices (though it seems more and more likely that he’ll prevail on the merits) the real question for members of the political class to wrestle with is how the public is reacting. Karol Markowicz has a few surprises on that score in a piece at the New York Post this week. For all the talk you hear coming out of the Democrats in Congress you’d think that restrictions on immigration from terror hot spots is anathema to rank and file Americans. But surprise, surprise, surprise. It’s actually not.
Last week, a Politico/Morning Consult poll on President Trump’s proposed travel ban on visitors from six predominantly Muslim countries revealed a somewhat surprising discovery: 60 percent of voters agreed with Trump’s proposed ban. That includes 56 percent of independents and even 41 percent of Democrats.
The plan, however, has a distinct advantage: It’s the only idea on the table.
What’s the alternative to the ban from the left? What’s the plan to stop terrorist attacks? Literally nothing.
That phrase… “literally nothing” describes pretty much the entirety of the Democrats’ position on both terror threats from the countries included in the travel ban and the overall subject of illegal immigration in general. And, as Markowicz points out, it all boils down to reflexive political instincts. If the Republicans in general and Trump in particular think something is a good idea, it must be a terrible idea, so we’ll oppose anything to do with it. This is a habit which most voters will find insulting if they take the time to consider it because Democratic leaders are basically treating their electorate like a bunch of toddlers. People have more nuanced views on pretty much everything if you give them the required information and a bit of time to ponder it.
Some voters may rightly have specific concerns about particular aspects of Trump’s travel ban. Are the right countries included? Should there be more or fewer exceptions? How long should it last? All valid questions, but as we see in the poll cited above, there’s almost nobody who just flatly and blindly opposes the idea.
This is of a piece with the overall illegal immigration question. If the GOP wants to curtail illegal immigration and deport illegal aliens, rather than discussing the details, Democrats immediately erect sanctuary cities and want to keep everyone here. Trump wants to build a wall, so the knee-jerk response from the Democrats is to cancel any and all funding for any sort of barrier construction. But if you look at the most recent entries in Gallup’s long running poll on attitudes regarding illegal immigration you’ll see that the Democrats are once again missing the boat. There is virtually nobody in this country in favor of completely open borders. 59% of Americans worry either “a great deal or a fair amount” about illegal immigration. And that includes not only 79% of Republicans, but 48% of Democrats. That’s pretty much half of your base right there.
Does this really sound like a winning midterm strategy next year? More from Markowicz:
A few years ago that like rag SLIME(TIME)magazine printed a front page article of why we should allow for illegal aliens they support gun control and dirty foul words as well as murder and bloodshed in music push this darwinian poppycock grossed out readers with that Ice Man on the front cover and back in 1938 named Hitler as the MAN OF THE YEAR and lie to its readers about Climate Change
Pretty soon you will see the laughing pointers showing up here with the same ignorance. They are incapable of understanding.
Immigrant families separated at border struggle to find each other
Trump criticizes separating families at the border, despite his administration’s support for policy that could lead to separation
Border Patrol slightly changes account of undocumented woman’s fatal shooting
The attack with blunt objects has disappeared. Now we have unarmed people rushing a man with a gun. Stay tune for further developments.
@Greg:
All that can be avoided. Can you guess how?
As they illegally cross our border, where other attacks have occurred. Some of this is quite sad and unfortunate, but it is all brought about by the left’s policies of encouraging illegal immigration.
@Deplorable Bill, #4:
They’re still coming here because people are still hiring them. I seriously doubt that they’re only being hired by employers on the political left.
As for the left’s leniency, the rate of deportation was actually higher under Obama—despite the fact that his policies were far more humane. The Obama administration prioritized deportation processing to focus time and resources on removal of the least desirable elements. There was no effort to terrorize the general undocumented population.
@Greg: And where are most of the illegals hired? Sanctuary cities/states. Who runs those areas? Liberals, progressives, Democrats and brainless DSs who listen to them!
@Randy, #6:
Neither city nor state governments control who private sector employers hire.
Immigration enforcement is not the job of state, county, or city government or police. Nor does the federal government have Constitutional authority to mandate their cooperation in this area.
