36 votes

WOW! Sen. Sessions: 'Deliberate Plan by President' to Collapse U.S. Law Enforcement System (VIDEO)


April 10, 2014 - 6:30 PM

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said today that Americans need to stand up to "a deliberate plan by the president of the United States" to collapse the nation's law enforcement system regarding illegal immigration.

In a Senate speech, Sessions said:

"Our law enforcement system is in a state of collapse, and it's a deliberate plan by the president of the United States, and it's wrong. And, people need to be aware of it and need to stand up to it and I believe the American people are beginning to do so."

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXhtYQGW1hA

Read more: http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/craig-bannister/sen-sessions-d...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

mwstroberg, a most outstanding

post below!

Add to that, S. 744 contains 40 occurrences of "biometric" within the tex of the bill, at a cost of $25+ Billion to implement, if passed.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Cyril's picture

Here's another point of view for senator Sessions' attention

Here's another point of view for senator Sessions' attention, FWIW :

I'm a self-sustained legal immigrant (and tax payer), and down this Amerika slope, if people keep missing to strike at the roots of evil instead of at the branches, it's very possible that I change my mind and I deport myself and my family diligently (at my own expenses, as usual) eventually.

I hope you won't mind, senator?!

Should that happen, no hard feelings, anyway, and best of luck to you, and to your country!


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

'Hope this helps... Do we understand each other?

'Hope this helps, for a clue, dear senator :


Do we understand each other?

Or are all the distracting points of

b u l l s h i t

supposed to continue?

Who knows.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

What sayeth the Almighty?

Deuteronomy 27:17 "Cursed be he that removeth his neighbor's landmark. And the people shall say, Amen". On nationality & ethnicity, the Bible is plain that God abhors the blending of all peoples into a single world state. He defeated such a plan at Babel. In Deuteronomy, "The Most High" divided the nations & set boundaries among them. The Apostle Paul, in the New Testament book of Acts, says that boundaries were set among nations "that men might seek after God". The people that engage in this profess to be God fearing. How is lying (by omission) & stealing (since they didn't obtain permission legally to enter) justified? Aren't there 2 Commandments against this? These are your taxes being "appropriated" for their benefit. Is that not theft? They are not, as the Bible says, "strangers" in the land. They are trespassers. Why is there not an uproar in the Christian churches? This should clear up where ZOG & the Rothschilds stand.

I agree w/ you about Tower of Babel... +1

... and G-d not allowing a world government, or one world state.
He clearly talks about Israel being separate from 'the nations'.
But G-d also says Israel will be a "light unto the nations".

"Yea, He saith, 'It is too light a thing for you to be My servant, to establish the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the scions of Israel, and I shall submit you as a light unto the nations, to be My salvation until the end of the earth' Isaiah 49:6"

"I the LORD have called unto you in righteousness, and have taken hold of your hand, and submitted you as the people's covenant, as a light unto the nations" Isaiah 42:6"

"And unto your light, nations shall walk, and kings unto the brightness of your rising" Isaiah 60:3"

"Light to the Nations (or Light of the Nations; Hebrew: אור לגויים, pronounced as "Or LaGoyim"; other: Light of all Nations or Light for all Nations) is a term originated from the prophet Isaiah (the original text is Hebrew: לאור גויים), which may express the universal designation of God's kingdom of priests as a mentor for spiritual and moral guidance for the entire world.[1] For Christians, including those who identify as Messianic Jews, the words from Isaiah speak also of a Messiah who will be the "light to the nations"—identified by Christians as Jesus."


As for the "ZOG" you're worried about. You are really worried about the NWO. You're confusing Zionism with the NWO. Zionism is supposed to be just about the Jews returning to Israel. That's it. If you want to take it further it's about fulfilling Biblical prophesy and the return of the Messiah. Zionism is part of Biblical prophesy, for both Christians and Jews. In both Christianity and Judaism, the Jews return to their homeland after being exiled for generations. It's all part of G-d's plan. And unless there is another Jerusalem and Mt. Zion in the world somewhere, the Israel of today is the same Israel as in the Bible.

Meanwhile, Satan is planning his NWO. "He will deceive the whole of the earth". As Yeshua warned about, and as the prophesy is echoed all throughout the Old and New Testaments. As you rightfully pointed out, G-d destroyed the Tower of Babylon and scattered the people into many nations. Satan's minions may claim they are 'Zionists', as they infiltrate all levels of power. But they are only using Zionism to perpetuate war to bring forth their NWO. That is a legitimate concern. The Jews returning to Israel is otherwise a good sign, a sign that G-d's Word is indeed the Truth, and redemption draws near.

Ever wonder why the European Union, a fore-runner to the NWO world government, has modeled their building off the unfinished Tower of Babel?


Please check out this link, and hear about these Israeli Jews with the SAME CONCERNS You are talking about!


Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

You quote scripture

almost as well as the Devil does.

Seriously? Then by what right

Seriously? Then by what right did Europeans have to settle in the Americas? There weren't even any immigration laws until the latter part of the 19th century and they were passed as part of a building socialist/progressive super state. All of you who pretend to be lovers of liberty, yet cling to statist immigration prohibitions are completely inconsistent and radically stupid.

Illegals are a menace. They

Illegals are a menace. They should be herded into camps and forced into servile labor or exterminated. Oh I know, all you idiotic anti-immigration folks aren't THAT extreme are you? You just want a militarized border and a massive police force to herd the ones that break through home.

Immigration zealots have no place in a free society. I would hire a mexican standing outside a Home Depot ANY day before spending ridiculously inflated union wages to some self-entitled white guy to do the same job.

What is a border?

My answer would be: An imaginary line dividing "us" from "them."

a hull

A border is like the hull of a boat. It isn't imaginary. It keeps the water out. Boats with leaky hulls don't win races because energy has to be expended bailing. What is in the boat is our Country. Like them or not, the educational, social service, and other services budgeted for our population have to be spread thin to accommodate everyone who wants to flow in to share them. I recommend taking the locks off of your house's doors so anyone who wants to can share your house. It might help you understand the utility of borders. There is a difference between a far out anarcho-libertarian and a constitutional libertarian. The former recognizes no borders. The latter requires Congress to set immigration rules and defend borders.

Eliminate the welfare state

and the provision of all goods and services would be performed by the free market. Then, all people would interact voluntarily, and there would no longer be any state imposed limits on productivity.

Ah, but then immigration statists would lose their issue, and could no longer come up with an excuse as to why Mexicans and other dark skinned people were undesirable as neighbors.

In other words, immigration statists cling unto death to their belief in the welfare state because they simply do not like Mexicans.

The Constitution does not recognize borders, but leaves the issue of immigration up to the States. The Bill of Rights does not even mention the word "Citizen," clearly defending natural rights for all people regardless of national origin. One of those natural rights is freedom of movement, subject to the property rights of those who own the means of transport. If I own a road that crosses the border between the United States and Mexico, and I wish to let a Mexican born person cross that border on my road, the only means you would have to stop him would be aggressive violence against my property rights.

The state is at its root simply violence, and we must stamp out the evil of coercive violence, strike at its root, before it destroys us.

RE: The latter requires Congress to set immigration rules

Those so called constitutionalists have been asked many times where the constitution authorizes Congress to regulate immigration. They are not constitutionalists, they are posers who want to pick parts of the constitution they like and redefine parts they don't like.

Where are national borders defined in the Constitution? They aren't. All borders are defined in state constitutions or treaties.

What does a rule of naturalization mean? It means a rule of allegiance which has nothing to do with the movement, emigration or immigration, of people.

What is the context of naturalization by reviewing the Congressional record in the 1790's what does it tell us about establishing a rule of naturalization? It tells us a rule of naturalization is if you live in a state for 10 years you are eligible to go to any court house and obtain naturalized citizenship, a lessor status than natural born citizenship, if you can provide evidence you have lived in a state for 10 years.

Since these so called constitutionalists have been utterly destroyed on every constitutional argument they have resorted to calling immigration an invasion. Ok, if Mexicans are invading where is the Declaration of War against Mexico? These so called constitutionalists are intellectually bankrupt on every xenophobic argument they have tried to raise on some delegated power to regulate the movement of people.

Nor do they offer any explanation for the source of such a power. If all power is derived from the people what authority does any man have to restrict the travels of another man? Zero, zilch, nada.

In addition since they want to erase American history before 1787 because amending the Articles of Confederation not according to the document proves constitutionalists are usurping tyrants these so called constitutionalists will never talk about what led to including a uniform rule of naturalization. It was always understood property owners enforce trespassing and the federal government provides common defense. States are the so called property owners of their territory. The problem being rectified under the Articles of Confederation was not states enforcing the trespass of their own borders. It was that states had to recognize the citizens of every other state and different states had different rules of naturalization making one eligible to become a citizen.

The Constitution does not represent the federal political subdivision acquiring new police powers to enforce trespassing within state borders. It was understood that was up to states but there would only be one rule of naturalization to determine how one can become a citizen of any state.