@Greg: You really are ignorant. Your sanctuary cities/states facilitate employers to hire illegals. You and all of the people like you are complicit in hiring illegals and providing them with the reason to cross into the US illegally. Check out where the highest number of illegals are working DS! It is the requirement of the state, county, or city government or police to cooperate with the federal government and to obey the federal government. I believe that obstruction of federal law by anyone to include other governmental officials is against the law. Isn’t that why you support Mueller’s efforts? You really do not have the capability of rational thought! You can only spout trash and criticize others who are making an effort to improve our country while you sit on your fat butt.
@Greg:
They are still coming over because the left keeps the border porous and have sanctuary cities. Regardless of how many jobs there are, if they couldn’t get here, they wouldn’t BE here or be trying to get here.
A lie created because Obama counted every illegal immigrant turned away at the border as a deportation. See, Obama finds it necessary to lie about everything in order to show some success.
Yeah, that’s why we have MS-13, whom the left now defends and supports. That’s why the left criticizes and tries to block Trump as he removes the criminals Obama welcomed in.
As there is none now.
Interference and blocking immigration enforcement is not their job, either. You know, harboring illegal immigrants is a federal crime. Did you know that? Warning criminal illegal immigrants before ICE makes arrests is obstruction of justice. That’s not “doing” their job, that is IMPEDING their job and making it more dangerous. But, that’s what liberals are best at.
In 1996, the 104th U.S. Congress passed Pub. L. 104-208, also known as the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA ). The IIRIRA requires local governments to cooperate with Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agency. Much of this act has been challenged in the Supreme Court but it has not been found unconstitutional. Guess which President passed this?
@Randy:
Uh, no. Enforcement of any law is not the point of Mueller’s witch hunt which Greg supports.
@Deplorable Me: I can not understand how someone as out of touch with reality and as ignorant as Dreg appears can write the comments Greg writes without feeling shame. I guess that is a major characteristic of the left, no morality or shame.
@Randy:
I’m not ignorant of the following, which is more than can be said for some people. I’ll quote myself:
Perhaps red states want to take on such authority now, encouraged by a president who imagines himself to be above the law. Fine. Have at it. Just don’t expect the governments of other states that disagree to cheerfully go along with you, using their own local tax dollars to undermine their own local economies in support of an inhumane and immoral approach to border control. They’re under no Constitutional obligation to do so.
@Deplorable Me. #9:
It requires no such thing. Section 287(g) of Pub. L. 104-208 allows the Attorney General to enter into a mutual agreements with local authorities by way of a memorandum, whereby local law enforcement can be deputized to assist with federal immigration enforcement. Such arrangements can exist only by mutual agreement, not by mandate. Below is the statute that resulted from the legislation:
The law doesn’t require compliance with such an Attorney General request. Such a requirement would be unconstitutional.
Similarly, the Attorney General cannot order state, local, or county officials to assist with enforcement of federal marijuana laws when a state has removed prohibition laws from its books.
Any present claims by the right that they’re advocates of Constitutional law, of State’s Rights, or of the Establishment Clause have become a joke. They’ve gone the way of claims that they’re the advocates of fiscal responsibility, of individual freedom, and of traditional family values.
@Greg: You do understand the “illegal” part of illegal immigrant, don’t you? Further, do you understand that it is illegal to harbor the illegal immigrant?
Not cooperating with ICE, which is what not holding the prisoner until ICE gets there but, instead, releasing them even though they committed a criminal act is, is illegal? Warning illegal immigrants of impending ICE raids is a criminal act on numerous levels. Yet, liberals do this on a routine basis. THIS is lawlessness and disregard for the law; Trump is merely enforcing the law and trying to keep people safe.
Being an undocumented alien is not illegal under state law. It’s illegal under federal law.
Local, county, and state law enforcement personnel are not obliged to enforce federal laws unless directed to do so by the governments under whose authority and control they operate.
They will generally hold for ICE criminals who have broken laws that they are responsible for enforcing—though that may not include petty offences for which they wouldn’t hold people long to begin with. They’re really not much interested in using their own limited time and resources to participate in a national undocumented alien roundup. This is the reality of the situation.
@Greg: You just keep piling on. When a state or a city inhibits the federal government from enforcing immigration laws, that is obstruction of justice. Check out the penalty for that dumb guy. Providing safe haven for criminals is obstruction of justice!!
@Randy, #15:
They’re not inhibiting. They’re simply limiting their assistance to what is required by law. They don’t work for Jeff Sessions or Donald Trump. They work for their local government and their local community. They’re not obliged to enforce federal law, or to be instruments of the Trump Administration’s policies.
@Greg: Falsifying employment records is a felony. To be employed, they must violate criminal laws. You need to go back to the cereal box where you got your law degree!
@Greg: When a mayor or any government or any person shields felons from the federal government, that is obstruction of justice. DS! What do you think the definition of sanctuary means?
@Randy: Well, to liberals, laws are temporal. They are optional. If you don’t WANT to obey the law… if it doesn’t advance the political agenda… just ignore it. Like immigration, privacy rights, 1st and 2nd Amendment rights are all optional.
Also, all laws are open for interpretation and re-interpretation on an ongoing basis.
This is how the left looks at our legal system and how the Obama administration became such a scandal-ridden crime spree. Now, they simply can’t understand what obeying the law looks like.
@Greg: Illegal immigration is illegal and harboring illegal immigrants, by way of sanctuary cities, interfering with ICE activities or giving illegal immigrants pre-warning of ICE activity is illegal. Illegal is illegal. If something is against the law, it is illegal. If someone is committing an illegal act, they are a criminal. I have a 5 year old granddaughter that can understand that.
@Randy:
“Sanctuary – a place of refuge or safety.”
Are you going to prosecute churches that provide sanctuary and aid to undocumented families? Many believers have a moral commitment to a concept of sanctuary that goes back many hundreds of years. There’s a moral principle involved. And there’s the fact that many people don’t see undocumented status itself as a serious crime. It tells us nothing of a fellow human being’s quality. Nor does natural born citizen status.
All of which is pointless to argue about. Opinions on that vary. The most relevant fact is that state, county, and local law enforcement personnel are not legally obligated to enforce laws that are specifically federal, unless directed by their own governing bodies to do so. This fact follows from a fundamental, Constitutional division of powers between state and federal levels.
@Greg: You really are ignorant. Did you not understand that illegals who are employed by a us employer have committed a felony. You do know what a felony is don’t you? This discussion started on post #5 where you mentioned that illegals come here because people hire them. People in sanctuary cities hire them and shield them from the federal government. When the illegal is hired, they falsify federal records which is a felony. Now your lefty sanctuary cities/states hide them from the federal government. That is obstruction of justice. I can rewrite this at the 2nd grade level if you still can not understand the situation.
@Deplorable Me, #19:
Illegality is not the issue. Who it is that has a legal obligation to enforce a federal law or policy is the issue. Local, county, and state law enforcement personnel do not have such a legal obligation—unless the governments having authority over them have entered into some mutual agreement with federal authorities. Sanctuary cities are places where the local governments not done this. They aren’t legally bound to do so.
Generally speaking, a local police officer cannot arrest you for violation of a law that is strictly federal. He or she lacks that authority.
Undocumented entry, by the way, is a misdemeanor under federal law, punishable by a fine and not more than 6 months imprisonment. It’s not actually a violation of federal criminal law—it’s a civil violation. One who has done this is a lawbreaker, but not necessarily a criminal—just as a person driving in excess of the speed limit is a lawbreaker, but not necessarily a criminal.
Pinning all undocumented aliens with a criminal tag is a political tactic, not a truth about who and what they are.
@Greg: @Greg: You really are not just ignorant. You are stupid! You can not read nor comprehend the written language (English) You are just what we always thought you are, someone repeating words someone else hast told you to say. Your answers to a post usually have little to do with the original post you are supposed to be answering. You can not even follow a simple conversation that my 4 year old Grand-daughter can follow. That would mean you have an IQ of somewhere around 70.
@Greg:
A “sanctuary” from the rule of law is a crime center.
It’s good to know that that is the liberal viewpoint. That means that if I want to, I can buy an automatic weapon. I can also buy bumpstocks, if they get banned. I can have an AR with 100 round magazines, even if they get banned. You know why? Because ALL LAWS ARE SUBJECTIVE NOW.
I also don’t have to recognize “gay marriage”. I don’t have to honor any civil rights laws. I don’t have to follow EPA rules and regulations. Hell, I don’t have to pay federal taxes.
Don’t want to, don’t have to.
In fact, if I encounter an illegal immigrant, I can put them in “jail” and carry them back to the border, if I want to and have the means. I can enslave them. Laws don’t matter, laws have no force because we simply only have to obey the laws we like.
THAT’S your position, Greg. That’s what you defend. Of course, you also defend an administration illegally spying on political campaigns or individuals, using the IRS to attack political opponents, separating out liberals who break the law from everyone else and giving liberals preferential treatment.
Illegallity IS the f**king issue!! Damn, what in the goddamn hell are you thinking? Illegality IS the issue and ignoring the illegality of these actions is destroying the respect for the rule of law in this country. We have an ideology that promote ignoring laws that impose upon their ideology, liberal judges who interpret and rule according to their liberal bias and agencies in the federal government that decides IT is the rule of law and can use its massive powers to attack people on a political basis. I’m thinking Randy has a point; you are ignorant or, at the very least, believe everyone else is abysmally ignorant, which IS ignorance itself.
@Randy:
Well, maybe technically. But, according to Greg, if someone doesn’t want to obey a law, they don’t have to. See, if disobeying that law was really, really bad for business, they could optionally choose to obey it, because it serves their purposes. However, if they gain more by DISobeying the law, well go right ahead because all laws are optional. They are more of a recommendation of how to behave than strict rules.
Heck, liberals even waive their hatred of gun violence if an illegal immigrant that has been arrested for felonies and released numerous times commits it. Optional. Don’t put yourself out.
@Deplorable Me, #25:
That isn’t “the liberal viewpoint.” It is a legal fact.
No, it does not mean that. If you do so without obtaining a proper license, federal law enforcement officers will come and talk to you. They won’t require the assistance of local police to do so, any more than immigration authorities require the assistance of local police to arrest and detain an undocumented alien. Federal authorities can arrest you for marijuana possession, even though it’s legal under state law. Local police aren’t likely to do it for them, however. Because it isn’t against state law, which means the state disagrees with federal policy.
I think that you’re playing stupid, because you don’t like what follows from acknowledging the truth. Declaring a city to be a sanctuary city isn’t illegal. There’s no law requiring local government to enforce federal law with respect to immigration. The federal government can do so if they wish, but the locals don’t have to cooperate. Deal with it.
That’s not what I said. But you know that.
@Greg: No, you don’t get it. If everyone decided to do like liberals do and just abide by the laws that please them, anything goes. It’s what laws are for; to maintain order.
Illegal immigration is illegal. Sanctuary cities are nothing but sanctuaries for lawlessness. Sanctuary cities arrest criminals, discover they are illegal immigrants with elite status (they may one day vote Democrat, since they are already criminals), they release them before ICE can get them to deport them. It doesn’t matter to liberals if illegal immigrants rob, rape or kill citizens, the only priority is pandering to the Hispanic community.
No, that’s exactly what you said. Laws that liberals don’t like don’t need to be obeyed. Well, I presented the scenario if everyone considered that proper. Of course, YOU feel the laws that protect what liberals hold dear should be obeyed… by everyone but liberals.
Lets all forget that Arizona could not enforce federal law on immigration only the federals could enforce that law or not.
It doesnt matter to the Progressives anymore if everyone is against them, they still believe they are in power, the media owned by them tells them so, others are just ignorant of their facts.
@kitt: Greg has showed us who he really is. He is the person who can criticize others for their comments or actions concerning an issue, but he does not get off his butt to contribute. Greg accepts a twisted ideology without thought while he continues to try to find fault with a value based process. Greg has no moral compass based upon his continuous comments. I am not going to comment any more here about Greg’s intelligence levels. That should be obvious based upon his acceptance of everything he hears from selective news sources without question. There really is no reason to communicate with this child anymore. The conversations are well above his head.
Gregs not stupid just perfectly possessed, utter and complete mind control. It wont matter what evidence is presented if it is contrary to his programming he will deny it.
@Deplorable Me, #27:
I said precisely what I said—not what you want to imagine I said because you can’t rebut the a simple fact: There’s nothing illegal about declaring a city to a sanctuary city, nor are local, county, or state law enforcement forces legally obligated to enforce federal immigration laws.
May 29, 2018 — Homeland Security money went to sanctuary cities despite Trump vows: report
Because Trump does not have dictatorial powers. There is no basis in the law for him to withhold funds from states or municipalities that do not comply with his wishes. There is no legal requirement that compels them to enforce federal immigration law. Such a mandate would be unconstitutional, in violation of the Tenth Amendment.
Which might not keep the Trump’s Congressional toadies from trying. They’ve tried before, and quite recently:
If the Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act passes, it could set a dangerous precedent that would allow the federal government to nationalize the police and limit local authority to manage their police departments.
Bullshit bills can often be identified by their bullshit titles that conceal what they really are. In this case, what’s “dangerous” would be an unconstitutional federal power grab; local police could become tools of the President.
@Greg:
Well, of course, I never said or implied it was illegal to DECLARE anything or that you said it was. However, since it is illegal to harbor criminals, which illegal immigrants are, and it is SPECIFICALLY illegal to harbor illegal immigrants, BEING a sanctuary city, ACTING LIKE a sanctuary city is most definitely illegal and those who make and carry out those policies should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and held responsible for the crimes those illegal immigrants they lure into their sanctuary sh!thole cities and protect.
The federal government used to withhold or threaten to withhold funds to states if they did not abide by EPA rules. So, the federal government most certainly CAN withhold funds to states that do not enforce immigration laws and willfully disobey federal laws.
Yeah, like “Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act.” However, border defense IS an enumerated task of the federal government and they have the authority to enforce those laws and punish those who impede or violate those laws.
You’d best learn to live in a world where laws exist and are enforced. The Obama world of only complying with or enforcing laws that serve a political purpose is gone.
@Greg: The law is a good one we cannot have open borders, the disease, crime and cost to citizens is too high. The resistance is ruining it for everyone, Trump offered a higher number of DACA than requested they rejected that, 800,000 est DACA …no 1.5 million, because he knew there were more that were too afraid to sign up. Chain migration must end we have enough poor, we need to start bringing in the best. Those in the resistance must learn to love their country more than they hate Trump. The local police need to hand over violent criminal and gang members to ICE to purge them from our country to make the neighborhood safer for everyone. So deranged are the resistance they were laughing after they freed an admitted killer that stole a gun and killed a girl. Boy they really Stuck it to Trump oh boy, a win?
They are perverting sanctuary, we dont understand why you cant see that.
@kitt:They are perverting sanctuary, we dont understand why you cant see that
@Deplorable Me: They scream to the rafters they want to “save ” the DACA people, then lest Trump or Republicans get credit they reject a deal that would allow nearly double the number they asked for. California can sneak in all the illegal voters but they are 1 state, a limited umber of electoral votes, so they think hey can kill the electoral college, and gain power by mob rule.
A Constitutional amendment isnt that easy.
@kitt: All the left cares about is having a contentious issue and using people for votes. The same is true with gun control. They don’t want to make society safer; they want to collect enough power to disarm the populace so it can lay helpless before them. The LAST thing they want to do is resolve illegal immigration and border security; then they have to find something else to scream “RACISM!!” about.
@Deplorable Me, #36:
The Senate had negotiated a bipartisan compromise on a DACA and border security package this past January, but The Disruptor in Chief promptly shot it down, throwing in a comment later about “shit-hole countries” to make damn sure the spirit of bipartisan cooperation was thoroughly trashed.
Trump hits the brakes on Senate immigration deal
@Greg: Flake really? a D liberty score hardly bi partisan, who else threw together crap they know the President will not sign? They blew it a ways back, just fund the wall. The article referenced is low on details very low, what are they trying to hide?
@Greg: There was no wall in it. Border security is the key component because, while someone is in office that enforces laws, we could one day have another anti-Constitutional dictator like Obama again that would reopen the flood gates to de-Americanize America.
See, the Democrats have a history of lying about border security, so the wall has to be financed so it can be built. Then, the funds from Mexico can be secured to pay for it.
@Deplorable Me, #39:
January 11, 2018 — Bipartisan Senate group finds agreement on DACA, border security
$1.6 billion is the amount that Trump initially requested for the project. It would certainly get construction underway. After that figure was agreed to, however, he upped the amount he wanted to $25 billion—apparently forgetting that Mexico was going to pay for it.
As of May 30, at a rally today in Tennessee, he was back to his claim that Mexico will pay.
The man is obviously crazy—unless refusing what he’s asked for is part of his negotiating style.
@Greg: Most of the billions of dollars in cash sent to Mexico by Mexicans living in the U.S. is transferred by “undocumented” workers, and the total was expected to top $26 billion in 2016, according to research by the Washington institute Inter-American Dialogue. Thats money that could be in our economy. Not to mention what tax payers spend in various welfare, and educational costs. Yes the wall will pay for itself in no time at all.
@Greg: Yes, he wanted funding for the entire wall. Congress has no problem throwing $1.8 billion away in order to try and make a problem disappear. Trump is smarter than that and he knows once he gives in on the DACA deal, Democrats are not going to honor their end of the bargain. Just like in 1986.
@kitt: Liberals, who think money just appears out of thin air, don’t understand finance and paying for things. No doubt, Mexico will pay for the wall and pay dearly. The days of the Mexican President making demands of an American President to take more illegal immigrants are over (until another gutless, lying liberal gets into office, God forbid).
Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents
@Deplorable Me, #42:
Then why didn’t Trump ask for it to begin with, rather than allowing bipartisan negotiations to proceed to a compromise agreement based on the figure he stated?
It serves Trump that there is no compromise agreement. He’s the one who screwed the agreement up, not Senate republicans or democrats.
@Greg:
He did. That’s why he refused this fake.
You know, when criminals get caught and thrown in jail, if they have kids they are separated. That’s simply what happens. In the past, common sense has been waived in order to pander to illegal immigrants and open border supporters of illegal immigration.
The vast majority of those this is happening to are not accused of any criminal offense. Under the law, illegal entry is a civil offense—not a criminal offense. It’s only misdemeanor. Even if they’re found guilty of illegal entry, they aren’t criminals.
Taking someone’s terrified children away to undisclosed locations for an undisclosed time is more than a little harsh, under such circumstances.
@Greg: It should be fully advertised in their countries how mean we are maybe they wont bust our border.
@Greg:
Well, actually they are. Every single one of them. See, despite the liberal belief that if you don’t agree with a law, it simply ceases to exist is not the case in the real world. When someone violates our immigration laws, they become a criminal.
Criminals get their name due to having committed a crime. I guess you weren’t aware of that. These illegal immigrants (illegal… another hint) are detained because they are a flight risk; when they vanish into the population, which about 80% of them do when given a court date and released, they are irretrievable, unless and until they commit some serious crime. It is THEIR fault they are in this situation. The traveled a long distance and broke numerous laws to get here and they knew (or should know) the consequences of their actions.
Tough. They shouldn’t have crossed our borders illegally. Again, they are in that situation because that is exactly where they put THEMSELVES.
@Kitt: Most liberals, never having mowed their own lawns or cleaned their own windows, simply don’t realize that isn’t that hard to do and certainly not worth subjecting taxpaying citizens to violent crime and the indignity of having subsidized that criminal for being here.
@Deplorable Me: This guy didnt use the poorly secured border to clean anyones toilet. An Al Qaeda terrorist (Adnan G. El Shukrijumah) on the FBI’s most wanted list for years crossed back and forth into the United States from Mexico to meet fellow militant Islamists in Texas and piloted an aircraft into the Cielo Dorado airfield—about 25 miles from Santa Teresa—in Anthony, New Mexico. The same Al Qaeda operative helped plan the 2009 bombing of talk-show superstar Oprah Winfrey’s Chicago studios and the iconic Sears Tower (renamed Willis Tower), a story that Judicial Watch broke days earlier. Despite being one of the FBI’s most wanted terrorists, Shukrijumah for years managed to slip in and out of the U.S. through the southern border to meet fellow militant Islamists in the El Paso region. Shukrijumah was eventually killed in an intelligence-borne operation in Pakistan, but the fact remains that he long eluded U.S. authorities by utilizing a vulnerable portion of the Mexican border region to conduct business, or was allowed to.
@kitt: Possible votes is more important than all that to liberals.