These so called constitutionalists are quick to point out police power within state borders is extremely limited. How the hell do these so called constitutionalists think things are enforced? Police power ... which club fed does not have for any purpose of trespassing, immigration, or emigration within state borders.

Which leads to my next point. Why does that sentence of the Constitution say uniform laws of bankruptcy and rule of naturalization? Clearly a rule and law are not the same thing. Well the difference is police power. Laws are enforced because in a bankruptcy police power may need to be used to redistribute your shit to creditors. A rule however sets a bar for burden of proof. A rule draws a straight line to distinguish between persons not eligible for citizenship and persons eligible for citizenship. If one can provide evidence they meet the rule then shazam, they can acquire citizenship. No police power involved because there is nothing to enforce.

People in states do not want to bear the expense of state border enforcement. In some things they do where it is easy to get others to pay for the border enforcement (ask any trucker) but no one wants to pay to enforce an entire state border because it is expensive. Don't blame the federal political subdivision because people in certain states are cheap bastards who want wealth redistributed for purposes of exercising a police power within their state to enforce a state border.

If some states do not want visitors or guests because they are an unfriendly, inhospitable, xenophobic people then let them pay to enforce their own borders. However that is the problem isn't? The market punishes unfriendly, inhospitable, xenophobic behavior because the cost of doing business in that state would increase dramatically providing an incentive to move to a cheaper state that is not unfriendly, inhospitable, or xenophobic. If the federal government will not cooperate with deportation maybe the state should just drop uninvited, unwelcome, visitors, guests, or space aliens off in front of the white house.

Good Riddance

Law enforcement and all other government agencies are welcome to piss off. Good riddance. I am tired of watching videos of sheeple getting beat or killed by goons under government contract. They don't even enforce "justice" but rather generated revenue. Good riddance. Anarchy should reign. Then people might learn some integrity, accountability and friggin personal responsibility.

Let me get this straight.

The federal government is paying citizen A to not work while local employers hire illegals because citizen A would rather have something that either paid more or was not as difficult to perform.

What the senator wants is to deport the illegal so that the employer can maintain an unfilled position at his company, while citizen A keeps getting his government check.

Are we to believe the employer prefers hiring illegal aliens? Why would that be? What will happen, if his employees are deported, is either the employer is going to relocate, or go on public assistance himself.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

they are hiring illegals

because they don't have to pay them as much. That goes for high tech, also. I worked for a high tech company that hired people from India because they didn't have to pay them as much. Funny thing is, the Indian culture is completely different...when they come into work in the morning the first thing they do is go to breakfast. Work is just an extension of home and life; when they come in to work on the weekend, they accomplish nothing much, but they were at the workplace and that counts as work to them. So it costs them less in wages, but nothing ever gets done.

Totally opposite of my experience with Indians

We had three who would travel around with us as we were installing new call centers around the country. They were the hardest working programmers that I have ever been around. There were times when I felt that we were asking the impossible and yet they hung out in their little cubicle prison and came up with impressive fixes. Never have I seen people who were more kind and dedicated to their work. Glad I didn't have the people you described or I might have been committed to the nut house at one point of my life.

Oh, well that's good to know..

I shouldn't generalize, I know, based on just a couple of situations. The one situation was rather interesting: the Indian worked for a Chinese and they both worked for a Japanese. Wow, the Chinese did not like the Indian...she was very focused...narrowly...and the Japanese also was frustrated by the Indian. One day the Indian told the Japanese boss that he had come in over the weekend to work and the Japanese said, sarcastically, did you get anything done? I was the lowest level tech writer Anglo...I just watched it all...

That's the best place to be..

"I just watched it all..." I tried my best to stay away from the 'fishbowl' unless the a/c wasn't doing well enough in the summer. Then the fishbowl was the place to be.

Aren't they two different

Aren't they two different issues. I sense that Sen Sessions is clearly upset about the illegality of the issue and the president's design to destroy US Law enforcement. If an employer wishes to hire illegals..is he not undermining America also?
There is a current situation in Canada where a MacDonald's franchisee brought over Foreign workers on a temporary foreign worker program. TSHTF..because he turned away Canadian applicants for the jobs and is paying foreign workers more money than his own current staff of Canadian employees. His argument is that the foreign workers are better workers. They are reliable, on time, and productive while on the job. This may be a wake up call for all of us who are taking these jobs for granted.
I doubt Obama is interested in this but it all seems to be heading toward the New Order of Things for North America whether you want it or not. We have another case of rare disease causing death of prominent politician???? I really think the hammer is dropping.

"If an employer wishes to hire illegals..is he not undermining

America also?"

No more than an "illegal" raw milk producer is "undermining America."

The advocates of using statism and socialism to keep people from freely migrating across international borders are not consistent advocates of liberty. I find this one issue to be a dividing line between those who would defend everyone's liberty, and those who would abridge the liberty of those they consider to be less than desirable as neighbors.

The destruction of the "law enforcement system"? Bring it on! The sooner we start obeying natural law and quit obeying arbitrary human authority, the better.

Au contraire, raw milk

Au contraire, raw milk producers are Americans. The processors of raw milk are Corporations who monopolize a very strong milk board who wish to prevent the independent production of milk in a free market economy. As to your other point, Socialism is what is making it dire and necessary for 'illegals' to leave their homeland and try and 'colonize' somewhere else...in many cases gov't promotion and programs seem to encourage this regardless of its impact on existing economy and residents. Whatever is "Natural law"?

"Socialism is what is making it ..."

So, because Mexico adopts socialist policies, that means America has to too?

Arbitrary government control of a society is socialism, you can't sugar coat it, it is naked aggression. Government violence used to prevent peaceful migration is criminal, and not the behavior of people of good will.

As far as natural law goes, try reading here:


Canada is also a socialist

Canada is also a socialist country and being anti socialist decry what it is doing to our market economy and the mindset of it citizens. so I agree with you....and I too am looking to migrate somewhere else except I don't know where. US is going to be pulled into the Socialist vortex whether you like it or not...It is the plan for North America and the global entity. When you ascribe to "natural law" all I envisage is Lord of the Flies and an administration made up of "Jacks" pretending to do what is best for you.

Article 1, Section 8, clause 3

Congress shall have the power to ...establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

Also, Congress is supposed to repel invasions.

Also, Congress is given the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into Execution said delegated power.

The Constitution says nothing about milk. It, however, has delegated powers to Congress to set up naturalization rules and to repel invasions. Invasions are not defined as only military invasions. You are advocating ceding Constitutionally given powers to foreign nationals.

Natualization and immigration are two different things.

The fact is that the Constitution does not even mention immigration.

And how is peaceful immigration an "invasion?" Are people peacefully crossing the border between California and Nevada "invading" either state?

Do you not believe in private property rights? If I own an apartment complex, a business, or a school in the United States, what right do you have to tell me I can't rent to, hire, or educate a Mexican immigrant? Is that not my free-market, natural law, private property right? Would you use government violence to prevent this? Then you are a statist, socialist, thug.

Law Enforcement System?

Appears Obama and his cronies are toppling the entire economy, monetary system and rule of law as well.

Cyril's picture

You got it. You got it exactly right.

You got it. You got it exactly right.


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

A Little Help for Our Senator Friend

Sen. Sessions seems surprised, so I'm glad I can shed some light on something maybe, still, a litttle too new for him :

He has to understand the outstandingly robust consistency of his socialist colleagues, on that matter.


- as the generous socialist planners they are -

because, eventually, they always run out of other people's money (to waste and/or redistribute according to their endless imagination) it makes absolutely PERFECT sense for them to find always many more folks to vote them in, repeatedly, and to tax if possible, so that the vanishing of stolen money doesn't unfold faster than they have planned !

It's purely consistent logic, there, dear senator.

Thus, illegal immigrants, come there in handy, just as well - you bet !

If cats and dogs could make money, they'd also eventually be able to vote and be taxable, by the very principles of the socialists' generosity. It's just that would be REAL BONES thrown at them as FREE STUFF, once in a while, that's all.

(Okay, okay, I exaggerate a bit now - even Soviet Russia didn't have enough time to go that far, but you get the idea)

You're welcome!

Always glad to help.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

"... to Collapse U.S. Law Enforcement System"?

"... to Collapse U.S. Law Enforcement System"?

Well, I'd like to remind Sen. Sessions that the current administration is still making a pretty good progress, though, towards going after, and confiscating, the guns of the law abiding american citizens or of the legal immigrants, slowly but surely.

Also, just in case Sen. Sessions needs a fast forward for Amerika, the french socialists have been, and still are, pushing the idea of granting the right to vote to foreigners, while also lowering the barrier to entry to the French citizenship (conveniently enough!) :


... along with expanding social welfare programs to them, of course!

They've got pretty close to do it a couple times, already.

"Just sayin'."

Who knows.

Although it's entering the race a bit late, maybe dear Obama's Amerika will beat France on the finish line, in such generous social plans!

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

Nah, for the fast forward, you're much welcome

Nah, for the fast forward, you're much welcome, Sen. Sessions.

Just thought you should know.

'Hope it helps.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius