# Right wing militia detains 200 migrants at gun point on New Mexico!! HELL YEAH!



## Jitss617

New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report


Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?


----------



## Jitss617

New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report


Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?


----------



## ozro

They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.

fix the border already, it's the right thing to do


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

ozro said:


> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do


What is wrong with repelling an invading horde of diseased criminals from our country?  If killing a few thousand stops the migration, that would be a good thing...Those that die in the desert are far worse, so show those who are willing to make the arduous trek, that it isnt worth it, and save even more lives, by killing a few...The needs of the many out way the needs of the few.


----------



## OldLady

Jitss617 said:


> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?


Fix your very confusing title.


----------



## ozro

andaronjim said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with repelling an invading horde of diseased criminals from our country?  If killing a few thousand stops the migration, that would be a good thing...Those that die in the desert are far worse, so show those who are willing to make the arduous trek, that it isnt worth it, and save even more lives, by killing a few...The needs of the many out way the needs of the few.
Click to expand...


We do not have to condone murder. ever.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

The invaders were turned in.  The militia could be more effective.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

ozro said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with repelling an invading horde of diseased criminals from our country?  If killing a few thousand stops the migration, that would be a good thing...Those that die in the desert are far worse, so show those who are willing to make the arduous trek, that it isnt worth it, and save even more lives, by killing a few...The needs of the many out way the needs of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do not have to condone murder. ever.
Click to expand...

Murder isnt defending your borders from diseases that want to cross into our country and kill US.  Murder isnt defending yourself from criminals with the intent to rape our women and kill US.  Is it really that hard to see why we need to "Shoot" people who shouldn't belong here?  They are dying in the 10 of 1000s crossing into areas that will kill them anyway.  Why aren't we just euthanizing them out of their misery...Call it "Post Birth Abortions"..​


----------



## ozro

andaronjim said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with repelling an invading horde of diseased criminals from our country?  If killing a few thousand stops the migration, that would be a good thing...Those that die in the desert are far worse, so show those who are willing to make the arduous trek, that it isnt worth it, and save even more lives, by killing a few...The needs of the many out way the needs of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do not have to condone murder. ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Murder isnt defending your borders from diseases that want to cross into our country and kill US.  Murder isnt defending yourself from criminals with the intent to rape our women and kill US.  Is it really that hard to see why we need to "Shoot" people who shouldn't belong here?  They are dying in the 10 of 1000s crossing into areas that will kill them anyway.  Why aren't we just euthanizing them out of their misery...Call it "Post Birth Abortions"..​
Click to expand...


This group did the right thing, held them for bp.
There are those that do not, they kill them. that is murder.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Jitss617 said:


> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?


Rightwing fear, hate, and bigotry.


----------



## Toro

ozro said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with repelling an invading horde of diseased criminals from our country?  If killing a few thousand stops the migration, that would be a good thing...Those that die in the desert are far worse, so show those who are willing to make the arduous trek, that it isnt worth it, and save even more lives, by killing a few...The needs of the many out way the needs of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do not have to condone murder. ever.
Click to expand...


You do if you’re a scared old white guy terrified of Darkies, hiding under your bed, and mainlining Fox News 24/7.


----------



## OldLady

Jitss617   Go back into Edit on your OP and there is an option there somewhere to get back into the title.  You have "contain" instead of "detain" and it makes no sense.


----------



## ozro

Toro said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with repelling an invading horde of diseased criminals from our country?  If killing a few thousand stops the migration, that would be a good thing...Those that die in the desert are far worse, so show those who are willing to make the arduous trek, that it isnt worth it, and save even more lives, by killing a few...The needs of the many out way the needs of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do not have to condone murder. ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do if you’re a scared old white guy terrified of Darkies, hiding under your bed, and mainlining Fox News 24/7.
Click to expand...


even then, we do not have to condone murder, ever.


----------



## Jitss617

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwing fear, hate, and bigotry.
Click to expand...

Looks like the ones in fear at the Latinos being detained lol and libs like you who won’t try to free them lol


----------



## Jitss617

Toro said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with repelling an invading horde of diseased criminals from our country?  If killing a few thousand stops the migration, that would be a good thing...Those that die in the desert are far worse, so show those who are willing to make the arduous trek, that it isnt worth it, and save even more lives, by killing a few...The needs of the many out way the needs of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do not have to condone murder. ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do if you’re a scared old white guy terrified of Darkies, hiding under your bed, and mainlining Fox News 24/7.
Click to expand...

Looks like you are the scared one.. go try to stop the militia


----------



## toobfreak

Jitss617 said:


> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?



*“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*

Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.  






Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.


----------



## jknowgood

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwing fear, hate, and bigotry.
Click to expand...

How many illegals are living in your home?


----------



## OldLady

Jitss617 said:


> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?


Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?


----------



## Jitss617

OldLady said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
Click to expand...

What government funded militia has ever done good for protecting Americas borders? This privately funded one looks like it works.. the CONSTITUTION allows militias, they must be protected by law.. Barr has our backs


----------



## EvilCat Breath

The cartels leave bodies and mass graves along the border.  Democrats love the cartels.


----------



## OldLady

Jitss617 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What government funded militia has ever done good for protecting Americas borders? This privately funded one looks like it works.. the CONSTITUTION allows militias, they must be protected by law.. Barr has our backs
Click to expand...

I doubt if Barr has your backs.


----------



## Jitss617

OldLady said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What government funded militia has ever done good for protecting Americas borders? This privately funded one looks like it works.. the CONSTITUTION allows militias, they must be protected by law.. Barr has our backs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt if Barr has your backs.
Click to expand...

Come and stop us


----------



## Pilot1

OldLady said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
Click to expand...


The Unorganized Militia are not vigilantes.  It exists legitimately under U.S. Code.  They are doing what they are supposed to do when people try to illegally invade the U.S.

10 U.S. Code § 246 -  Militia: composition and classes


----------



## anynameyouwish

Jitss617 said:


> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?


Reply

says the cowardly liar hiding behind his computer screen.....


----------



## ozro

Jitss617 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What government funded militia has ever done good for protecting Americas borders? This privately funded one looks like it works.. the CONSTITUTION allows militias, they must be protected by law.. Barr has our backs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt if Barr has your backs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come and stop us
Click to expand...


Are you a militia member? which unit?

I am AZ Citizens Militia, Delta Force.

We exist and operate at the pleasure of Gov. Ducey. We are here to assist law enforcment agencies, not to subvert the law. 

I hate coming forward, but am sick of macho clowns talking out their asses.


----------



## Natural Citizen

The problem with this kind of thing is that innocent people have been killed in the past, homeowners in most cases.


----------



## OldLady

Jitss617 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What government funded militia has ever done good for protecting Americas borders? This privately funded one looks like it works.. the CONSTITUTION allows militias, they must be protected by law.. Barr has our backs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt if Barr has your backs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come and stop us
Click to expand...

Don't be a punk.  That was not my point.  And since you are waiting tables in Boston, you don't need to say "us" either.


----------



## Jitss617

anynameyouwish said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Reply
> 
> says the cowardly liar hiding behind his computer screen.....
Click to expand...

I have a record that proves I’m a one man militia in Boston and any of you libs in Boston want to find out let me know


----------



## ozro

ok Rambo, go guard the fucking boston waterfront, the closest thing to a border you have ever seen.


----------



## Jitss617

ozro said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What government funded militia has ever done good for protecting Americas borders? This privately funded one looks like it works.. the CONSTITUTION allows militias, they must be protected by law.. Barr has our backs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt if Barr has your backs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come and stop us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a militia member? which unit?
> 
> I am AZ Citizens Militia, Delta Force.
> 
> We exist and operate at the pleasure of Gov. Ducey. We are here to assist law enforcment agencies, not to subvert the law.
> 
> I hate coming forward, but am sick of macho clowns talking out their asses.
Click to expand...

I’m a Boston fcuking patriot mother fucka.. I confront enemies without  the consent of any government official.. and have the record to prove it. I was on the front page of the Boston herald confronting left wing hate groups.. show some respect


----------



## gallantwarrior

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwing fear, hate, and bigotry.
Click to expand...

Left wing stupidity and willingness to ignore facts in order to gain political points and further their sick, twisted narrative.


----------



## Jitss617

ozro said:


> ok Rambo, go guard the fucking boston waterfront, the closest thing to a border you have ever seen.


I protect my city.. but I’ll let you wait for a gov official to tell you what to do


----------



## ozro

Jitss617 said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> 
> 
> What government funded militia has ever done good for protecting Americas borders? This privately funded one looks like it works.. the CONSTITUTION allows militias, they must be protected by law.. Barr has our backs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt if Barr has your backs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come and stop us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a militia member? which unit?
> 
> I am AZ Citizens Militia, Delta Force.
> 
> We exist and operate at the pleasure of Gov. Ducey. We are here to assist law enforcment agencies, not to subvert the law.
> 
> I hate coming forward, but am sick of macho clowns talking out their asses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m a Boston fcuking patriot mother fucka.. I confront enemies with the consent of any government official.. and have the record to prove it. I was on the front page of the Boston herald confronting left wing hate groups.. show some respect
Click to expand...


Act respectable then!
If you ever decide you want to see real bad people, even worse than far left AMERICANS, Come on down. 
I promise to be respectful and show you around. Who knows, maybe you could be trained to be of value.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Pilot1 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Unorganized Militia are not vigilantes.  It exists legitimately under U.S. Code.  They are doing what they are supposed to do when people try to illegally invade the U.S.
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 246 -  Militia: composition and classes
Click to expand...

Particularly when our government has failed miserably to protect us and our sovereign nation from this invasive force does it become our duty to protect ourselves.  Rounding up these diseased (yes, I said it), ignorant, and useless vermin and holding them for the authorities falls to the citizens when the authorities are stretched so thinly and so inhibited by political bullshit regulation.


----------



## Jitss617

This is Boston and that ain’t Boston police with bayonets on the Rifles.. old school pic of citizens fighting back


----------



## ozro

Jitss617 said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok Rambo, go guard the fucking boston waterfront, the closest thing to a border you have ever seen.
> 
> 
> 
> I protect my city.. but I’ll let you wait for a gov official to tell you what to do
Click to expand...



military 101:
without a chain of command there is no military


----------



## deanrd

It's sad to see Republicans so terrified of women and babies.


----------



## Jitss617

ozro said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What government funded militia has ever done good for protecting Americas borders? This privately funded one looks like it works.. the CONSTITUTION allows militias, they must be protected by law.. Barr has our backs
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt if Barr has your backs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come and stop us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a militia member? which unit?
> 
> I am AZ Citizens Militia, Delta Force.
> 
> We exist and operate at the pleasure of Gov. Ducey. We are here to assist law enforcment agencies, not to subvert the law.
> 
> I hate coming forward, but am sick of macho clowns talking out their asses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m a Boston fcuking patriot mother fucka.. I confront enemies with the consent of any government official.. and have the record to prove it. I was on the front page of the Boston herald confronting left wing hate groups.. show some respect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Act respectable then!
> If you ever decide you want to see real bad people, even worse than far left AMERICANS, Come on down.
> I promise to be respectful and show you around. Who knows, maybe you could be trained to be of value.
Click to expand...

I live in a city where are are known for having the worst attitudes, and we have many illlgeals here many bad people.. come down here and I’ll show you around..


----------



## miketx

OldLady said:


> Jitss617   Go back into Edit on your OP and there is an option there somewhere to get back into the title.  You have "contain" instead of "detain" and it makes no sense.


Do you ever stop crying?


----------



## Jitss617

deanrd said:


> It's sad to see Republicans so terrified of women and babies.


Poor Americans are scared and are struggling because of the resources being taken away by illegals.. are you ok with this??


----------



## OldLady

deanrd said:


> It's sad to see Republicans so terrified of women and babies.


Yeah, they look like a really subversive group, don't they?

I'd certainly be terrified to encounter them.


----------



## ozro

Jitss617 said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt if Barr has your backs.
> 
> 
> 
> Come and stop us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a militia member? which unit?
> 
> I am AZ Citizens Militia, Delta Force.
> 
> We exist and operate at the pleasure of Gov. Ducey. We are here to assist law enforcment agencies, not to subvert the law.
> 
> I hate coming forward, but am sick of macho clowns talking out their asses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m a Boston fcuking patriot mother fucka.. I confront enemies with the consent of any government official.. and have the record to prove it. I was on the front page of the Boston herald confronting left wing hate groups.. show some respect
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Act respectable then!
> If you ever decide you want to see real bad people, even worse than far left AMERICANS, Come on down.
> I promise to be respectful and show you around. Who knows, maybe you could be trained to be of value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live in a city where are are known for having the worst attitudes, and we have many illlgeals here many bad people.. come down here and I’ll show you around..
Click to expand...


I was in Boston last year for a week, and enjoyed my visit.


----------



## Dick Foster

ozro said:


> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do


In a way that's exactly what they are doing.


----------



## Dick Foster

OldLady said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
Click to expand...

Last I heard fetching coffee for the border patrol. However they should be issued live ammo and ordered to shoot to kill any assholes caught invading our country. That is after all the original purpose for having a standing military or even a federal government in the first place. WTF do people think "provide for the common defence" means anyway? It's right up front in the preamble fer pity sake!


----------



## Tijn Von Ingersleben

No one in a position of power is going to fix the border. Those turned over to the border patrol simply claim asylum status and are released into the general population. The rules are this way for a reason.


----------



## OldLady

Dick Foster said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I heard fetching coffee for the border patrol. However they should be issued live ammo and ordered to shoot to kill any assholes caught invading our country. That is after all the original purpose for having a standing military or even a federal government in the first place. WTF do people think "provide for the common defence" means anyway? It's right up front in the preamble fer pity sake!
Click to expand...

You're a perfect example of why we should not have a "legal" unorganized militia of citizens between 17 and 45.  
They are not "invaders," they are not armed, they are not carrying bubonic plague, and they will not rape your daughter.
Jesus Christ, YOU are the one who should be locked up, not them!


----------



## Jitss617

Tijn Von Ingersleben said:


> No one in a position of power is going to fix the border. Those turned over to the border patrol simply claim asylum status and are released into the general population. The rules are this way for a reason.


Please we used to have cowboys that would have shot em or shot at them. If we the people that will control the border


----------



## ozro

Tijn Von Ingersleben said:


> No one in a position of power is going to fix the border. Those turned over to the border patrol simply claim asylum status and are released into the general population. The rules are this way for a reason.



I agree, and I would gladly fetch coffee for bp AND the military if they were given those orders.


----------



## deanrd

Jitss617 said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's sad to see Republicans so terrified of women and babies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Americans are scared and are struggling because of the resources being taken away by illegals.. are you ok with this??
Click to expand...

 You mean like the 20 million people living in Appalachia. The very center of the Republican Party. Some of them don’t even have electricity or running water. 
 So Republicans, being the kind of people they are, gave a $1.5 trillion tax cut to needy billionaires. 
 See Republicans have a heart of gold.  Seriously, where their heart should be, is a coin.


----------



## Jitss617

OldLady said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I heard fetching coffee for the border patrol. However they should be issued live ammo and ordered to shoot to kill any assholes caught invading our country. That is after all the original purpose for having a standing military or even a federal government in the first place. WTF do people think "provide for the common defence" means anyway? It's right up front in the preamble fer pity sake!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a perfect example of why we should not have a "legal" unorganized militia of citizens between 17 and 45.
> They are not "invaders," they are not armed, they are not carrying bubonic plague, and they will not rape your daughter.
> Jesus Christ, YOU are the one who should be locked up, not them!
Click to expand...

They are destroying our culture they refuse to assimilate, they are lowering wages! They are flooding our clinics and hospitals! That is a invasion


----------



## deanrd

OldLady said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's sad to see Republicans so terrified of women and babies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, they look like a really subversive group, don't they?
> 
> I'd certainly be terrified to encounter them.
Click to expand...

 The babies or the right wing militia wearing masks?


----------



## Tijn Von Ingersleben

ozro said:


> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one in a position of power is going to fix the border. Those turned over to the border patrol simply claim asylum status and are released into the general population. The rules are this way for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, and I would gladly fetch coffee for bp AND the military if they were given those orders.
Click to expand...

If they were given which orders?


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Jitss617 said:


> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one in a position of power is going to fix the border. Those turned over to the border patrol simply claim asylum status and are released into the general population. The rules are this way for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Please we used to have cowboys that would have shot em or shot at them. If we the people that will control the border
Click to expand...

It wasn't so much cowboys.  It was the Apache.  The Apache killed Mexican border crossers up to 1915.


----------



## deanrd

Jitss617 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I heard fetching coffee for the border patrol. However they should be issued live ammo and ordered to shoot to kill any assholes caught invading our country. That is after all the original purpose for having a standing military or even a federal government in the first place. WTF do people think "provide for the common defence" means anyway? It's right up front in the preamble fer pity sake!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a perfect example of why we should not have a "legal" unorganized militia of citizens between 17 and 45.
> They are not "invaders," they are not armed, they are not carrying bubonic plague, and they will not rape your daughter.
> Jesus Christ, YOU are the one who should be locked up, not them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are destroying our culture they refuse to assimilate, they are lowering wages! They are flooding our clinics and hospitals! That is a invasion
Click to expand...

 Just stop already. Where the f¥ck are you getting your information from? Fox and Breitbart? 
 The majority of Republicans believe college is bad for America. So should we say they refuse to assimilate. They believe stupid is better? 

The majority of Republicans say colleges are bad for America (yes, really)


----------



## JoeB131

andaronjim said:


> What is wrong with repelling an invading horde of diseased criminals from our country? If killing a few thousand stops the migration, that would be a good thing...Those that die in the desert are far worse, so show those who are willing to make the arduous trek, that it isnt worth it, and save even more lives, by killing a few...The needs of the many out way the needs of the few.



Hey, tell us again what a good Christian you are.  That shit never gets old.


----------



## Jitss617

deanrd said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's sad to see Republicans so terrified of women and babies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Americans are scared and are struggling because of the resources being taken away by illegals.. are you ok with this??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like the 20 million people living in Appalachia. The very center of the Republican Party. Some of them don’t even have electricity or running water.
> So Republicans, being the kind of people they are, gave a $1.5 trillion tax cut to needy billionaires.
> See Republicans have a heart of gold.  Seriously, where their heart should be, is a coin.
Click to expand...

I’d give up all that shit If I could.. id rather be free then have a Dime.. You need some diversity in your life


----------



## Tijn Von Ingersleben

Jitss617 said:


> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one in a position of power is going to fix the border. Those turned over to the border patrol simply claim asylum status and are released into the general population. The rules are this way for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Please we used to have cowboys that would have shot em or shot at them. If we the people that will control the border
Click to expand...

Used to? We USED to have a lot of shit...that doesn't make it so now. We must exist in the now.


----------



## Jitss617

deanrd said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I heard fetching coffee for the border patrol. However they should be issued live ammo and ordered to shoot to kill any assholes caught invading our country. That is after all the original purpose for having a standing military or even a federal government in the first place. WTF do people think "provide for the common defence" means anyway? It's right up front in the preamble fer pity sake!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a perfect example of why we should not have a "legal" unorganized militia of citizens between 17 and 45.
> They are not "invaders," they are not armed, they are not carrying bubonic plague, and they will not rape your daughter.
> Jesus Christ, YOU are the one who should be locked up, not them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are destroying our culture they refuse to assimilate, they are lowering wages! They are flooding our clinics and hospitals! That is a invasion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just stop already. Where the f¥ck are you getting your information from? Fox and Breitbart?
> The majority of Republicans believe college is bad for America. So should we say they refuse to assimilate. They believe stupid is better?
> 
> The majority of Republicans say colleges are bad for America (yes, really)
Click to expand...

No they think getting a college degree and not learning anything is bad which is what’s happening look at the democrat party.. RETARDS.. 

Dude you need diversity of opinion in your life


----------



## Dick Foster

OldLady said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I heard fetching coffee for the border patrol. However they should be issued live ammo and ordered to shoot to kill any assholes caught invading our country. That is after all the original purpose for having a standing military or even a federal government in the first place. WTF do people think "provide for the common defence" means anyway? It's right up front in the preamble fer pity sake!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a perfect example of why we should not have a "legal" unorganized militia of citizens between 17 and 45.
> They are not "invaders," they are not armed, they are not carrying bubonic plague, and they will not rape your daughter.
> Jesus Christ, YOU are the one who should be locked up, not them!
Click to expand...

Yeah well once I was armed with a fully automatic dreaded military assault weapon, shipped to a foreign country and told it was quite okay to shoot it's inhabitants. So just how is it not okay to shoot assholes invading our country? They sure as hell were not invited and they damn well know they are not welcome otherwise they'd present themselves at a legitimate port of entry. Last I heard that was an invader, not a friggin immigrent.
Today maybe you should try reaching around, grabbing the nape of your neck, giving a good hard and sharp yank and extract your head from your ass. You'll be amazed what it  does to hear and see and give your tiny little brain some input for a change.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Rightwing fear, hate, and bigotry.


Left wing duplicity, idiocy, treachery and back stabbing.


----------



## OldLady

Jitss617 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I heard fetching coffee for the border patrol. However they should be issued live ammo and ordered to shoot to kill any assholes caught invading our country. That is after all the original purpose for having a standing military or even a federal government in the first place. WTF do people think "provide for the common defence" means anyway? It's right up front in the preamble fer pity sake!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a perfect example of why we should not have a "legal" unorganized militia of citizens between 17 and 45.
> They are not "invaders," they are not armed, they are not carrying bubonic plague, and they will not rape your daughter.
> Jesus Christ, YOU are the one who should be locked up, not them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are destroying our culture they refuse to assimilate, they are lowering wages! They are flooding our clinics and hospitals! That is a invasion
Click to expand...

That's really not true, but you're going to insist it is, so I'm not bothering to argue about it.  My point about Foster was this lunatic wants to shoot those unarmed people, totally outside the constraints of the law.  It is murder.  Militias are dangerous.


----------



## ozro

Tijn Von Ingersleben said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one in a position of power is going to fix the border. Those turned over to the border patrol simply claim asylum status and are released into the general population. The rules are this way for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, and I would gladly fetch coffee for bp AND the military if they were given those orders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they were given which orders?
Click to expand...


i apologize. i got the wrong quote in there. 
was trying to answer the one about what our military was tasked with.


----------



## Bush92

Jitss617 said:


> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?


True patriots in the tradition of the minutemen. God Bless them all.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...-border-migrants-detain-united-constitutional


----------



## Bush92

ozro said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with repelling an invading horde of diseased criminals from our country?  If killing a few thousand stops the migration, that would be a good thing...Those that die in the desert are far worse, so show those who are willing to make the arduous trek, that it isnt worth it, and save even more lives, by killing a few...The needs of the many out way the needs of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do not have to condone murder. ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Murder isnt defending your borders from diseases that want to cross into our country and kill US.  Murder isnt defending yourself from criminals with the intent to rape our women and kill US.  Is it really that hard to see why we need to "Shoot" people who shouldn't belong here?  They are dying in the 10 of 1000s crossing into areas that will kill them anyway.  Why aren't we just euthanizing them out of their misery...Call it "Post Birth Abortions"..​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This group did the right thing, held them for bp.
> There are those that do not, they kill them. that is murder.
Click to expand...

I agree with both methods if our government will not protect our sovereignty from violent criminals.


----------



## OldLady

Dick Foster said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I heard fetching coffee for the border patrol. However they should be issued live ammo and ordered to shoot to kill any assholes caught invading our country. That is after all the original purpose for having a standing military or even a federal government in the first place. WTF do people think "provide for the common defence" means anyway? It's right up front in the preamble fer pity sake!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a perfect example of why we should not have a "legal" unorganized militia of citizens between 17 and 45.
> They are not "invaders," they are not armed, they are not carrying bubonic plague, and they will not rape your daughter.
> Jesus Christ, YOU are the one who should be locked up, not them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah well once I was armed with a fully automatic dreaded military assault weapon, shipped to a foreign country and told it was quite okay to shoot it's inhabitants. So just how is it not okay to shoot assholes invading our country? They sure as hell were not invited and they damn well know they are not welcome otherwise they'd present themselves at a legitimate port of entry. Last I heard that was an invader, not a friggin immigrent.
> Today maybe you should try reaching around, grabbing the nape of your neck, giving a good hard and sharp yank and extract your head from your ass. You'll be amazed what it  does to hear and see and give your tiny little brain some input for a change.
Click to expand...

The war's over, dude.  They're refugees and economic migrants, and I agree with you that we need to find ways to stop them from coming illegally.  Murdering them is not the solution.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

OldLady said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I heard fetching coffee for the border patrol. However they should be issued live ammo and ordered to shoot to kill any assholes caught invading our country. That is after all the original purpose for having a standing military or even a federal government in the first place. WTF do people think "provide for the common defence" means anyway? It's right up front in the preamble fer pity sake!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a perfect example of why we should not have a "legal" unorganized militia of citizens between 17 and 45.
> They are not "invaders," they are not armed, they are not carrying bubonic plague, and they will not rape your daughter.
> Jesus Christ, YOU are the one who should be locked up, not them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are destroying our culture they refuse to assimilate, they are lowering wages! They are flooding our clinics and hospitals! That is a invasion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's really not true, but you're going to insist it is, so I'm not bothering to argue about it.  My point about Foster was this lunatic wants to shoot those unarmed people, totally outside the constraints of the law.  It is murder.  Militias are dangerous.
Click to expand...

Militias aren't dangerous and they haven't shot anyone.  Although they should.  The cartels routinely shoot invaders belonging to rival cartels.  Or is that a case of Mexicans doing the job Americans won't.   

Don't shoot them.  Take their food and water then scatter them in the desert.  Chase them off the trails.


----------



## Lysistrata

Jitss617 said:


> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?



Why are these white gangs allowed to run ran rampant on our land? The people who do this belong in jail. They are people impersonating U.S. law-enforcement officers, and, in an unofficial sense, are people fraudulently claiming to represent the People of the United States of America.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

deanrd said:


> Just stop already. Where the f¥ck are you getting your information from? Fox and Breitbart?
> The majority of Republicans believe college is bad for America. So should we say they refuse to assimilate. They believe stupid is better?
> 
> The majority of Republicans say colleges are bad for America (yes, really)


Most colleges are now anti diversity of thought and serve as political indoctrination centers, not educators.

It isn't a matter of being stupid (I'm not surprised you can't understand, speaking of stupidity). It's how colleges are
inculcating young minds with biased anti free speech dogma and anti classic Western liberal values. 

But I forgot you were a fan of fascism. So no wonder you don't understand, or pretend you don't understand, what
Newsweak is saying.


----------



## Jitss617

OldLady said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I heard fetching coffee for the border patrol. However they should be issued live ammo and ordered to shoot to kill any assholes caught invading our country. That is after all the original purpose for having a standing military or even a federal government in the first place. WTF do people think "provide for the common defence" means anyway? It's right up front in the preamble fer pity sake!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a perfect example of why we should not have a "legal" unorganized militia of citizens between 17 and 45.
> They are not "invaders," they are not armed, they are not carrying bubonic plague, and they will not rape your daughter.
> Jesus Christ, YOU are the one who should be locked up, not them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are destroying our culture they refuse to assimilate, they are lowering wages! They are flooding our clinics and hospitals! That is a invasion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's really not true, but you're going to insist it is, so I'm not bothering to argue about it.  My point about Foster was this lunatic wants to shoot those unarmed people, totally outside the constraints of the law.  It is murder.  Militias are dangerous.
Click to expand...

It absolutely is I live in it. Democrats are destroying our culture and poor American neighborhoods. 
You think it’s ok to flop African American neighborhoods and stuggling schools with kids that can’t speak English? You think that  helps improve their English skills? Ability to negotiate a fair wage?? 
We ha w clinics in Boston full of people that can’t speak English! Is that good for America??


----------



## ozro

Lysistrata said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are these white gangs allowed to run ran rampant on our land? The people who do this belong in jail. They are people impersonating U.S. law-enforcement officers, and, in an unofficial sense, are people fraudulently claiming to represent the People of the United States of America.
Click to expand...


Since the nm governor, who the legitimate militia answers to, has denounced them, I am in agreement with you.


----------



## Jitss617

Lysistrata said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are these white gangs allowed to run ran rampant on our land? The people who do this belong in jail. They are people impersonating U.S. law-enforcement officers, and, in an unofficial sense, are people fraudulently claiming to represent the People of the United States of America.
Click to expand...

You are missinfmed and racist..


----------



## ph3iron

Jitss617 said:


> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?



Heavily armed fat rubes vs women and children?
Talk about the definition of coward.
You'd be cowering in your doublewide when the first armed guy showed up.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Lysistrata said:


> Why are these white gangs allowed to run ran rampant on our land? The people who do this belong in jail. They are people impersonating U.S. law-enforcement officers, and, in an unofficial sense, are people fraudulently claiming to represent the People of the United States of America.


Do white people scare you? If you are for illegal immigration, as you seem to be, what makes you think the majority of American citizens agree with you? 
Every poll I've ever seen, and every post you've ever made,  says you are full of shit! Am I wrong? I doubt it.


----------



## ph3iron

andaronjim said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with repelling an invading horde of diseased criminals from our country?  If killing a few thousand stops the migration, that would be a good thing...Those that die in the desert are far worse, so show those who are willing to make the arduous trek, that it isnt worth it, and save even more lives, by killing a few...The needs of the many out way the needs of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do not have to condone murder. ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Murder isnt defending your borders from diseases that want to cross into our country and kill US.  Murder isnt defending yourself from criminals with the intent to rape our women and kill US.  Is it really that hard to see why we need to "Shoot" people who shouldn't belong here?  They are dying in the 10 of 1000s crossing into areas that will kill them anyway.  Why aren't we just euthanizing them out of their misery...Call it "Post Birth Abortions"..​
Click to expand...


Amusing how all our Texas squatters are SO righteous


----------



## Jitss617

ph3iron said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heavily armed fat rubes vs women and children?
> Talk about the definition of coward.
> You'd be cowering in your doublewide when the first armed guy showed up.
Click to expand...

They are protecting poor AMERICAN WOMEN AND CHILDREN.. you support American women and children to suffer


----------



## koshergrl

ozro said:


> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do


Er...no, there aren't those that will kill them. 

The killers are always on the left. You idiots are the ones who maintain that instead of institutionalizing crazy people, we should just suicide them...and who maintain that when social policies fail and we end up with a huge population of poorly educated, destitute single mothers, we should just kill their babies.


----------



## koshergrl

ozro said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What government funded militia has ever done good for protecting Americas borders? This privately funded one looks like it works.. the CONSTITUTION allows militias, they must be protected by law.. Barr has our backs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt if Barr has your backs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come and stop us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a militia member? which unit?
> 
> I am AZ Citizens Militia, Delta Force.
> 
> We exist and operate at the pleasure of Gov. Ducey. We are here to assist law enforcment agencies, not to subvert the law.
> 
> I hate coming forward, but am sick of macho clowns talking out their asses.
Click to expand...

You are scumbags.


----------



## ozro

koshergrl said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do
> 
> 
> 
> Er...no, there aren't those that will kill them.
> 
> The killers are always on the left. You idiots are the ones who maintain that instead of institutionalizing crazy people, we should just suicide them...and who maintain that when social policies fail and we end up with a huge population of poorly educated, destitute single mothers, we should just kill their babies.
Click to expand...


m'am, with all due respect you have mistaken me for a liberal. I am a old white guy who goes about armed, lives off grid and drills and trains search and rescue dogs for the AZ Citizens Militia 

nobbody would consider me liberal in any way.

I support theCOC and the rule if law.....not liberal


----------



## ozro

koshergrl said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> 
> 
> What government funded militia has ever done good for protecting Americas borders? This privately funded one looks like it works.. the CONSTITUTION allows militias, they must be protected by law.. Barr has our backs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt if Barr has your backs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come and stop us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a militia member? which unit?
> 
> I am AZ Citizens Militia, Delta Force.
> 
> We exist and operate at the pleasure of Gov. Ducey. We are here to assist law enforcment agencies, not to subvert the law.
> 
> I hate coming forward, but am sick of macho clowns talking out their asses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are scumbags.
Click to expand...


If you get lost out here, tell me that when we find you.

did you miss the part where i do not approve of what this group did?


----------



## OldLady

toobfreak said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
Click to expand...

Why are they wearing masks?


toobfreak said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
Click to expand...

If the United Constitutional Patriots are so great, why are they all wearing masks?  Pro Tip:  If you belong to an organization where it is necessary to hide your face, you are in the wrong organization.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Masks should not be necessary if there are no survivors.


----------



## ozro

OldLady said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they wearing masks?
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the United Constitutional Patriots are so great, why are they all wearing masks?  Pro Tip:  If you belong to an organization where it is necessary to hide your face, you are in the wrong organization.
Click to expand...



It looks like the nm gov did not authorize this group. 
no chain of command.
With no chain of command it is nothing more than a vigilant group.


----------



## OldLady

Jitss617 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> 
> 
> Last I heard fetching coffee for the border patrol. However they should be issued live ammo and ordered to shoot to kill any assholes caught invading our country. That is after all the original purpose for having a standing military or even a federal government in the first place. WTF do people think "provide for the common defence" means anyway? It's right up front in the preamble fer pity sake!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a perfect example of why we should not have a "legal" unorganized militia of citizens between 17 and 45.
> They are not "invaders," they are not armed, they are not carrying bubonic plague, and they will not rape your daughter.
> Jesus Christ, YOU are the one who should be locked up, not them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are destroying our culture they refuse to assimilate, they are lowering wages! They are flooding our clinics and hospitals! That is a invasion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's really not true, but you're going to insist it is, so I'm not bothering to argue about it.  My point about Foster was this lunatic wants to shoot those unarmed people, totally outside the constraints of the law.  It is murder.  Militias are dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely is I live in it. Democrats are destroying our culture and poor American neighborhoods.
> You think it’s ok to flop African American neighborhoods and stuggling schools with kids that can’t speak English? You think that  helps improve their English skills? Ability to negotiate a fair wage??
> We ha w clinics in Boston full of people that can’t speak English! Is that good for America??
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what their language has to do with anything, but I can see it bothers you quite a bit.  You probably speak Spanish pretty well, considering you grew up with it all around you, right?


----------



## Jitss617

OldLady said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they wearing masks?
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the United Constitutional Patriots are so great, why are they all wearing masks?  Pro Tip:  If you belong to an organization where it is necessary to hide your face, you are in the wrong organization.
Click to expand...

Because of technology, I’m
Sure these patriots don’t want the left wing kkk to attack there homes.


----------



## ozro

They hide their faces because they know they are violating state and federal law.


----------



## Jitss617

OldLady said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last I heard fetching coffee for the border patrol. However they should be issued live ammo and ordered to shoot to kill any assholes caught invading our country. That is after all the original purpose for having a standing military or even a federal government in the first place. WTF do people think "provide for the common defence" means anyway? It's right up front in the preamble fer pity sake!
> 
> 
> 
> You're a perfect example of why we should not have a "legal" unorganized militia of citizens between 17 and 45.
> They are not "invaders," they are not armed, they are not carrying bubonic plague, and they will not rape your daughter.
> Jesus Christ, YOU are the one who should be locked up, not them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are destroying our culture they refuse to assimilate, they are lowering wages! They are flooding our clinics and hospitals! That is a invasion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's really not true, but you're going to insist it is, so I'm not bothering to argue about it.  My point about Foster was this lunatic wants to shoot those unarmed people, totally outside the constraints of the law.  It is murder.  Militias are dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely is I live in it. Democrats are destroying our culture and poor American neighborhoods.
> You think it’s ok to flop African American neighborhoods and stuggling schools with kids that can’t speak English? You think that  helps improve their English skills? Ability to negotiate a fair wage??
> We ha w clinics in Boston full of people that can’t speak English! Is that good for America??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure what their language has to do with anything, but I can see it bothers you quite a bit.  You probably speak Spanish pretty well, considering you grew up with it all around you, right?
Click to expand...

No I probably would have if Latinos allowed different cultures in to their groups.. but they dont. It cut my ability to converse in hallways and other social places in shock which has effected me greatly.. I can now speak out about it.


----------



## OldLady

ozro said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they wearing masks?
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the United Constitutional Patriots are so great, why are they all wearing masks?  Pro Tip:  If you belong to an organization where it is necessary to hide your face, you are in the wrong organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like the nm gov did not authorize this group.
> no chain of command.
> With no chain of command it is nothing more than a vigilant group.
Click to expand...

Yup, a roving band of heavily armed men tracking "enemies" in the desert and making up all their own rules as they go along--what could possibly go wrong?
Instead of spending his time vilifying these dispossessed, poor, and powerless people, maybe Trump could have spent his energy pulling together folks who could do something about this.  We need changes made yesterday to our immigration laws, but this administration is just making it harder for people to share ideas and come to a workable compromise.  Instead, we get vigilantes roving the border with guns and extremists here screaming for blood.  We are getting farther and farther away from a solution.


----------



## Jitss617

ozro said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they wearing masks?
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the United Constitutional Patriots are so great, why are they all wearing masks?  Pro Tip:  If you belong to an organization where it is necessary to hide your face, you are in the wrong organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like the nm gov did not authorize this group.
> no chain of command.
> With no chain of command it is nothing more than a vigilant group.
Click to expand...

You want to label patriots protecting America go right ahead


----------



## mudwhistle

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwing fear, hate, and bigotry.
Click to expand...



No. Law-abiding citizens. Is Nancy Pelosi using right-wing fear, hate, and bigotry when she calls the cops on squatters that climbed over her fence and plopped down in her back yard, shit for brains????


----------



## Jitss617

OldLady said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they wearing masks?
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the United Constitutional Patriots are so great, why are they all wearing masks?  Pro Tip:  If you belong to an organization where it is necessary to hide your face, you are in the wrong organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like the nm gov did not authorize this group.
> no chain of command.
> With no chain of command it is nothing more than a vigilant group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, a roving band of heavily armed men tracking "enemies" in the desert and making up all their own rules as they go along--what could possibly go wrong?
> Instead of spending his time vilifying these dispossessed, poor, and powerless people, maybe Trump could have spent his energy pulling together folks who could do something about this.  We need changes made yesterday today our immigration laws, but this administration is just making it harder for people to share ideas and come to a workable compromise.  Instead, we get vigilantes roving the border with guns and extremists here screaming for blood.  We are getting farther and farther away from a solution.
Click to expand...

Good thing you tow weren’t around for the revolution you would have threw John Adams in jail or killed him lol


----------



## ozro

OldLady said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they wearing masks?
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the United Constitutional Patriots are so great, why are they all wearing masks?  Pro Tip:  If you belong to an organization where it is necessary to hide your face, you are in the wrong organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like the nm gov did not authorize this group.
> no chain of command.
> With no chain of command it is nothing more than a vigilant group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, a roving band of heavily armed men tracking "enemies" in the desert and making up all their own rules as they go along--what could possibly go wrong?
> Instead of spending his time vilifying these dispossessed, poor, and powerless people, maybe Trump could have spent his energy pulling together folks who could do something about this.  We need changes made yesterday today our immigration laws, but this administration is just making it harder for people to share ideas and come to a workable compromise.  Instead, we get vigilantes roving the border with guns and extremists here screaming for blood.  We are getting farther and farther away from a solution.
Click to expand...


I am not going to defend President Trump.

He is, however, just another in a long list of so-called leaders to use the bborder for political gain, while doing nothing about it.
its been going on so long it is normal now


----------



## Nosmo King

andaronjim said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with repelling an invading horde of diseased criminals from our country?  If killing a few thousand stops the migration, that would be a good thing...Those that die in the desert are far worse, so show those who are willing to make the arduous trek, that it isnt worth it, and save even more lives, by killing a few...The needs of the many out way the needs of the few.
Click to expand...

America.  Now with vigilantes!

What is it about law you idiots don't understand?


----------



## OldLady

Jitss617 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a perfect example of why we should not have a "legal" unorganized militia of citizens between 17 and 45.
> They are not "invaders," they are not armed, they are not carrying bubonic plague, and they will not rape your daughter.
> Jesus Christ, YOU are the one who should be locked up, not them!
> 
> 
> 
> They are destroying our culture they refuse to assimilate, they are lowering wages! They are flooding our clinics and hospitals! That is a invasion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's really not true, but you're going to insist it is, so I'm not bothering to argue about it.  My point about Foster was this lunatic wants to shoot those unarmed people, totally outside the constraints of the law.  It is murder.  Militias are dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely is I live in it. Democrats are destroying our culture and poor American neighborhoods.
> You think it’s ok to flop African American neighborhoods and stuggling schools with kids that can’t speak English? You think that  helps improve their English skills? Ability to negotiate a fair wage??
> We ha w clinics in Boston full of people that can’t speak English! Is that good for America??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure what their language has to do with anything, but I can see it bothers you quite a bit.  You probably speak Spanish pretty well, considering you grew up with it all around you, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I probably would have if Latinos allowed different cultures in to their groups.. but they dont. It cut my ability to converse in hallways and other social places in shock which has effected me greatly.. I can now speak out about it.
Click to expand...


----------



## OldLady

ozro said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they wearing masks?
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the United Constitutional Patriots are so great, why are they all wearing masks?  Pro Tip:  If you belong to an organization where it is necessary to hide your face, you are in the wrong organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like the nm gov did not authorize this group.
> no chain of command.
> With no chain of command it is nothing more than a vigilant group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, a roving band of heavily armed men tracking "enemies" in the desert and making up all their own rules as they go along--what could possibly go wrong?
> Instead of spending his time vilifying these dispossessed, poor, and powerless people, maybe Trump could have spent his energy pulling together folks who could do something about this.  We need changes made yesterday today our immigration laws, but this administration is just making it harder for people to share ideas and come to a workable compromise.  Instead, we get vigilantes roving the border with guns and extremists here screaming for blood.  We are getting farther and farther away from a solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not going to defend President Trump.
> 
> He is, however, just another in a long list of so-called leaders to use the bborder for political gain, while doing nothing about it.
> its been going on so long it is normal now
Click to expand...

Obama deported more illegals than any other President before him.  There was not enough emphasis on penalizing employers who hire illegals, though.  Until that happens, I will agree with you that the government is talking out one side of its mouth and facilitating cheap labor on the other.


----------



## OldLady

Jitss617 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they wearing masks?
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the United Constitutional Patriots are so great, why are they all wearing masks?  Pro Tip:  If you belong to an organization where it is necessary to hide your face, you are in the wrong organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like the nm gov did not authorize this group.
> no chain of command.
> With no chain of command it is nothing more than a vigilant group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, a roving band of heavily armed men tracking "enemies" in the desert and making up all their own rules as they go along--what could possibly go wrong?
> Instead of spending his time vilifying these dispossessed, poor, and powerless people, maybe Trump could have spent his energy pulling together folks who could do something about this.  We need changes made yesterday today our immigration laws, but this administration is just making it harder for people to share ideas and come to a workable compromise.  Instead, we get vigilantes roving the border with guns and extremists here screaming for blood.  We are getting farther and farther away from a solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good thing you tow weren’t around for the revolution you would have threw John Adams in jail or killed him lol
Click to expand...

As soon as you revolutionaries came to my house bearing torches and a bucket of tar and sack of feathers, though, I would have taken your side fast.


----------



## ozro

OldLady said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are they wearing masks?
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the United Constitutional Patriots are so great, why are they all wearing masks?  Pro Tip:  If you belong to an organization where it is necessary to hide your face, you are in the wrong organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like the nm gov did not authorize this group.
> no chain of command.
> With no chain of command it is nothing more than a vigilant group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, a roving band of heavily armed men tracking "enemies" in the desert and making up all their own rules as they go along--what could possibly go wrong?
> Instead of spending his time vilifying these dispossessed, poor, and powerless people, maybe Trump could have spent his energy pulling together folks who could do something about this.  We need changes made yesterday today our immigration laws, but this administration is just making it harder for people to share ideas and come to a workable compromise.  Instead, we get vigilantes roving the border with guns and extremists here screaming for blood.  We are getting farther and farther away from a solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good thing you tow weren’t around for the revolution you would have threw John Adams in jail or killed him lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As soon as you revolutionaries came to my house bearing torches and a bucket of tar and sack of feathers, though, I would have taken your side fast.
Click to expand...


check your history jt, even the colonial militia operated with authority. it may not have been legal as the king wasnt the authority, but it was a chain of command


----------



## ptbw forever

ozro said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are these white gangs allowed to run ran rampant on our land? The people who do this belong in jail. They are people impersonating U.S. law-enforcement officers, and, in an unofficial sense, are people fraudulently claiming to represent the People of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the nm governor, who the legitimate militia answers to, has denounced them, I am in agreement with you.
Click to expand...

The New Mexico Governor is a Democrat traitor who sides with the invaders.


----------



## ozro

ptbw forever said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are these white gangs allowed to run ran rampant on our land? The people who do this belong in jail. They are people impersonating U.S. law-enforcement officers, and, in an unofficial sense, are people fraudulently claiming to represent the People of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the nm governor, who the legitimate militia answers to, has denounced them, I am in agreement with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The New Mexico Governor is a Democrat traitor who sides with the invaders.
Click to expand...

nonetheless, he retains authority over his state militias as well as who is legally alllowed to operate in his state.


----------



## OldLady

ozro said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are they wearing masks?
> If the United Constitutional Patriots are so great, why are they all wearing masks?  Pro Tip:  If you belong to an organization where it is necessary to hide your face, you are in the wrong organization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like the nm gov did not authorize this group.
> no chain of command.
> With no chain of command it is nothing more than a vigilant group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, a roving band of heavily armed men tracking "enemies" in the desert and making up all their own rules as they go along--what could possibly go wrong?
> Instead of spending his time vilifying these dispossessed, poor, and powerless people, maybe Trump could have spent his energy pulling together folks who could do something about this.  We need changes made yesterday today our immigration laws, but this administration is just making it harder for people to share ideas and come to a workable compromise.  Instead, we get vigilantes roving the border with guns and extremists here screaming for blood.  We are getting farther and farther away from a solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good thing you tow weren’t around for the revolution you would have threw John Adams in jail or killed him lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As soon as you revolutionaries came to my house bearing torches and a bucket of tar and sack of feathers, though, I would have taken your side fast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> check your history jt, even the colonial militia operated with authority. it may not have been legal as the king wasnt the authority, but it was a chain of command
Click to expand...

Yes, every town had a Captain that kept the militia in order; they trained regularly, too.  I have read a lot of 1700's town records.  Each had its well organized militia and it definitely had a command structure.


----------



## ozro

OldLady said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like the nm gov did not authorize this group.
> no chain of command.
> With no chain of command it is nothing more than a vigilant group.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, a roving band of heavily armed men tracking "enemies" in the desert and making up all their own rules as they go along--what could possibly go wrong?
> Instead of spending his time vilifying these dispossessed, poor, and powerless people, maybe Trump could have spent his energy pulling together folks who could do something about this.  We need changes made yesterday today our immigration laws, but this administration is just making it harder for people to share ideas and come to a workable compromise.  Instead, we get vigilantes roving the border with guns and extremists here screaming for blood.  We are getting farther and farther away from a solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good thing you tow weren’t around for the revolution you would have threw John Adams in jail or killed him lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As soon as you revolutionaries came to my house bearing torches and a bucket of tar and sack of feathers, though, I would have taken your side fast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> check your history jt, even the colonial militia operated with authority. it may not have been legal as the king wasnt the authority, but it was a chain of command
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, every town had a Captain that kept the militia in order; they trained regularly, too.  I have read a lot of 1700's town records.  Each had its well organized militia and it definitely had a command structure.
Click to expand...


probably the most famous was capt church of rehobeth because of the king philip war. but there were hundreds. even then operating outside authority was a crime. 

i think these guys are facing legal troubles


----------



## OldLady

ozro said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, a roving band of heavily armed men tracking "enemies" in the desert and making up all their own rules as they go along--what could possibly go wrong?
> Instead of spending his time vilifying these dispossessed, poor, and powerless people, maybe Trump could have spent his energy pulling together folks who could do something about this.  We need changes made yesterday today our immigration laws, but this administration is just making it harder for people to share ideas and come to a workable compromise.  Instead, we get vigilantes roving the border with guns and extremists here screaming for blood.  We are getting farther and farther away from a solution.
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing you tow weren’t around for the revolution you would have threw John Adams in jail or killed him lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As soon as you revolutionaries came to my house bearing torches and a bucket of tar and sack of feathers, though, I would have taken your side fast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> check your history jt, even the colonial militia operated with authority. it may not have been legal as the king wasnt the authority, but it was a chain of command
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, every town had a Captain that kept the militia in order; they trained regularly, too.  I have read a lot of 1700's town records.  Each had its well organized militia and it definitely had a command structure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> probably the most famous was capt church of rehobeth because of the king philip war. but there were hundreds. even then operating outside authority was a crime.
> 
> i think these guys are facing legal troubles
Click to expand...

Of course groups like this are outside the law, but if they haven't hurt anyone, I wonder who would complain?  BP seems to tolerate them.  The articles say they have held onto border jumpers before until the BP arrives.


----------



## ozro

OldLady said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing you tow weren’t around for the revolution you would have threw John Adams in jail or killed him lol
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as you revolutionaries came to my house bearing torches and a bucket of tar and sack of feathers, though, I would have taken your side fast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> check your history jt, even the colonial militia operated with authority. it may not have been legal as the king wasnt the authority, but it was a chain of command
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, every town had a Captain that kept the militia in order; they trained regularly, too.  I have read a lot of 1700's town records.  Each had its well organized militia and it definitely had a command structure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> probably the most famous was capt church of rehobeth because of the king philip war. but there were hundreds. even then operating outside authority was a crime.
> 
> i think these guys are facing legal troubles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course groups like this are outside the law, but if they haven't hurt anyone, I wonder who would complain?  BP seems to tolerate them.  The articles say they have held onto border jumpers before until the BP arrives.
Click to expand...


m'am, BP only tolerates groups operating with authority. the rest are run off or arrested. even drs without borders is required to have permission(authority).

You know what i did when i did my 2 week stint along the border?
we cleaned out camp sites, packed out trash, maintained aid stations for bp. guided a few folks in to thosse aid stations tooo
we would never have been ordered to a mission as this group did. if we had done this we would all be in a desert jailhouse.

What we do is search and rescue. thats our main purpose and what we train for 95% of the time.


----------



## OldLady

ozro said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as you revolutionaries came to my house bearing torches and a bucket of tar and sack of feathers, though, I would have taken your side fast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> check your history jt, even the colonial militia operated with authority. it may not have been legal as the king wasnt the authority, but it was a chain of command
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, every town had a Captain that kept the militia in order; they trained regularly, too.  I have read a lot of 1700's town records.  Each had its well organized militia and it definitely had a command structure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> probably the most famous was capt church of rehobeth because of the king philip war. but there were hundreds. even then operating outside authority was a crime.
> 
> i think these guys are facing legal troubles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course groups like this are outside the law, but if they haven't hurt anyone, I wonder who would complain?  BP seems to tolerate them.  The articles say they have held onto border jumpers before until the BP arrives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> m'am, BP only tolerates groups operating with authority. the rest are run off or arrested. even drs without borders is required to have permission(authority).
> 
> You know what i did when i did my 2 week stint along the border?
> we cleaned out camp sites, packed out trash, maintained aid stations for bp. guided a few folks in to thosse aid stations tooo
> we would never have been ordered to a mission as this group did. if we had done this we would all be in a desert jailhouse.
> 
> What we do is search and rescue. thats our main purpose and what we train for 95% of the time.
Click to expand...

The article said they would alert BP to illegals jumping the border.  I guess you're right, they hadn't been actually "arresting" them and holding them at gunpoint before.


----------



## Toro

Jitss617 said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Reply
> 
> says the cowardly liar hiding behind his computer screen.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a record that proves I’m a one man militia in Boston and any of you libs in Boston want to find out let me know
Click to expand...


https://www.philhendrieshow.com/ph_character/jay-santos-2/


----------



## ozro

OldLady said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> check your history jt, even the colonial militia operated with authority. it may not have been legal as the king wasnt the authority, but it was a chain of command
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, every town had a Captain that kept the militia in order; they trained regularly, too.  I have read a lot of 1700's town records.  Each had its well organized militia and it definitely had a command structure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> probably the most famous was capt church of rehobeth because of the king philip war. but there were hundreds. even then operating outside authority was a crime.
> 
> i think these guys are facing legal troubles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course groups like this are outside the law, but if they haven't hurt anyone, I wonder who would complain?  BP seems to tolerate them.  The articles say they have held onto border jumpers before until the BP arrives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> m'am, BP only tolerates groups operating with authority. the rest are run off or arrested. even drs without borders is required to have permission(authority).
> 
> You know what i did when i did my 2 week stint along the border?
> we cleaned out camp sites, packed out trash, maintained aid stations for bp. guided a few folks in to thosse aid stations tooo
> we would never have been ordered to a mission as this group did. if we had done this we would all be in a desert jailhouse.
> 
> What we do is search and rescue. thats our main purpose and what we train for 95% of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The article said they would alert BP to illegals jumping the border.  I guess you're right, they hadn't been actually "arresting" them and holding them at gunpoint before.
Click to expand...


tell you this:
i fetched coffee for several bp agents and thanked them for allowing me to do so.


----------



## ozro

"Approximately half the states maintain laws regulating private militias. Generally, these laws prohibit the parading and exercising of armed private militias in public, but do not forbid the formation of private militias."

from

Second Amendment - Private Militias


these guys were operating in public, in direct defiance of nm law.


----------



## toobfreak

OldLady said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they wearing masks?
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the United Constitutional Patriots are so great, why are they all wearing masks?  Pro Tip:  If you belong to an organization where it is necessary to hide your face, you are in the wrong organization.
Click to expand...



I dunno, Lady, if that concerns you, why not ask them, not me!  I'd guess so that they cannot be identified and targeted by Mexican nationals or left-wingnut radicals here in this country.  Hard to say who is more dangerous, Mexican drug gangs or the flippant kooks who assault old people simply for wearing a MAGA ball cap.


----------



## toobfreak

ozro said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they wearing masks?
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the United Constitutional Patriots are so great, why are they all wearing masks?  Pro Tip:  If you belong to an organization where it is necessary to hide your face, you are in the wrong organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like the nm gov did not authorize this group.
> no chain of command.
> With no chain of command it is nothing more than a vigilant group.
Click to expand...



If NM doesn't want citizen vigilante groups defending our borders then the governor should get off his flabby ass and start doing his job that he is there to do.


----------



## mudwhistle

OldLady said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are they wearing masks?
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the United Constitutional Patriots are so great, why are they all wearing masks?  Pro Tip:  If you belong to an organization where it is necessary to hide your face, you are in the wrong organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like the nm gov did not authorize this group.
> no chain of command.
> With no chain of command it is nothing more than a vigilant group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, a roving band of heavily armed men tracking "enemies" in the desert and making up all their own rules as they go along--what could possibly go wrong?
> Instead of spending his time vilifying these dispossessed, poor, and powerless people, maybe Trump could have spent his energy pulling together folks who could do something about this.  We need changes made yesterday today our immigration laws, but this administration is just making it harder for people to share ideas and come to a workable compromise.  Instead, we get vigilantes roving the border with guns and extremists here screaming for blood.  We are getting farther and farther away from a solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not going to defend President Trump.
> 
> He is, however, just another in a long list of so-called leaders to use the bborder for political gain, while doing nothing about it.
> its been going on so long it is normal now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Obama deported more illegals than any other President before him.  *There was not enough emphasis on penalizing employers who hire illegals, though.  Until that happens, I will agree with you that the government is talking out one side of its mouth and facilitating cheap labor on the other.
Click to expand...

YET ANOTHER LIE BY THE MSM. 

Oh BTW. How come Obama is this really nice guy when he separated families and deported illegal immigrants in record numbers???? 

Keep swallowing, old lady. Remember to cup the balls while you're at it.


----------



## ozro

toobfreak said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they wearing masks?
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the United Constitutional Patriots are so great, why are they all wearing masks?  Pro Tip:  If you belong to an organization where it is necessary to hide your face, you are in the wrong organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like the nm gov did not authorize this group.
> no chain of command.
> With no chain of command it is nothing more than a vigilant group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If NM doesn't want citizen vigilante groups defending our borders then the governor should get off his flabby ass and start doing his job that he is there to do.
Click to expand...


so you are advocating against the rule of law. 

that never goes well


----------



## bodecea

andaronjim said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with repelling an invading horde of diseased criminals from our country?  If killing a few thousand stops the migration, that would be a good thing...Those that die in the desert are far worse, so show those who are willing to make the arduous trek, that it isnt worth it, and save even more lives, by killing a few...The needs of the many out way the needs of the few.
Click to expand...

CRC support of murder.  Not surprising at all.


----------



## Pilot1

ozro said:


> "Approximately half the states maintain laws regulating private militias. Generally, these laws prohibit the parading and exercising of armed private militias in public, but do not forbid the formation of private militias."
> 
> from
> 
> Second Amendment - Private Militias
> 
> 
> these guys were operating in public, in direct defiance of nm law.



Those laws are illegal because they nullify Federal Law and the Constitution. Corrupt courts, and corrupt politicians allow them to stand.  There is absolutely NO reason private citizens need the government's permission to congregate as an armed force.  NONE.


----------



## bodecea

Jitss617 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What government funded militia has ever done good for protecting Americas borders? This privately funded one looks like it works.. the CONSTITUTION allows militias, they must be protected by law.. Barr has our backs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt if Barr has your backs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come and stop us
Click to expand...

"Us"?   You are out there?   Or are you just talking tough behind your nice safe keyboard?


----------



## toobfreak

OldLady said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they wearing masks?
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the United Constitutional Patriots are so great, why are they all wearing masks?  Pro Tip:  If you belong to an organization where it is necessary to hide your face, you are in the wrong organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like the nm gov did not authorize this group.
> no chain of command.
> With no chain of command it is nothing more than a vigilant group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, a roving band of heavily armed men tracking "enemies" in the desert and making up all their own rules as they go along--what could possibly go wrong?
> Instead of spending his time vilifying these dispossessed, poor, and powerless people, maybe Trump could have spent his energy pulling together folks who could do something about this.  We need changes made yesterday to our immigration laws, but this administration is just making it harder for people to share ideas and come to a workable compromise.  Instead, we get vigilantes roving the border with guns and extremists here screaming for blood.  We are getting farther and farther away from a solution.
Click to expand...



*BULL.*  Where do you get off characterizing a bunch of people-- -- -- HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS each year that:

You don't know
Have never seen nor met
Haven't the first clue why they are here?
Sure some of them are POOR, they are MEXICANS.  Sure many of them are English literate, they are MEXICANS.  Sure many of them are uneducated, unskilled and dirty and full of disease, they are MEXICANS.  I'd like to help every person in this world, but IT'S A BIG FRICKING WORLD, Honey, and we are just one country.

A majority of the world thinks and would be better off living HERE under our living standard, but THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT OUR RESPONSIBILITY.

*IT IS MEXICO'S RESPONSIBILITY.  GET IT???*

I am SICK AND TIRED of people acting like it is a blessing and honor to us to take anyone in with open arms unasked, just because they show up here and totally ignore the:

ECONOMIC IMPACT
THE CRIME IMPACT
THE DRUG SCENE
THE INCREASED PRESSURE ON OUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM
OUR WELFARE SYSTEM
JOBS AND WAGE LEVELS
SCHOOLS
ALL OF THIS HAS TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE, and it all comes out of resources that could have been better used for our own people.

Please don't insult me by suggesting that none of these people are here for crime, robbery, theft, murder, and drug trafficking.

THERE IS A LEGAL PROCESS for immigrating legally here.  When my grandparents came here from Europe,they went through Ellis Island and were checked for disease, asked where they were going, given tests, asked for documentation, skills, and how they planned TO SUPPORT THEMSELVES.

If the immigration system doesn't work well, takes too long for deserving people, the solution is to FIX IT, not break down our border wall, walk away and just pay no attention to who comes here or why.  In another ten years at this rate, we will be OVERRUN with Mexicans and it won't be America anymore, we will be annexed to Mexico with 400 billion poor, uneducated, unskilled people in this country living at low wages. And all of them speaking Spanish.

I'm frankly sick and tired of everytime I go out, I run into people speaking a foreign language.

That may be YOUR vision for this country, but it sure as hell isn't mine, nor my parents, nor their parents, nor the founders of this country. Immigrate to America, you do it LEGALLY, and you come here to be AN AMERICAN and adopt OUR CULTURE, values and ways, not bring yours.  Just like every other generation before us.


----------



## Jitss617

OldLady said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are they wearing masks?
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the United Constitutional Patriots are so great, why are they all wearing masks?  Pro Tip:  If you belong to an organization where it is necessary to hide your face, you are in the wrong organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like the nm gov did not authorize this group.
> no chain of command.
> With no chain of command it is nothing more than a vigilant group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, a roving band of heavily armed men tracking "enemies" in the desert and making up all their own rules as they go along--what could possibly go wrong?
> Instead of spending his time vilifying these dispossessed, poor, and powerless people, maybe Trump could have spent his energy pulling together folks who could do something about this.  We need changes made yesterday today our immigration laws, but this administration is just making it harder for people to share ideas and come to a workable compromise.  Instead, we get vigilantes roving the border with guns and extremists here screaming for blood.  We are getting farther and farther away from a solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not going to defend President Trump.
> 
> He is, however, just another in a long list of so-called leaders to use the bborder for political gain, while doing nothing about it.
> its been going on so long it is normal now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama deported more illegals than any other President before him.  There was not enough emphasis on penalizing employers who hire illegals, though.  Until that happens, I will agree with you that the government is talking out one side of its mouth and facilitating cheap labor on the other.
Click to expand...

No he didn’t they called a catch a deportation.. but they were released.. fake news everyone knows this.. you democrats lack proper information


----------



## toobfreak

Jitss617 said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they wearing masks?
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the United Constitutional Patriots are so great, why are they all wearing masks?  Pro Tip:  If you belong to an organization where it is necessary to hide your face, you are in the wrong organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like the nm gov did not authorize this group.
> no chain of command.
> With no chain of command it is nothing more than a vigilant group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want to label patriots protecting America go right ahead
Click to expand...



Funny (and sad really) how much more quickly and easily the American liberal finds it to label and denigrate their own people before a foreigner (and a criminal invader).  Just remember, WE AREN'T THE PEOPLE WITH A PROBLEM.  We aren't invading another country.  We are just minding our own business.  Want some contrast, go try crossing over into Mexico illegally without a passport, AND SEE WHERE IT GETS YOU.

*THERE WON'T BE* any throngs of well-wishers standing around with open arms looking to shower you with rewards.  Must be that BAD WIRING in some people's heads that ultimately makes them become leftists.


----------



## Jitss617

OldLady said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I heard fetching coffee for the border patrol. However they should be issued live ammo and ordered to shoot to kill any assholes caught invading our country. That is after all the original purpose for having a standing military or even a federal government in the first place. WTF do people think "provide for the common defence" means anyway? It's right up front in the preamble fer pity sake!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a perfect example of why we should not have a "legal" unorganized militia of citizens between 17 and 45.
> They are not "invaders," they are not armed, they are not carrying bubonic plague, and they will not rape your daughter.
> Jesus Christ, YOU are the one who should be locked up, not them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah well once I was armed with a fully automatic dreaded military assault weapon, shipped to a foreign country and told it was quite okay to shoot it's inhabitants. So just how is it not okay to shoot assholes invading our country? They sure as hell were not invited and they damn well know they are not welcome otherwise they'd present themselves at a legitimate port of entry. Last I heard that was an invader, not a friggin immigrent.
> Today maybe you should try reaching around, grabbing the nape of your neck, giving a good hard and sharp yank and extract your head from your ass. You'll be amazed what it  does to hear and see and give your tiny little brain some input for a change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The war's over, dude.  They're refugees and economic migrants, and I agree with you that we need to find ways to stop them from coming illegally.  Murdering them is not the solution.
Click to expand...

You are the reason women weren’t  alllowed to vote let men do their jobs and protect you.. you have a big mouth until shit hits the fan and you are begging milita men to save your big mouth


----------



## toobfreak

ozro said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they wearing masks?
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the United Constitutional Patriots are so great, why are they all wearing masks?  Pro Tip:  If you belong to an organization where it is necessary to hide your face, you are in the wrong organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like the nm gov did not authorize this group.
> no chain of command.
> With no chain of command it is nothing more than a vigilant group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, a roving band of heavily armed men tracking "enemies" in the desert and making up all their own rules as they go along--what could possibly go wrong?
> Instead of spending his time vilifying these dispossessed, poor, and powerless people, maybe Trump could have spent his energy pulling together folks who could do something about this.  We need changes made yesterday today our immigration laws, but this administration is just making it harder for people to share ideas and come to a workable compromise.  Instead, we get vigilantes roving the border with guns and extremists here screaming for blood.  We are getting farther and farther away from a solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not going to defend President Trump.
> 
> He is, however, just another in a long list of so-called leaders to use the bborder for political gain, while doing nothing about it.
> its been going on so long it is normal now
Click to expand...



I'm sorry, I must have missed something.  Hasn't it been president Trump who has been trying to get appropriations for the wall?  It wasn't Hillary, It wasn't Barry.  It wasn't Bush or Gore or Clinton.  And it certainly won't be Jeb or Ted or Kerry or Joe Biden.  Bitch to your congressman.


----------



## Jitss617

OldLady said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like the nm gov did not authorize this group.
> no chain of command.
> With no chain of command it is nothing more than a vigilant group.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, a roving band of heavily armed men tracking "enemies" in the desert and making up all their own rules as they go along--what could possibly go wrong?
> Instead of spending his time vilifying these dispossessed, poor, and powerless people, maybe Trump could have spent his energy pulling together folks who could do something about this.  We need changes made yesterday today our immigration laws, but this administration is just making it harder for people to share ideas and come to a workable compromise.  Instead, we get vigilantes roving the border with guns and extremists here screaming for blood.  We are getting farther and farther away from a solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good thing you tow weren’t around for the revolution you would have threw John Adams in jail or killed him lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As soon as you revolutionaries came to my house bearing torches and a bucket of tar and sack of feathers, though, I would have taken your side fast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> check your history jt, even the colonial militia operated with authority. it may not have been legal as the king wasnt the authority, but it was a chain of command
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, every town had a Captain that kept the militia in order; they trained regularly, too.  I have read a lot of 1700's town records.  Each had its well organized militia and it definitely had a command structure.
Click to expand...

Who said that these men don’t? Do you have a name? Do you know anything about them?? Stop your ad hominem.


----------



## Jitss617

ozro said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, every town had a Captain that kept the militia in order; they trained regularly, too.  I have read a lot of 1700's town records.  Each had its well organized militia and it definitely had a command structure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> probably the most famous was capt church of rehobeth because of the king philip war. but there were hundreds. even then operating outside authority was a crime.
> 
> i think these guys are facing legal troubles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course groups like this are outside the law, but if they haven't hurt anyone, I wonder who would complain?  BP seems to tolerate them.  The articles say they have held onto border jumpers before until the BP arrives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> m'am, BP only tolerates groups operating with authority. the rest are run off or arrested. even drs without borders is required to have permission(authority).
> 
> You know what i did when i did my 2 week stint along the border?
> we cleaned out camp sites, packed out trash, maintained aid stations for bp. guided a few folks in to thosse aid stations tooo
> we would never have been ordered to a mission as this group did. if we had done this we would all be in a desert jailhouse.
> 
> What we do is search and rescue. thats our main purpose and what we train for 95% of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The article said they would alert BP to illegals jumping the border.  I guess you're right, they hadn't been actually "arresting" them and holding them at gunpoint before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> tell you this:
> i fetched coffee for several bp agents and thanked them for allowing me to do so.
Click to expand...

You can fetch me coffee to boy


----------



## toobfreak

OldLady said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are they wearing masks?
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the United Constitutional Patriots are so great, why are they all wearing masks?  Pro Tip:  If you belong to an organization where it is necessary to hide your face, you are in the wrong organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like the nm gov did not authorize this group.
> no chain of command.
> With no chain of command it is nothing more than a vigilant group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, a roving band of heavily armed men tracking "enemies" in the desert and making up all their own rules as they go along--what could possibly go wrong?
> Instead of spending his time vilifying these dispossessed, poor, and powerless people, maybe Trump could have spent his energy pulling together folks who could do something about this.  We need changes made yesterday today our immigration laws, but this administration is just making it harder for people to share ideas and come to a workable compromise.  Instead, we get vigilantes roving the border with guns and extremists here screaming for blood.  We are getting farther and farther away from a solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good thing you tow weren’t around for the revolution you would have threw John Adams in jail or killed him lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As soon as you revolutionaries came to my house bearing torches and a bucket of tar and sack of feathers, though, I would have taken your side fast.
Click to expand...


Lady, you seem to have a very jaded view of your nation's history.  Maybe you'd be better off moving to another country for a few years for a reality adjustment.  Only question will be how long before you are glad to come back here.


----------



## Jitss617

bodecea said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What government funded militia has ever done good for protecting Americas borders? This privately funded one looks like it works.. the CONSTITUTION allows militias, they must be protected by law.. Barr has our backs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt if Barr has your backs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come and stop us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Us"?   You are out there?   Or are you just talking tough behind your nice safe keyboard?
Click to expand...

I confront libs daily on the streets


----------



## Natural Citizen

Jitss617 said:


> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?



What do you mean by 'us'?

Have your balls even dropped yet? You don't act like it.


----------



## Jitss617

Natural Citizen said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by 'us'?
> 
> Have your balls even dropped yet? You don't act like it.
Click to expand...

I seen more  in my first 15 years of life then you will ever see


----------



## toobfreak

ozro said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they wearing masks?
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the United Constitutional Patriots are so great, why are they all wearing masks?  Pro Tip:  If you belong to an organization where it is necessary to hide your face, you are in the wrong organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like the nm gov did not authorize this group.
> no chain of command.
> With no chain of command it is nothing more than a vigilant group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If NM doesn't want citizen vigilante groups defending our borders then the governor should get off his flabby ass and start doing his job that he is there to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you are advocating against the rule of law.
> 
> that never goes well
Click to expand...







Here's your law.  Get with it.  THE WHOLE POINT TO THE US CONSTITUTION is that when your government is out of order, it is up to the people to fix it.  We are CITIZENS, not subjects.  WE The People CONSENT to be governed, so long as our government is lawful and just.

THEY BETTER GET WITH IT SOON, and fix the border.  If only we could get all 535 of them to WORK AS HARD at fixing the nation's problems as they work at now trying to find a reason to impeach Trump because he didn't want WHAT HE KNEW to be an absurd investigation into him, being driven by Hillary and the democratic deep state, the most legally offensive bunch in this country, we would have:

Built the border wall,
Found good jobs for everyone,
Good cheap healthcare,
Free education, and

Fixed the crumbling infrastructure by now.
We can't get them even STARTED on any of the above, but they sure can tear quickly like a cat on a mouse into a mad attempt to get a republican out of office so he can't win a second term.

AM I THE ONLY PERSON who gets the feeling our politicians only work for themselves?


----------



## bodecea

Natural Citizen said:


> The problem with this kind of thing is that innocent people have been killed in the past, homeowners in most cases.


American citizens out minding their own business....


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Tipsycatlover said:


> The invaders were turned in.  The militia could be more effective.



TALK is cheap.    Join them, then comment.

The men and women brave enough to actually put themselves in harm's way to try to protect their country are THE REAL PATRIOTS.


----------



## Jitss617

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The invaders were turned in.  The militia could be more effective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TALK is cheap.    Join them, then comment.
Click to expand...

I am one


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Jitss617 said:


> I am one



Can you explain what you mean by that?


----------



## Jitss617

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain what you mean by that?
Click to expand...

You made a comment and you don’t know what you meant? Lol dumb ass


----------



## Vandalshandle

Trump is, indeed, probably applauding these militia guys. Trump routinely tramples on the Constitution and civil rights of Americans. Incidentally. even the border patrol doesn't hold suspected illegal immigrants at gun point, unless there is a specific threat to someone.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Jitss617 said:


> You made a comment and you don’t know what you meant? Lol dumb ass



Was that necessary?
I was about to tell you how much respect I had for you if you really were going to the border to help defend it.

I did not want to assume anything.   But never mind.   You've shown your true colors.


----------



## Jitss617

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made a comment and you don’t know what you meant? Lol dumb ass
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was that necessary?
> I was about to tell you how much respect I had for you if you really were going to the border to help defend it.
> 
> I did not want to assume anything.   But never mind.   You've shown your true colors.
Click to expand...

Border and cities,, where do you think they move to? Poor areas.. I confront the left wing for the agenda that allows them to destroy America


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Vandalshandle said:


> Trump is, indeed, probably applauding these militia guys. Trump routinely tramples on the Constitution and civil rights of Americans. Incidentally. even the border patrol doesn't hold suspected illegal immigrants at gun point, unless there is a specific threat to someone.



Funny how quick you use the "Constitution Card" against Americans.....but have no problem with the illegal invasion of the homeland of those same Americans.

You are a threat.


----------



## Jitss617

Vandalshandle said:


> Trump is, indeed, probably applauding these militia guys. Trump routinely tramples on the Constitution and civil rights of Americans. Incidentally. even the border patrol doesn't hold suspected illegal immigrants at gun point, unless there is a specific threat to someone.


We are supposed to have militia not a standing army


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Jitss617 said:


> Border and cities,, where do you think they move to? Poor areas.. I confront the left wing for the agenda that allows them to destroy America



So you are not actually part of the militia mentioned in the article.


----------



## bodecea

Jitss617 said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Reply
> 
> says the cowardly liar hiding behind his computer screen.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a record that proves I’m a one man militia in Boston and any of you libs in Boston want to find out let me know
Click to expand...

Sure, hun....


----------



## Jitss617

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Border and cities,, where do you think they move to? Poor areas.. I confront the left wing for the agenda that allows them to destroy America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are not actually part of the militia mentioned in the article.
Click to expand...

No I am my own militia


----------



## Natural Citizen

Jitss617 said:


> I seen more  in my first 15 years of life then you will ever see



Heh heh. Something tells me you'd shit your pants if someone yelld Boo! at you.


----------



## Jitss617

Natural Citizen said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seen more  in my first 15 years of life then you will ever see
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh heh. Something tells me you'd shit your pants if someone yelld Boo! at you.
Click to expand...

Come find out snow flake


----------



## bodecea

Jitss617 said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by 'us'?
> 
> Have your balls even dropped yet? You don't act like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I seen more  in my first 15 years of life then you will ever see
Click to expand...

So..your voice crack yet?


----------



## Jitss617

bodecea said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by 'us'?
> 
> Have your balls even dropped yet? You don't act like it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I seen more  in my first 15 years of life then you will ever see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So..your voice crack yet?
Click to expand...

Has Obama’s lol


----------



## Natural Citizen

Jitss617 said:


> We are supposed to have militia ....QUOTE]



Acting through their state governements ya dumb motherfucker.

*New Mexico government rips civilian militia for detaining 200 migrants at gunpoint near border*


----------



## Jitss617

Natural Citizen said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are supposed to have militia ....QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acting through their state governements ya dumb motherfucker
Click to expand...

Where does the constitution say that


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Border and cities,, where do you think they move to? Poor areas.. I confront the left wing for the agenda that allows them to destroy America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are not actually part of the militia mentioned in the article.
Click to expand...


And yet you called ME a dumb ass for trying to clarify......

ooooooooKAY then


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Jitss617 said:


> I confront libs daily on the streets



And apparently those on the same side as well.


----------



## Natural Citizen

This is not, as the article claims, a "New Mexico militia."

A "New Mexico militia" would act _through _the state.

Just because some dolts wanna play cowboy and happen to be in New Mexico doesn't make it a "New Mexico militia."


----------



## Jitss617

BasicHumanUnit said:


> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Border and cities,, where do you think they move to? Poor areas.. I confront the left wing for the agenda that allows them to destroy America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are not actually part of the militia mentioned in the article.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you called ME a dumb ass for trying to clarify......
> 
> ooooooooKAY then
Click to expand...

Yes you are


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Got it.  thanks


----------



## skookerasbil

We will certainly be seeing alot more of this moving forward. The progressive asshats will think calling people racists will deter people from doing it!. This is just the beginning of the trigger being flipped.....and progressives will happily sit back and watch. Those that dont will end up with those faggy batons sticking clear out their asses!


----------



## Natural Citizen

Jitss617 said:


> Where does the constitution say that



Start with Federalist numbers 28 and 46 by Hamilton and Madison. The Federalist being the blueprint for the Constitution. When you're finished, come back here.


----------



## Jitss617

Natural Citizen said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the constitution say that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Start with Federalist numbers 28 and 46. The Federalist being the blueprint for the Constitution. When you're finished, come back here.
Click to expand...

Didn’t think so


----------



## Natural Citizen

Jitss617 said:


> I am one



No, you're not. You're a nobody.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Natural Citizen said:


> This is not, as the article claims, a "New Mexico militia."
> A "New Mexico militia" would act _through _the state.
> Just because some dolts wanna play cowboy and happen to be in New Mexico doesn't make it a "New Mexico militia."



Some interpret the Constitution differently.

I don't believe that, having waged war against Great Britain, that the intent was to limit armed opposition to only government entities.

The Right to Bear Arms implies that We The People shall have possession of the power and means to defend against government tyranny, where ever it originates, and that that right Shall Not Be Infringed by the Federal Government NOR any State Government.

We The People are specifically empowered by the Constitution to form militias independent of any government sanctioning.

Think about it.   If we have to be "Allowed" to form militias by government authorities, that negates the entire spirit of the 2nd Amendment.

Does that mean that any armed group can just band together and undertake actions normally delegated to government authorities?

No.

But when such groups have formed to carry out those duties and actions stated within the Constitution as just, and it can be clearly demonstrated that the government has failed in it's Constitutional duties, as is the case with the borders, then it overrides any government authority.   Again, that is the spirit of the 2nd amendment and the Constitution in it's entirety as it is a document specifically designed to LIMIT the powers of the Federal government, but also state governments by proxy.

To put ultimate power in the hands of We The People....and not any sanctioned government authority.


----------



## Natural Citizen

Jitss617 said:


> Didn’t think so



You didn't think so what? You didn't read those that fast ya fukin little peckerhead.


----------



## Jitss617

Natural Citizen said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn’t think so
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't think so what? You didn't read those that fast ya fukin little peckerhead.
Click to expand...

 Right to bear arms against a tyrannical government .. but let me let the government know I am attacking you lol


----------



## Natural Citizen

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not, as the article claims, a "New Mexico militia."
> A "New Mexico militia" would act _through _the state.
> Just because some dolts wanna play cowboy and happen to be in New Mexico doesn't make it a "New Mexico militia."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some interpret the Constitution differently.
> 
> I don't believe that, having waged war against Great Britain, that the intent was to limit armed opposition to only government entities.
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms implies that We The People shall have possession of the power and means to defend against government tyranny, where ever it originates, and that that right Shall Not Be Infringed by the Federal Government NOR any State Government.
> 
> We The People are specifically empowered by the Constitution to form militias independent of any government sanctioning.
> 
> Think about it.   If we have to be "Allowed" to form militias by government authorities, that negates the entire spirit of the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Does that mean that any armed group can just band together and undertake actions normally delegated to government authorities?
> 
> No.
> 
> But when such groups have formed to carry out those actions stated within the Constitution, then it overrides any government authority.   Again, that is the spirit of the 2nd amendment and the Constitution in it's entirety as iot is a document specifically designed to LIMIT the powers of the Federal government, but also state governments by proxy.
Click to expand...


Militias are empowered to function through the state.

And you already negated to second amendment when you relinquished your first, fifth and tenth amendments in order to require a gun. Go try to buy one and when they ask you for your name to run the background check, tell em no and see if the government lets you leave there exercising your second amendment right with a gun.


----------



## Jitss617

Natural Citizen said:


> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not, as the article claims, a "New Mexico militia."
> A "New Mexico militia" would act _through _the state.
> Just because some dolts wanna play cowboy and happen to be in New Mexico doesn't make it a "New Mexico militia."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some interpret the Constitution differently.
> 
> I don't believe that, having waged war against Great Britain, that the intent was to limit armed opposition to only government entities.
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms implies that We The People shall have possession of the power and means to defend against government tyranny, where ever it originates, and that that right Shall Not Be Infringed by the Federal Government NOR any State Government.
> 
> We The People are specifically empowered by the Constitution to form militias independent of any government sanctioning.
> 
> Think about it.   If we have to be "Allowed" to form militias by government authorities, that negates the entire spirit of the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Does that mean that any armed group can just band together and undertake actions normally delegated to government authorities?
> 
> No.
> 
> But when such groups have formed to carry out those actions stated within the Constitution, then it overrides any government authority.   Again, that is the spirit of the 2nd amendment and the Constitution in it's entirety as iot is a document specifically designed to LIMIT the powers of the Federal government, but also state governments by proxy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militias are empowered to function through the state.
> 
> And you already negated to second amendment when you relinquished your first, fifth and tenth amendments in order to require a gun.
Click to expand...

Great we will be in a state.. and we will say hello state we are here lol there you  go


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Natural Citizen said:


> Militias are empowered to function through the state.



And what happens when states go rogue?  California for example.   Does that mean that people have no rights to defend their country if the California Governor and assembly decide that Mexico should have California back?
What do you think is the Constitutional remedy when States no longer follow the Constitution and the Federal government fails to intercede or uphold the Constitution?



Natural Citizen said:


> And you already negated to second amendment when you relinquished your first, fifth and tenth amendments in order to require a gun. Go try to buy one and when they ask you your name to run the background check, tell em no and see if you leave there with a gun.



With this I sadly have to agree.
We have already relinquished most of our Constitutional rights willingly.   without a peep.

As I've said 1000 times......(quoting Edmund Burke).....

All that is required for evil men to prevail is for good men to do nothing

There is no way to deny that the only path remaining in the USA to save the Republic is for a massive wave of patriots to form militias and demand a return to Constitutional governing.
While we'd love to see it happen otherwise, we are too far gone for that to work now.


----------



## badger2

Go Lobos!


----------



## Vandalshandle

Jitss617 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is, indeed, probably applauding these militia guys. Trump routinely tramples on the Constitution and civil rights of Americans. Incidentally. even the border patrol doesn't hold suspected illegal immigrants at gun point, unless there is a specific threat to someone.
> 
> 
> 
> We are supposed to have militia not a standing army
Click to expand...


So, what is the name of the militia that you belong to, the Sharks, or the Jets?


----------



## Vandalshandle

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is, indeed, probably applauding these militia guys. Trump routinely tramples on the Constitution and civil rights of Americans. Incidentally. even the border patrol doesn't hold suspected illegal immigrants at gun point, unless there is a specific threat to someone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how quick you use the "Constitution Card" against Americans.....but have no problem with the illegal invasion of the homeland of those same Americans.
> 
> You are a threat.
Click to expand...


Actually, you are the threat. According to the Constitution, only a court of law can determine if a person is an illegal immigrant, or not. You are in favor of bypassing the court, and giving that authority to Brownshirts---excuse me, I mean militia. 

Sieg Heil!


----------



## Jitss617

Vandalshandle said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is, indeed, probably applauding these militia guys. Trump routinely tramples on the Constitution and civil rights of Americans. Incidentally. even the border patrol doesn't hold suspected illegal immigrants at gun point, unless there is a specific threat to someone.
> 
> 
> 
> We are supposed to have militia not a standing army
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, what is the name of the militia that you belong to, the Sharks, or the Jets?
Click to expand...

I’ll tell you if you have the balls to come say it to my face haha


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Vandalshandle said:


> Actually, you are the threat. According to the Constitution, only a court of law can determine if a person is an illegal immigrant, or not. You are in favor of bypassing the court, and giving that authority to Brownshirts---excuse me, I mean militia.


I didn't note anyone claiming militia people were actually deporting suspected illegals (found wandering around in the border wilderness, unable to speak a word of English, etc.) .

If you detain someone for the authorities at a house fire with a can of gasoline and matches, are you claiming, in all your high and mighty ignorance, that the person doing the detaining has made a pronouncement and determination as to the legal disposition of the person detained?
That would be very stupid of you, wouldn't it.



> Sieg Heil!


The "clever" coup de gras on your own unfortunately ignorant post. Well done.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you are the threat. According to the Constitution, only a court of law can determine if a person is an illegal immigrant, or not. You are in favor of bypassing the court, and giving that authority to Brownshirts---excuse me, I mean militia.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't note anyone claiming militia people were actually deporting suspected illegals (found wandering around in the border wilderness, unable to speak a word of English, etc.) .
> 
> If you detain someone for the authorities at a house fire with a can of gasoline and matches, are you claiming in all your high and mighty ignorance, that the person doing the detaining has made a pronouncement and determination as to the legal disposition of the person detained?
> 
> That would be very stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sieg Heil!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "clever" coup de gras on your own unfortunately ignorant post.
Click to expand...


Let me put it this way. I live close to the border. I am an American citizen. I pack a 9MM. Let's say that I am a Latino, for the sake of discussion. Now, if some asshole wearing camies with no legal authority to do so, points a gun at me, I would be within my legal rights to shoot him dead, at worst, or sue him for false imprisonment, at least. And, I definitely would do one or the other.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Jitss617 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is, indeed, probably applauding these militia guys. Trump routinely tramples on the Constitution and civil rights of Americans. Incidentally. even the border patrol doesn't hold suspected illegal immigrants at gun point, unless there is a specific threat to someone.
> 
> 
> 
> We are supposed to have militia not a standing army
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, what is the name of the militia that you belong to, the Sharks, or the Jets?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’ll tell you if you have the balls to come say it to my face haha
Click to expand...


Oh, I would never do that, you are WAY too scary!


----------



## Mr Natural

Jitss617 said:


> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?



Good!

Shoot  'em all!


----------



## Jitss617

Vandalshandle said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you are the threat. According to the Constitution, only a court of law can determine if a person is an illegal immigrant, or not. You are in favor of bypassing the court, and giving that authority to Brownshirts---excuse me, I mean militia.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't note anyone claiming militia people were actually deporting suspected illegals (found wandering around in the border wilderness, unable to speak a word of English, etc.) .
> 
> If you detain someone for the authorities at a house fire with a can of gasoline and matches, are you claiming in all your high and mighty ignorance, that the person doing the detaining has made a pronouncement and determination as to the legal disposition of the person detained?
> 
> That would be very stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sieg Heil!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "clever" coup de gras on your own unfortunately ignorant post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me put it this way. I live close to the border. I am an American citizen. I pack a 9MM. Let's say that I am a Latino, for the sake of discussion. Now, if some asshole wearing camies with no legal authority to do so, points a gun at me, I would be within my legal rights to shoot him dead, at worst, or sue him for false imprisonment, at least. And, I definitely would do one or the other.
Click to expand...

If we are in a crisis why wouldn’t you put you hands  up and be civil and show identification until the crisis is over??  Seems like you want to provoke


----------



## Jitss617

Vandalshandle said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is, indeed, probably applauding these militia guys. Trump routinely tramples on the Constitution and civil rights of Americans. Incidentally. even the border patrol doesn't hold suspected illegal immigrants at gun point, unless there is a specific threat to someone.
> 
> 
> 
> We are supposed to have militia not a standing army
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, what is the name of the militia that you belong to, the Sharks, or the Jets?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’ll tell you if you have the balls to come say it to my face haha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I would never do that, you are WAY too scary!
Click to expand...

When I’m fighting for culture  I can be


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

I should absolutely take a week or two...i like the dry heat to ...dry yer bones out for a couple weeks after a winter of pouring rain
oh man it was Vietnam forest gump ..iddy biddy stingin rain BIG ol fat rain

YA know youre gonna meet some good people 

i betcha the  EVIL  white nationalist nazi volunteers brought....... along with their rifles .........water ...maybe a protein bar and basic medical kit thats in the back of bobby rays pickup just in case






racist crackas


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Vandalshandle said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you are the threat. According to the Constitution, only a court of law can determine if a person is an illegal immigrant, or not. You are in favor of bypassing the court, and giving that authority to Brownshirts---excuse me, I mean militia.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't note anyone claiming militia people were actually deporting suspected illegals (found wandering around in the border wilderness, unable to speak a word of English, etc.) .
> 
> If you detain someone for the authorities at a house fire with a can of gasoline and matches, are you claiming in all your high and mighty ignorance, that the person doing the detaining has made a pronouncement and determination as to the legal disposition of the person detained?
> 
> That would be very stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sieg Heil!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "clever" coup de gras on your own unfortunately ignorant post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me put it this way. I live close to the border. I am an American citizen. I pack a 9MM. Let's say that I am a Latino, for the sake of discussion. Now, if some asshole wearing camies with no legal authority to do so, points a gun at me, I would be within my legal rights to shoot him dead, at worst, or sue him for false imprisonment, at least. And, I definitely would do one or the other.
Click to expand...

In this particular case no one pointed a gun at anyone.  The invaders approached the militia and claimed asylum.

At the aproach of an invading force of 300, the militia would be able to claim credible fear and open fire.


----------



## Jitss617

The phrase "do not be afraid" is written in The Bible 365 times. That's a daily reminder from God to live every day fearless


----------



## koshergrl

ozro said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do
> 
> 
> 
> Er...no, there aren't those that will kill them.
> 
> The killers are always on the left. You idiots are the ones who maintain that instead of institutionalizing crazy people, we should just suicide them...and who maintain that when social policies fail and we end up with a huge population of poorly educated, destitute single mothers, we should just kill their babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> m'am, with all due respect you have mistaken me for a liberal. I am a old white guy who goes about armed, lives off grid and drills and trains search and rescue dogs for the AZ Citizens Militia
> 
> nobbody would consider me liberal in any way.
> 
> I support theCOC and the rule if law.....not liberal
Click to expand...

If you condemn militias as if only the Governor has the authority to direct them, then you are the enemy. 

I see a lot of so-called "law enforcement" or government employees who swear they aren't liberal, but who are absolutely steadfast in their refusal to recognize that people have a right to stand up to *law enforcement* if law enforcement is breaking, rather than upholding, the law. Likewise, these LEO acolytes believe that the feds have jurisdiction over all law enforcement, so if they take an interest in your little berg, you are obliged to kowtow to them. 

I see these people in the same light as I view the disgusting traitorous scum who donned nazi uniforms and quelled their consciences by telling themselves they were abiding by the law. 

I hope I am mistaken in my assessment of you.


----------



## koshergrl

OldLady said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they wearing masks?
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the United Constitutional Patriots are so great, why are they all wearing masks?  Pro Tip:  If you belong to an organization where it is necessary to hide your face, you are in the wrong organization.
Click to expand...

Because they don't want to be killed by MS13 that go to school with their kids.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Jitss617 said:


> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?


Those pussies only point their guns at hungry women and children. If they saw me coming, they would shit their pants and hide under their trailers.


----------



## Pilot1

Vandalshandle said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you are the threat. According to the Constitution, only a court of law can determine if a person is an illegal immigrant, or not. You are in favor of bypassing the court, and giving that authority to Brownshirts---excuse me, I mean militia.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't note anyone claiming militia people were actually deporting suspected illegals (found wandering around in the border wilderness, unable to speak a word of English, etc.) .
> 
> If you detain someone for the authorities at a house fire with a can of gasoline and matches, are you claiming in all your high and mighty ignorance, that the person doing the detaining has made a pronouncement and determination as to the legal disposition of the person detained?
> 
> That would be very stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sieg Heil!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "clever" coup de gras on your own unfortunately ignorant post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me put it this way. I live close to the border. I am an American citizen. I pack a 9MM. Let's say that I am a Latino, for the sake of discussion. Now, if some asshole wearing camies with no legal authority to do so, points a gun at me, I would be within my legal rights to shoot him dead, at worst, or sue him for false imprisonment, at least. And, I definitely would do one or the other.
Click to expand...


I must have missed it, where did it say the Militia was pointing guns at people?


----------



## Pilot1

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Those pussies only point their guns at hungry women and children. If they saw me coming, they would shit their pants and hide under their trailers.
Click to expand...


Yet you listen to the Village People, and drink white wine.  Nobody was pointing guns at anyone.  I guess you were there.  Did your flamboyance repel them?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Pilot1 said:


> Nobody was pointing guns at anyone.


Then go whine to the OP, you bitchy little crybaby.


----------



## GreenAndBlue

The men now will turn on the women voters who keep electing harm


----------



## Jitss617

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Those pussies only point their guns at hungry women and children. If they saw me coming, they would shit their pants and hide under their trailers.
Click to expand...

Those women aren’t hungry lol they are fat and well feed.. show me a skinny illegal I’ll show you a 6 dollar bill


----------



## GreenAndBlue

The big gender difference in voting will have the men turning on the women


----------



## koshergrl

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Those pussies only point their guns at hungry women and children. If they saw me coming, they would shit their pants and hide under their trailers.
Click to expand...


Lol..unlikely.


----------



## peach174

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwing fear, hate, and bigotry.
Click to expand...




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwing fear, hate, and bigotry.
Click to expand...




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwing fear, hate, and bigotry.
Click to expand...




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwing fear, hate, and bigotry.
Click to expand...




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwing fear, hate, and bigotry.
Click to expand...


Enforcing our immigration laws is not fear, hate nor bigotry.
Those laws are for everyone who enters ,from any country in the world.


----------



## ozro

koshergrl said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do
> 
> 
> 
> Er...no, there aren't those that will kill them.
> 
> The killers are always on the left. You idiots are the ones who maintain that instead of institutionalizing crazy people, we should just suicide them...and who maintain that when social policies fail and we end up with a huge population of poorly educated, destitute single mothers, we should just kill their babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> m'am, with all due respect you have mistaken me for a liberal. I am a old white guy who goes about armed, lives off grid and drills and trains search and rescue dogs for the AZ Citizens Militia
> 
> nobbody would consider me liberal in any way.
> 
> I support theCOC and the rule if law.....not liberal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you condemn militias as if only the Governor has the authority to direct them, then you are the enemy.
> 
> I see a lot of so-called "law enforcement" or government employees who swear they aren't liberal, but who are absolutely steadfast in their refusal to recognize that people have a right to stand up to *law enforcement* if law enforcement is breaking, rather than upholding, the law. Likewise, these LEO acolytes believe that the feds have jurisdiction over all law enforcement, so if they take an interest in your little berg, you are obliged to kowtow to them.
> 
> I see these people in the same light as I view the disgusting traitorous scum who donned nazi uniforms and quelled their consciences by telling themselves they were abiding by the law.
> 
> I hope I am mistaken in my assessment of you.
Click to expand...


Everyone chooses their side in any given conflict. good luck with your choices


----------



## Crepitus

Jitss617 said:


> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?


LMAO!!!

They were looking for BP anyway.


----------



## Jitss617

Crepitus said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!!!
> 
> They were looking for BP anyway.
Click to expand...

Ohhh they found them.. in the form of a militia.. be careful young Mexicans we shoot.. cowboy up


----------



## Crepitus

Jitss617 said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!!!
> 
> They were looking for BP anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ohhh they found them.. in the form of a militia.. be careful young Mexicans we shoot.. cowboy up
Click to expand...


If they had shot them they would be in jail.  This ain't the wild west kid.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

*Carlos A. Diaz, a spokesperson for Customs and Border Protection, would not divulge specific details about the scene in the video or about the United Constitutional Patriots, but said in a statement that Border Patrol “does not endorse private groups or organizations taking enforcement matters into their own hands.”*

In other words, they are probably going to face charges.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Tijn Von Ingersleben said:


> No one in a position of power is going to fix the border. Those turned over to the border patrol simply claim asylum status and are released into the general population. The rules are this way for a reason.


The "rules" are this way because the pols find it more expedient to ignore the laws and to cripple the agency tasked with enforcing them.


----------



## gallantwarrior

OldLady said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I heard fetching coffee for the border patrol. However they should be issued live ammo and ordered to shoot to kill any assholes caught invading our country. That is after all the original purpose for having a standing military or even a federal government in the first place. WTF do people think "provide for the common defence" means anyway? It's right up front in the preamble fer pity sake!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a perfect example of why we should not have a "legal" unorganized militia of citizens between 17 and 45.
> They are not "invaders," they are not armed, they are not carrying bubonic plague, and they will not rape your daughter.
> Jesus Christ, YOU are the one who should be locked up, not them!
Click to expand...

Not being armed doesn't negate their invasion status.  They come in such overwhelming numbers to do just that, overwhelm the system and enter our country illegally.  Personally, I'd advocate using drones to drop leaflets over the "caravans", in all appropriate languages, informing them that they should obey the laws and apply in for asylum in the first country they enter.  If they continue to our borders, all who cross illegally and lacking proper documentation will be rounded up and sent back by the most expedient transport.  Those who persist WILL be shot as soon as they set foot on our territory.  After that, it's their choice.
PS: How many are living in your house?  Your city?


----------



## koshergrl

gallantwarrior said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I heard fetching coffee for the border patrol. However they should be issued live ammo and ordered to shoot to kill any assholes caught invading our country. That is after all the original purpose for having a standing military or even a federal government in the first place. WTF do people think "provide for the common defence" means anyway? It's right up front in the preamble fer pity sake!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a perfect example of why we should not have a "legal" unorganized militia of citizens between 17 and 45.
> They are not "invaders," they are not armed, they are not carrying bubonic plague, and they will not rape your daughter.
> Jesus Christ, YOU are the one who should be locked up, not them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not being armed doesn't negate their invasion status.  They come in such overwhelming numbers to do just that, overwhelm the system and enter our country illegally.  Personally, I'd advocate using drones to drop leaflets over the "caravans", in all appropriate languages, informing them that they should obey the laws and apply in for asylum in the first country they enter.  If they continue to our borders, all who cross illegally and lacking proper documentation will be rounded up and sent back by the most expedient transport.  Those who persist WILL be shot as soon as they set foot on our territory.  After that, it's their choice.
Click to expand...

The women and children are being trafficked.


----------



## Marion Morrison

The militia can be called out to stop invasion of our borders.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Marion Morrison said:


> The militia can be called out to stop invasion of our borders.


But they haven't been. So, instead, it's kidnapping.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Jitss617 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I heard fetching coffee for the border patrol. However they should be issued live ammo and ordered to shoot to kill any assholes caught invading our country. That is after all the original purpose for having a standing military or even a federal government in the first place. WTF do people think "provide for the common defence" means anyway? It's right up front in the preamble fer pity sake!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a perfect example of why we should not have a "legal" unorganized militia of citizens between 17 and 45.
> They are not "invaders," they are not armed, they are not carrying bubonic plague, and they will not rape your daughter.
> Jesus Christ, YOU are the one who should be locked up, not them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are destroying our culture they refuse to assimilate, they are lowering wages! They are flooding our clinics and hospitals! That is a invasion
Click to expand...

And, they are bringing diseases here that had been eradicated, filthy vermin that they are.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> The militia can be called out to stop invasion of our borders.
> 
> 
> 
> But they haven't been. So, instead, it's kidnapping.
Click to expand...


I heard it was 380. 

What business do these people have invading America again? STFU Faggot.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> The militia can be called out to stop invasion of our borders.
> 
> 
> 
> But they haven't been. So, instead, it's kidnapping.
Click to expand...


The citizens are the militia. You're a progstain cocksucker. It is what it is.


----------



## longknife

ozro said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with repelling an invading horde of diseased criminals from our country?  If killing a few thousand stops the migration, that would be a good thing...Those that die in the desert are far worse, so show those who are willing to make the arduous trek, that it isnt worth it, and save even more lives, by killing a few...The needs of the many out way the needs of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do not have to condone murder. ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Murder isnt defending your borders from diseases that want to cross into our country and kill US.  Murder isnt defending yourself from criminals with the intent to rape our women and kill US.  Is it really that hard to see why we need to "Shoot" people who shouldn't belong here?  They are dying in the 10 of 1000s crossing into areas that will kill them anyway.  Why aren't we just euthanizing them out of their misery...Call it "Post Birth Abortions"..​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This group did the right thing, held them for bp.
> There are those that do not, they kill them. that is murder.
Click to expand...


Would you care to prove your claim?
I doubt you can.


----------



## Jitss617

Crepitus said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!!!
> 
> They were looking for BP anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ohhh they found them.. in the form of a militia.. be careful young Mexicans we shoot.. cowboy up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they had shot them they would be in jail.  This ain't the wild west kid.
Click to expand...

It’s the West and it’s wild... your liberal laws can’t stop what’s going to happen


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Marion Morrison said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> The militia can be called out to stop invasion of our borders.
> 
> 
> 
> But they haven't been. So, instead, it's kidnapping.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I heard it was 380.
> 
> What business do these people have invading America again? STFU Faggot.
Click to expand...

Oh my, gay cowboy is going to throw a wittle tantrum. Gee,this must be a day that ends in "y".

Why isn't your little pussy ass down there with your duck guns?


----------



## gallantwarrior

OldLady said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I heard fetching coffee for the border patrol. However they should be issued live ammo and ordered to shoot to kill any assholes caught invading our country. That is after all the original purpose for having a standing military or even a federal government in the first place. WTF do people think "provide for the common defence" means anyway? It's right up front in the preamble fer pity sake!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a perfect example of why we should not have a "legal" unorganized militia of citizens between 17 and 45.
> They are not "invaders," they are not armed, they are not carrying bubonic plague, and they will not rape your daughter.
> Jesus Christ, YOU are the one who should be locked up, not them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are destroying our culture they refuse to assimilate, they are lowering wages! They are flooding our clinics and hospitals! That is a invasion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's really not true, but you're going to insist it is, so I'm not bothering to argue about it.  My point about Foster was this lunatic wants to shoot those unarmed people, totally outside the constraints of the law.  It is murder.  Militias are dangerous.
Click to expand...

If they insist on crossing our borders without papers and permission, they are invading.  If an order to "STOP" or be shot does not stop them and they continue, then it is war.  At that point, they have made their choice and they shall live, or die, by that decision.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> The militia can be called out to stop invasion of our borders.
> 
> 
> 
> But they haven't been. So, instead, it's kidnapping.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I heard it was 380.
> 
> What business do these people have invading America again? STFU Faggot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my, gay cowboy is going to throw a wittle tantrum. Gee,this must be a day that ends in "y".
> 
> Why isn't your little pussy ass down there with your duck guns?
Click to expand...


Are you badass enough to step in front of a "duck gun"?

I don't have one, but..we can call whatever gun I have that for the situation.

Let's roll with .303  I got plenty of bullets.

Not even an American round. You have 2 other choices:

30-06 or 9mm. IDGAF, step up and be a target. That is unless you're scared of mah "duck guns" (really you should be) (because I can nail you between the eyes at 1-200 yds)


----------



## koshergrl

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> The militia can be called out to stop invasion of our borders.
> 
> 
> 
> But they haven't been. So, instead, it's kidnapping.
Click to expand...

Er..nice try, but no. 

You really are a fruitloop. You know that, right?

You're a teacher, aren't you...


----------



## ozro

longknife said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with repelling an invading horde of diseased criminals from our country?  If killing a few thousand stops the migration, that would be a good thing...Those that die in the desert are far worse, so show those who are willing to make the arduous trek, that it isnt worth it, and save even more lives, by killing a few...The needs of the many out way the needs of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do not have to condone murder. ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Murder isnt defending your borders from diseases that want to cross into our country and kill US.  Murder isnt defending yourself from criminals with the intent to rape our women and kill US.  Is it really that hard to see why we need to "Shoot" people who shouldn't belong here?  They are dying in the 10 of 1000s crossing into areas that will kill them anyway.  Why aren't we just euthanizing them out of their misery...Call it "Post Birth Abortions"..​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This group did the right thing, held them for bp.
> There are those that do not, they kill them. that is murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you care to prove your claim?
> I doubt you can.
Click to expand...


Everything about american citizens hunting illegals that i know anything about specifically has been reported to command.


----------



## Tijn Von Ingersleben

gallantwarrior said:


> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one in a position of power is going to fix the border. Those turned over to the border patrol simply claim asylum status and are released into the general population. The rules are this way for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> The "rules" are this way because the pols find it more expedient to ignore the laws and to cripple the agency tasked with enforcing them.
Click to expand...

The rules are this way because the people in power want things...
Dems want more 'people of color' whose predilection for 'gibs me dats' voting patterns will keep them in power
Reps need to make their true constituents 'big business' fed with lots of cheap labor. 

NOTHING is going to get done...there will be no wall...no true reform...no one in any power position will ever get locked up...just a slow cancer to the bottom.


----------



## gallantwarrior

OldLady said:


> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I heard fetching coffee for the border patrol. However they should be issued live ammo and ordered to shoot to kill any assholes caught invading our country. That is after all the original purpose for having a standing military or even a federal government in the first place. WTF do people think "provide for the common defence" means anyway? It's right up front in the preamble fer pity sake!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a perfect example of why we should not have a "legal" unorganized militia of citizens between 17 and 45.
> They are not "invaders," they are not armed, they are not carrying bubonic plague, and they will not rape your daughter.
> Jesus Christ, YOU are the one who should be locked up, not them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah well once I was armed with a fully automatic dreaded military assault weapon, shipped to a foreign country and told it was quite okay to shoot it's inhabitants. So just how is it not okay to shoot assholes invading our country? They sure as hell were not invited and they damn well know they are not welcome otherwise they'd present themselves at a legitimate port of entry. Last I heard that was an invader, not a friggin immigrent.
> Today maybe you should try reaching around, grabbing the nape of your neck, giving a good hard and sharp yank and extract your head from your ass. You'll be amazed what it  does to hear and see and give your tiny little brain some input for a change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The war's over, dude.  They're refugees and economic migrants, and I agree with you that we need to find ways to stop them from coming illegally.  Murdering them is not the solution.
Click to expand...

How about we enforce international law that says they must apply for asylum in the first country they cross into?  They also have the option of applying for asylum at the US embassy/consulate in their home country or the country in which they first seek asylum.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Lysistrata said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are these white gangs allowed to run ran rampant on our land? The people who do this belong in jail. They are people impersonating U.S. law-enforcement officers, and, in an unofficial sense, are people fraudulently claiming to represent the People of the United States of America.
Click to expand...

These ARE the People of the United States of America.  They are forced to do the job their government should be doing, i.e. protecting this country from foreign invasion.


----------



## gallantwarrior

Jitss617 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> 
> 
> Last I heard fetching coffee for the border patrol. However they should be issued live ammo and ordered to shoot to kill any assholes caught invading our country. That is after all the original purpose for having a standing military or even a federal government in the first place. WTF do people think "provide for the common defence" means anyway? It's right up front in the preamble fer pity sake!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a perfect example of why we should not have a "legal" unorganized militia of citizens between 17 and 45.
> They are not "invaders," they are not armed, they are not carrying bubonic plague, and they will not rape your daughter.
> Jesus Christ, YOU are the one who should be locked up, not them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are destroying our culture they refuse to assimilate, they are lowering wages! They are flooding our clinics and hospitals! That is a invasion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's really not true, but you're going to insist it is, so I'm not bothering to argue about it.  My point about Foster was this lunatic wants to shoot those unarmed people, totally outside the constraints of the law.  It is murder.  Militias are dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely is I live in it. Democrats are destroying our culture and poor American neighborhoods.
> You think it’s ok to flop African American neighborhoods and stuggling schools with kids that can’t speak English? You think that  helps improve their English skills? Ability to negotiate a fair wage??
> We ha w clinics in Boston full of people that can’t speak English! Is that good for America??
Click to expand...

Why worry?  The children in the AA neighborhoods will soon succumb to the various diseases inflicted upon them by these "immigrants".  Blacks are starting to wake up and are becoming less reliable as a Dem voting bloc. They must be replaced by hordes of ignorant and uneducated brown plantation dwellers.


----------



## Marion Morrison

gallantwarrior said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are these white gangs allowed to run ran rampant on our land? The people who do this belong in jail. They are people impersonating U.S. law-enforcement officers, and, in an unofficial sense, are people fraudulently claiming to represent the People of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These ARE the People of the United States of America.  They are forced to do the job their government should be doing, i.e. protecting this country from foreign invasion.
Click to expand...


Which leads to the question : Why do we have government? Why do they get 35%+ of our money when God only wants 10%? Wtf?


----------



## gallantwarrior

koshergrl said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do
> 
> 
> 
> Er...no, there aren't those that will kill them.
> 
> The killers are always on the left. You idiots are the ones who maintain that instead of institutionalizing crazy people, we should just suicide them...and who maintain that when social policies fail and we end up with a huge population of poorly educated, destitute single mothers, we should just kill their babies.
Click to expand...

Actually, the MS13 gangs, and others like them, will kill many of them when they fail to succumb to the gang shakedown or cannot afford to pay gang extortion.


----------



## gallantwarrior

ozro said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do
> 
> 
> 
> Er...no, there aren't those that will kill them.
> 
> The killers are always on the left. You idiots are the ones who maintain that instead of institutionalizing crazy people, we should just suicide them...and who maintain that when social policies fail and we end up with a huge population of poorly educated, destitute single mothers, we should just kill their babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> m'am, with all due respect you have mistaken me for a liberal. I am a old white guy who goes about armed, lives off grid and drills and trains search and rescue dogs for the AZ Citizens Militia
> 
> nobbody would consider me liberal in any way.
> 
> I support theCOC and the rule if law.....not liberal
Click to expand...

As one off-grid old white cracker who goes armed (except at work at the airport), glad to meet you!


----------



## Jitss617

I think trump should offer a bounty 500 per illegal you can find


----------



## gallantwarrior

OldLady said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they wearing masks?
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the United Constitutional Patriots are so great, why are they all wearing masks?  Pro Tip:  If you belong to an organization where it is necessary to hide your face, you are in the wrong organization.
Click to expand...

Why do your Antifa heroes wear masks? Why do Islamic terrorists wear masks?  Why do bank robbers wear masks?
Actually, I am surprised that Congress critters don't wear masks...


----------



## ozro

gallantwarrior said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do
> 
> 
> 
> Er...no, there aren't those that will kill them.
> 
> The killers are always on the left. You idiots are the ones who maintain that instead of institutionalizing crazy people, we should just suicide them...and who maintain that when social policies fail and we end up with a huge population of poorly educated, destitute single mothers, we should just kill their babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> m'am, with all due respect you have mistaken me for a liberal. I am a old white guy who goes about armed, lives off grid and drills and trains search and rescue dogs for the AZ Citizens Militia
> 
> nobbody would consider me liberal in any way.
> 
> I support theCOC and the rule if law.....not liberal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As one off-grid old white cracker who goes armed (except at work at the airport), glad to meet you!
Click to expand...


i am retired and dont have to work. i have a enviable home with all the modern conviences. I worked hard at my carear and retired in 2014 at 55 and do need or dont want social security.


----------



## gallantwarrior

OldLady said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Foster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last I heard fetching coffee for the border patrol. However they should be issued live ammo and ordered to shoot to kill any assholes caught invading our country. That is after all the original purpose for having a standing military or even a federal government in the first place. WTF do people think "provide for the common defence" means anyway? It's right up front in the preamble fer pity sake!
> 
> 
> 
> You're a perfect example of why we should not have a "legal" unorganized militia of citizens between 17 and 45.
> They are not "invaders," they are not armed, they are not carrying bubonic plague, and they will not rape your daughter.
> Jesus Christ, YOU are the one who should be locked up, not them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are destroying our culture they refuse to assimilate, they are lowering wages! They are flooding our clinics and hospitals! That is a invasion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's really not true, but you're going to insist it is, so I'm not bothering to argue about it.  My point about Foster was this lunatic wants to shoot those unarmed people, totally outside the constraints of the law.  It is murder.  Militias are dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely is I live in it. Democrats are destroying our culture and poor American neighborhoods.
> You think it’s ok to flop African American neighborhoods and stuggling schools with kids that can’t speak English? You think that  helps improve their English skills? Ability to negotiate a fair wage??
> We ha w clinics in Boston full of people that can’t speak English! Is that good for America??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure what their language has to do with anything, but I can see it bothers you quite a bit.  You probably speak Spanish pretty well, considering you grew up with it all around you, right?
Click to expand...

My tax dollars should NEVER be paid to indoctrinate those who will not assimilate.  That said, back in the '60s, when I attended school in  Orange County, we were taught Mexican.  Being multi-lingual is not bad, but those claiming to want to become "US" need to learn our language.  I speak three languages, BTW.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Jitss617 said:


> I think trump should offer a bounty 500 per illegal you can find


Me too!  That would definitely be a fast track to losing in 2020.  I hope trump does let all the crazy out.


----------



## gallantwarrior

OldLady said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they wearing masks?
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the United Constitutional Patriots are so great, why are they all wearing masks?  Pro Tip:  If you belong to an organization where it is necessary to hide your face, you are in the wrong organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like the nm gov did not authorize this group.
> no chain of command.
> With no chain of command it is nothing more than a vigilant group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, a roving band of heavily armed men tracking "enemies" in the desert and making up all their own rules as they go along--what could possibly go wrong?
> Instead of spending his time vilifying these dispossessed, poor, and powerless people, maybe Trump could have spent his energy pulling together folks who could do something about this.  We need changes made yesterday to our immigration laws, but this administration is just making it harder for people to share ideas and come to a workable compromise.  Instead, we get vigilantes roving the border with guns and extremists here screaming for blood.  We are getting farther and farther away from a solution.
Click to expand...

Since Congress has failed to support President Trump's agenda to stop this foreign invasion, his support for the poor in THIS country, maybe the citizens might not find themselves forced to do the job Congress should be doing.  Instead, Congress  is focused on the non-issues of "Russian collusion" and "obstruction of justice" and the President's taxes.  Now, the citizens must take our protection into their own hands.  Call you Congress person, encourage them to focus on REAL fucking issues, like border security.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Tijn Von Ingersleben said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one in a position of power is going to fix the border. Those turned over to the border patrol simply claim asylum status and are released into the general population. The rules are this way for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> The "rules" are this way because the pols find it more expedient to ignore the laws and to cripple the agency tasked with enforcing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rules are this way because the people in power want things...
> Dems want more 'people of color' whose predilection for 'gibs me dats' voting patterns will keep them in power
> Reps need to make their true constituents 'big business' fed with lots of cheap labor.
> 
> NOTHING is going to get done...there will be no wall...no true reform...no one in any power position will ever get locked up...just a slow cancer to the bottom.
Click to expand...


Fie on your negativity! There will be a wall and deportations!

American blacks in the south need this to happen.

They are Americans.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

gallantwarrior said:


> My tax dollars should NEVER be paid to indoctrinate those who will not assimilate.


But, just moments ago, you said you were "off grid".  Sounds to me like you are one of the unassimilated.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think trump should offer a bounty 500 per illegal you can find
> 
> 
> 
> Me too!  That would definitely be a fast track to losing in 2020.  I hope trump does let all the crazy out.
Click to expand...


I think that would be the bees knees. 

Also that you're a derp faggot.


----------



## gallantwarrior

mudwhistle said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwing fear, hate, and bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No. Law-abiding citizens. Is Nancy Pelosi using right-wing fear, hate, and bigotry when she calls the cops on squatters that climbed over her fence and plopped down in her back yard, shit for brains????
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah!  It's perfectly OK to bus or fly these vermin to your home but god forbid they find their way to HERS!


----------



## ozro

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> My tax dollars should NEVER be paid to indoctrinate those who will not assimilate.
> 
> 
> 
> But, just moments ago, you said you were "off grid".  Sounds to me like you are one of the unassimilated.
Click to expand...

i am off grid. I am a civil engineer, power, septic and water were a piece of cake.


----------



## gallantwarrior

OldLady said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are destroying our culture they refuse to assimilate, they are lowering wages! They are flooding our clinics and hospitals! That is a invasion
> 
> 
> 
> That's really not true, but you're going to insist it is, so I'm not bothering to argue about it.  My point about Foster was this lunatic wants to shoot those unarmed people, totally outside the constraints of the law.  It is murder.  Militias are dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely is I live in it. Democrats are destroying our culture and poor American neighborhoods.
> You think it’s ok to flop African American neighborhoods and stuggling schools with kids that can’t speak English? You think that  helps improve their English skills? Ability to negotiate a fair wage??
> We ha w clinics in Boston full of people that can’t speak English! Is that good for America??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure what their language has to do with anything, but I can see it bothers you quite a bit.  You probably speak Spanish pretty well, considering you grew up with it all around you, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I probably would have if Latinos allowed different cultures in to their groups.. but they dont. It cut my ability to converse in hallways and other social places in shock which has effected me greatly.. I can now speak out about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 256750
Click to expand...

Indeed.


----------



## gallantwarrior

ozro said:


> ptbw forever said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are these white gangs allowed to run ran rampant on our land? The people who do this belong in jail. They are people impersonating U.S. law-enforcement officers, and, in an unofficial sense, are people fraudulently claiming to represent the People of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the nm governor, who the legitimate militia answers to, has denounced them, I am in agreement with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The New Mexico Governor is a Democrat traitor who sides with the invaders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nonetheless, he retains authority over his state militias as well as who is legally alllowed to operate in his state.
Click to expand...

And when the local "authority" violates the agreed upon tenants of government?  Bless the 2d Amendment.  May it help us protect ourselves from out-of-control government officials...


----------



## ozro

gallantwarrior said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ptbw forever said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are these white gangs allowed to run ran rampant on our land? The people who do this belong in jail. They are people impersonating U.S. law-enforcement officers, and, in an unofficial sense, are people fraudulently claiming to represent the People of the United States of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the nm governor, who the legitimate militia answers to, has denounced them, I am in agreement with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The New Mexico Governor is a Democrat traitor who sides with the invaders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nonetheless, he retains authority over his state militias as well as who is legally alllowed to operate in his state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And when the local "authority" violates the agreed upon tenants of government?  Bless the 2d Amendment.  May it help us protect ourselves from out-of-control government officials...
Click to expand...


call me when they do that.
until then i am for the rule of law


----------



## Tijn Von Ingersleben

Marion Morrison said:


> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one in a position of power is going to fix the border. Those turned over to the border patrol simply claim asylum status and are released into the general population. The rules are this way for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> The "rules" are this way because the pols find it more expedient to ignore the laws and to cripple the agency tasked with enforcing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rules are this way because the people in power want things...
> Dems want more 'people of color' whose predilection for 'gibs me dats' voting patterns will keep them in power
> Reps need to make their true constituents 'big business' fed with lots of cheap labor.
> 
> NOTHING is going to get done...there will be no wall...no true reform...no one in any power position will ever get locked up...just a slow cancer to the bottom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fie on your negativity! There will be a wall and deportations!
> 
> American blacks in the south need this to happen.
> 
> They are Americans.
Click to expand...

Sorry, there will be no wall. Blacks have no real power in this country. They are, when compared to other groups, the poorest, the most crime ridden, the least educated. Blacks are simply a voting block that Dems have exploited for votes. Dems do not care about blacks and black politicians who have the bully pulpit are too corrupt to genuinely care about their constituencies. Doubt me? Name me one prominent black Democrat who has spoken out against the southern invasion? They haven't...they won't...and if they want those dirty dollars to keep flooding in, they had better do their job and keep the blacks focused on the boogey man...whites.


----------



## gallantwarrior

ozro said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as you revolutionaries came to my house bearing torches and a bucket of tar and sack of feathers, though, I would have taken your side fast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> check your history jt, even the colonial militia operated with authority. it may not have been legal as the king wasnt the authority, but it was a chain of command
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, every town had a Captain that kept the militia in order; they trained regularly, too.  I have read a lot of 1700's town records.  Each had its well organized militia and it definitely had a command structure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> probably the most famous was capt church of rehobeth because of the king philip war. but there were hundreds. even then operating outside authority was a crime.
> 
> i think these guys are facing legal troubles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course groups like this are outside the law, but if they haven't hurt anyone, I wonder who would complain?  BP seems to tolerate them.  The articles say they have held onto border jumpers before until the BP arrives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> m'am, BP only tolerates groups operating with authority. the rest are run off or arrested. even drs without borders is required to have permission(authority).
> 
> You know what i did when i did my 2 week stint along the border?
> we cleaned out camp sites, packed out trash, maintained aid stations for bp. guided a few folks in to thosse aid stations tooo
> we would never have been ordered to a mission as this group did. if we had done this we would all be in a desert jailhouse.
> 
> What we do is search and rescue. thats our main purpose and what we train for 95% of the time.
Click to expand...

Pretty good.  As long as those you rescued are forced to comply with international and federal law.  Good to clean out those filthy camps.  We do the same here every Spring.  Pigs live in subhuman conditions, steal and push drugs.  Good to see those camps go.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Tijn Von Ingersleben said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one in a position of power is going to fix the border. Those turned over to the border patrol simply claim asylum status and are released into the general population. The rules are this way for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> The "rules" are this way because the pols find it more expedient to ignore the laws and to cripple the agency tasked with enforcing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rules are this way because the people in power want things...
> Dems want more 'people of color' whose predilection for 'gibs me dats' voting patterns will keep them in power
> Reps need to make their true constituents 'big business' fed with lots of cheap labor.
> 
> NOTHING is going to get done...there will be no wall...no true reform...no one in any power position will ever get locked up...just a slow cancer to the bottom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fie on your negativity! There will be a wall and deportations!
> 
> American blacks in the south need this to happen.
> 
> They are Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, there will be no wall. Blacks have no real power in this country. They are, when compared to other groups, the poorest, the most crime ridden, the least educated. Blacks are simply a voting block that Dems have exploited for votes. Dems do not care about blacks and black politicians who have the bully pulpit are too corrupt to genuinely care about their constituencies. Doubt me? Name me one prominent black Democrat who has spoken out against the southern invasion? They haven't...they won't...and if they want those dirty dollars to keep flooding in, they had better do their job and keep the blacks focused on the boogey man...whites.
Click to expand...


----------



## gallantwarrior

toobfreak said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they wearing masks?
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the United Constitutional Patriots are so great, why are they all wearing masks?  Pro Tip:  If you belong to an organization where it is necessary to hide your face, you are in the wrong organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like the nm gov did not authorize this group.
> no chain of command.
> With no chain of command it is nothing more than a vigilant group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If NM doesn't want citizen vigilante groups defending our borders then the governor should get off his flabby ass and start doing his job that he is there to do.
Click to expand...

I would winner you at least three time for that!


----------



## gallantwarrior

ozro said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are they wearing masks?
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the United Constitutional Patriots are so great, why are they all wearing masks?  Pro Tip:  If you belong to an organization where it is necessary to hide your face, you are in the wrong organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like the nm gov did not authorize this group.
> no chain of command.
> With no chain of command it is nothing more than a vigilant group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If NM doesn't want citizen vigilante groups defending our borders then the governor should get off his flabby ass and start doing his job that he is there to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you are advocating against the rule of law.
> 
> that never goes well
Click to expand...

Are you?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Marion Morrison said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think trump should offer a bounty 500 per illegal you can find
> 
> 
> 
> Me too!  That would definitely be a fast track to losing in 2020.  I hope trump does let all the crazy out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that would be the bees knees.
> 
> Also that you're a derp faggot.
Click to expand...

Nah,your fat ass won't be getting off the porch swing for this one.


----------



## gallantwarrior

bodecea said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What government funded militia has ever done good for protecting Americas borders? This privately funded one looks like it works.. the CONSTITUTION allows militias, they must be protected by law.. Barr has our backs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt if Barr has your backs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come and stop us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Us"?   You are out there?   Or are you just talking tough behind your nice safe keyboard?
Click to expand...

Hey, are the "us" you represent willing to accept unlimited numbers of these "unfortunates" into your community?


----------



## ozro

gallantwarrior said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are they wearing masks?
> 
> 
> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> *“It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone,” the governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, said in a statement to The New York Times, adding that it is “completely unacceptable” that migrants be “menaced or threatened” upon entering the U.S.  The American Civil Liberties Union said in a statement that “the Trump administration’s vile racism” emboldened these groups.*
> 
> Hey, "Governor," you can suck my ass!  You never heard of a CITIZEN'S ARREST, fool?  You should be THANKING these people for arresting LAW BREAKERS, of DOING YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
> 
> View attachment 256698
> 
> Quit putting undocumented illegal invaders ahead of the US Citizen you flatulent pustule of  filth.  Same goes for the ACLU.  These men are to be applauded, and thanked, by both the Border Patrol and President Trump.  Keep it up, men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the United Constitutional Patriots are so great, why are they all wearing masks?  Pro Tip:  If you belong to an organization where it is necessary to hide your face, you are in the wrong organization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like the nm gov did not authorize this group.
> no chain of command.
> With no chain of command it is nothing more than a vigilant group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If NM doesn't want citizen vigilante groups defending our borders then the governor should get off his flabby ass and start doing his job that he is there to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you are advocating against the rule of law.
> 
> that never goes well
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you?
Click to expand...


no, without the law nobody is safe

i care about my kids, and others, so i support the rule of lae


----------



## Marion Morrison

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think trump should offer a bounty 500 per illegal you can find
> 
> 
> 
> Me too!  That would definitely be a fast track to losing in 2020.  I hope trump does let all the crazy out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that would be the bees knees.
> 
> Also that you're a derp faggot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah,your fat ass won't be getting off the porch swing for this one.
Click to expand...


Try me, soyboy, my fat ass will rule you and yours, and then some.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Jitss617 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you are the threat. According to the Constitution, only a court of law can determine if a person is an illegal immigrant, or not. You are in favor of bypassing the court, and giving that authority to Brownshirts---excuse me, I mean militia.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't note anyone claiming militia people were actually deporting suspected illegals (found wandering around in the border wilderness, unable to speak a word of English, etc.) .
> 
> If you detain someone for the authorities at a house fire with a can of gasoline and matches, are you claiming in all your high and mighty ignorance, that the person doing the detaining has made a pronouncement and determination as to the legal disposition of the person detained?
> 
> That would be very stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sieg Heil!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "clever" coup de gras on your own unfortunately ignorant post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me put it this way. I live close to the border. I am an American citizen. I pack a 9MM. Let's say that I am a Latino, for the sake of discussion. Now, if some asshole wearing camies with no legal authority to do so, points a gun at me, I would be within my legal rights to shoot him dead, at worst, or sue him for false imprisonment, at least. And, I definitely would do one or the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we are in a crisis why wouldn’t you put you hands  up and be civil and show identification until the crisis is over??  Seems like you want to provoke
Click to expand...


If someone I do not know who is not an authorized officer of the law is pointing a gun at me, I would shoot first and ask questions later.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Jitss617 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is, indeed, probably applauding these militia guys. Trump routinely tramples on the Constitution and civil rights of Americans. Incidentally. even the border patrol doesn't hold suspected illegal immigrants at gun point, unless there is a specific threat to someone.
> 
> 
> 
> We are supposed to have militia not a standing army
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, what is the name of the militia that you belong to, the Sharks, or the Jets?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’ll tell you if you have the balls to come say it to my face haha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I would never do that, you are WAY too scary!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When I’m fighting for culture  I can be
Click to expand...


Again, are you a Shark, or a Jet?


----------



## Vandalshandle

Pilot1 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you are the threat. According to the Constitution, only a court of law can determine if a person is an illegal immigrant, or not. You are in favor of bypassing the court, and giving that authority to Brownshirts---excuse me, I mean militia.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't note anyone claiming militia people were actually deporting suspected illegals (found wandering around in the border wilderness, unable to speak a word of English, etc.) .
> 
> If you detain someone for the authorities at a house fire with a can of gasoline and matches, are you claiming in all your high and mighty ignorance, that the person doing the detaining has made a pronouncement and determination as to the legal disposition of the person detained?
> 
> That would be very stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sieg Heil!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "clever" coup de gras on your own unfortunately ignorant post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me put it this way. I live close to the border. I am an American citizen. I pack a 9MM. Let's say that I am a Latino, for the sake of discussion. Now, if some asshole wearing camies with no legal authority to do so, points a gun at me, I would be within my legal rights to shoot him dead, at worst, or sue him for false imprisonment, at least. And, I definitely would do one or the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must have missed it, where did it say the Militia was pointing guns at people?
Click to expand...


In the title of the thread.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Vandalshandle said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you are the threat. According to the Constitution, only a court of law can determine if a person is an illegal immigrant, or not. You are in favor of bypassing the court, and giving that authority to Brownshirts---excuse me, I mean militia.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't note anyone claiming militia people were actually deporting suspected illegals (found wandering around in the border wilderness, unable to speak a word of English, etc.) .
> 
> If you detain someone for the authorities at a house fire with a can of gasoline and matches, are you claiming in all your high and mighty ignorance, that the person doing the detaining has made a pronouncement and determination as to the legal disposition of the person detained?
> 
> That would be very stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sieg Heil!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "clever" coup de gras on your own unfortunately ignorant post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me put it this way. I live close to the border. I am an American citizen. I pack a 9MM. Let's say that I am a Latino, for the sake of discussion. Now, if some asshole wearing camies with no legal authority to do so, points a gun at me, I would be within my legal rights to shoot him dead, at worst, or sue him for false imprisonment, at least. And, I definitely would do one or the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we are in a crisis why wouldn’t you put you hands  up and be civil and show identification until the crisis is over??  Seems like you want to provoke
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone I do not know who is not an authorized officer of the law is pointing a gun at me, I would shoot first and ask questions later.
Click to expand...



With what, Mr. Shooter McShooterton? Pew Pew Pew?


----------



## Vandalshandle

Marion Morrison said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you are the threat. According to the Constitution, only a court of law can determine if a person is an illegal immigrant, or not. You are in favor of bypassing the court, and giving that authority to Brownshirts---excuse me, I mean militia.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't note anyone claiming militia people were actually deporting suspected illegals (found wandering around in the border wilderness, unable to speak a word of English, etc.) .
> 
> If you detain someone for the authorities at a house fire with a can of gasoline and matches, are you claiming in all your high and mighty ignorance, that the person doing the detaining has made a pronouncement and determination as to the legal disposition of the person detained?
> 
> That would be very stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sieg Heil!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "clever" coup de gras on your own unfortunately ignorant post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me put it this way. I live close to the border. I am an American citizen. I pack a 9MM. Let's say that I am a Latino, for the sake of discussion. Now, if some asshole wearing camies with no legal authority to do so, points a gun at me, I would be within my legal rights to shoot him dead, at worst, or sue him for false imprisonment, at least. And, I definitely would do one or the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we are in a crisis why wouldn’t you put you hands  up and be civil and show identification until the crisis is over??  Seems like you want to provoke
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone I do not know who is not an authorized officer of the law is pointing a gun at me, I would shoot first and ask questions later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> With what, Mr. Shooter McShooterton? Pew Pew Pew?
Click to expand...


Well, Pilgrim, I pack a 9 MM when I am in the AZ desert on my motorcycle, since I do not want to be at the mercy of a drug trafficker, or a right wing radical militia man if I break down out there.


----------



## Pilot1

Vandalshandle said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you are the threat. According to the Constitution, only a court of law can determine if a person is an illegal immigrant, or not. You are in favor of bypassing the court, and giving that authority to Brownshirts---excuse me, I mean militia.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't note anyone claiming militia people were actually deporting suspected illegals (found wandering around in the border wilderness, unable to speak a word of English, etc.) .
> 
> If you detain someone for the authorities at a house fire with a can of gasoline and matches, are you claiming in all your high and mighty ignorance, that the person doing the detaining has made a pronouncement and determination as to the legal disposition of the person detained?
> 
> That would be very stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sieg Heil!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "clever" coup de gras on your own unfortunately ignorant post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me put it this way. I live close to the border. I am an American citizen. I pack a 9MM. Let's say that I am a Latino, for the sake of discussion. Now, if some asshole wearing camies with no legal authority to do so, points a gun at me, I would be within my legal rights to shoot him dead, at worst, or sue him for false imprisonment, at least. And, I definitely would do one or the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I must have missed it, where did it say the Militia was pointing guns at people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the title of the thread.
Click to expand...


Duh.  My bad.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Vandalshandle said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't note anyone claiming militia people were actually deporting suspected illegals (found wandering around in the border wilderness, unable to speak a word of English, etc.) .
> 
> If you detain someone for the authorities at a house fire with a can of gasoline and matches, are you claiming in all your high and mighty ignorance, that the person doing the detaining has made a pronouncement and determination as to the legal disposition of the person detained?
> 
> That would be very stupid.
> 
> The "clever" coup de gras on your own unfortunately ignorant post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me put it this way. I live close to the border. I am an American citizen. I pack a 9MM. Let's say that I am a Latino, for the sake of discussion. Now, if some asshole wearing camies with no legal authority to do so, points a gun at me, I would be within my legal rights to shoot him dead, at worst, or sue him for false imprisonment, at least. And, I definitely would do one or the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we are in a crisis why wouldn’t you put you hands  up and be civil and show identification until the crisis is over??  Seems like you want to provoke
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone I do not know who is not an authorized officer of the law is pointing a gun at me, I would shoot first and ask questions later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> With what, Mr. Shooter McShooterton? Pew Pew Pew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, Pilgrim, I pack a 9 MM when I am in the AZ desert on my motorcycle, since I do not want to be at the mercy of a drug trafficker, or a right wing radical militia man if I break down out there.
Click to expand...


Purty weaksauce, IMO, but that would damn sure kill a man. That ain't no rifle round.

I could shoot that gun with 1 hand like a pistol though.


----------



## ozro

Vandalshandle said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't note anyone claiming militia people were actually deporting suspected illegals (found wandering around in the border wilderness, unable to speak a word of English, etc.) .
> 
> If you detain someone for the authorities at a house fire with a can of gasoline and matches, are you claiming in all your high and mighty ignorance, that the person doing the detaining has made a pronouncement and determination as to the legal disposition of the person detained?
> 
> That would be very stupid.
> 
> The "clever" coup de gras on your own unfortunately ignorant post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me put it this way. I live close to the border. I am an American citizen. I pack a 9MM. Let's say that I am a Latino, for the sake of discussion. Now, if some asshole wearing camies with no legal authority to do so, points a gun at me, I would be within my legal rights to shoot him dead, at worst, or sue him for false imprisonment, at least. And, I definitely would do one or the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we are in a crisis why wouldn’t you put you hands  up and be civil and show identification until the crisis is over??  Seems like you want to provoke
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone I do not know who is not an authorized officer of the law is pointing a gun at me, I would shoot first and ask questions later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> With what, Mr. Shooter McShooterton? Pew Pew Pew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, Pilgrim, I pack a 9 MM when I am in the AZ desert on my motorcycle, since I do not want to be at the mercy of a drug trafficker, or a right wing radical militia man if I break down out there.
Click to expand...


9mm Ruger is a good weapon. I also carry a small .22 semiauto for backup, and maybe throwaway. Doesn't hurt to be prepared.


----------



## Pilot1

Vandalshandle said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't note anyone claiming militia people were actually deporting suspected illegals (found wandering around in the border wilderness, unable to speak a word of English, etc.) .
> 
> If you detain someone for the authorities at a house fire with a can of gasoline and matches, are you claiming in all your high and mighty ignorance, that the person doing the detaining has made a pronouncement and determination as to the legal disposition of the person detained?
> 
> That would be very stupid.
> 
> The "clever" coup de gras on your own unfortunately ignorant post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me put it this way. I live close to the border. I am an American citizen. I pack a 9MM. Let's say that I am a Latino, for the sake of discussion. Now, if some asshole wearing camies with no legal authority to do so, points a gun at me, I would be within my legal rights to shoot him dead, at worst, or sue him for false imprisonment, at least. And, I definitely would do one or the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we are in a crisis why wouldn’t you put you hands  up and be civil and show identification until the crisis is over??  Seems like you want to provoke
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone I do not know who is not an authorized officer of the law is pointing a gun at me, I would shoot first and ask questions later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> With what, Mr. Shooter McShooterton? Pew Pew Pew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, Pilgrim, I pack a 9 MM when I am in the AZ desert on my motorcycle, since I do not want to be at the mercy of a drug trafficker, or a right wing radical militia man if I break down out there.
Click to expand...


Were you ever harassed by "right wing radical militia"?  Bottom line, for whatever reason our government can not keep up with all the hordes of illegal aliens, drug traffickers, coyotes, etc so THE PEOPLE need to pick up the slack.


----------



## Marion Morrison

ozro said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me put it this way. I live close to the border. I am an American citizen. I pack a 9MM. Let's say that I am a Latino, for the sake of discussion. Now, if some asshole wearing camies with no legal authority to do so, points a gun at me, I would be within my legal rights to shoot him dead, at worst, or sue him for false imprisonment, at least. And, I definitely would do one or the other.
> 
> 
> 
> If we are in a crisis why wouldn’t you put you hands  up and be civil and show identification until the crisis is over??  Seems like you want to provoke
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone I do not know who is not an authorized officer of the law is pointing a gun at me, I would shoot first and ask questions later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> With what, Mr. Shooter McShooterton? Pew Pew Pew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, Pilgrim, I pack a 9 MM when I am in the AZ desert on my motorcycle, since I do not want to be at the mercy of a drug trafficker, or a right wing radical militia man if I break down out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 9mm Ruger is a good weapon. I also carry a small .22 semiauto for backup, and maybe throwaway. Doesn't hurt to be prepared.
Click to expand...


Tell ya what...22 to 9mm, I ain't trying to catch any of that lead.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Marion Morrison said:


> Try me, soyboy, my fat ass will rule you and yours, and then some.


Well sure, if we have a cousin-fucking contest, or a Duck Dynasty trivia contest. But, if you have to do something that requires peeling your fat ass off the porch swing, it will be over before it starts.


----------



## Jitss617

I feel bad for peope againts American culture,, you will lose and lose bad


----------



## Marion Morrison

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try me, soyboy, my fat ass will rule you and yours, and then some.
> 
> 
> 
> Well sure, if we have a cousin-fucking contest, or a Duck Dynasty trivia contest. But, if you have to do something that requires peeling your fat ass off the porch swing, it will be over before it starts.
Click to expand...


You keep thinking that, soyboy.
You think I'm not going to stand up and defend my country? I'll die before I let leftists implement their agendas, and take as many of them as I can with me, true story.
I have no other motivation except the continuation of freedom in America.

I grew up in a freer America, and it's not fair to them to have faggots like you dictating the rules they have to live by.

Fuck you!  you know who fucks cousins? (since you brought it up) Muslims. Derp!

Go fuck yourself, you leftist shit.

Ilhan Omar married and is  fucking her brother, derp!


W VA would be proud.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Jitss617 said:


> I feel bad for peope againts American culture,, you will lose and lose bad


Sorry, but uneducated rednecks like you are only a part of american culture. The whole of American culture is a culture of immigrants. We celebrate holidays from foreign cultures. Foreign food restaurants everywhere. The day uneducated mouth breathers like you are the symbol of america is the day america becomes a second class country.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Marion Morrison said:


> You think I'm not going stand up and defend my country? I


Correct, you aren't. You're going to keep staining your mumu with cheetohs and cackling at fox news stories while you choke on them.


----------



## Crepitus

Jitss617 said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!!!
> 
> They were looking for BP anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ohhh they found them.. in the form of a militia.. be careful young Mexicans we shoot.. cowboy up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they had shot them they would be in jail.  This ain't the wild west kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s the West and it’s wild... your liberal laws can’t stop what’s going to happen
Click to expand...

This is America son, we don't shoot people for misdemeanor offenses, and murder is murder no matter what color the victim is.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Crepitus said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!!!
> 
> They were looking for BP anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ohhh they found them.. in the form of a militia.. be careful young Mexicans we shoot.. cowboy up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they had shot them they would be in jail.  This ain't the wild west kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s the West and it’s wild... your liberal laws can’t stop what’s going to happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is America son, we don't shoot people for misdemeanor offenses, and murder is murder no matter what color the victim is.
Click to expand...


Not if it's traitors like you n FFI, faggots! Keep on being POS traitors all you want, just know that someday there may be a reckoning.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think I'm not going stand up and defend my country? I
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, you aren't. You're going to keep staining your mumu with cheetohs and cackling at fox news stories while you choke on them.
Click to expand...



Try me, punk ass bitch!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Marion Morrison said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!!!
> 
> They were looking for BP anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhh they found them.. in the form of a militia.. be careful young Mexicans we shoot.. cowboy up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they had shot them they would be in jail.  This ain't the wild west kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s the West and it’s wild... your liberal laws can’t stop what’s going to happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is America son, we don't shoot people for misdemeanor offenses, and murder is murder no matter what color the victim is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if it's traitors like you n FFI, faggots! Keep on being POS traitors all you want, just know that someday there may be a reckoning.
Click to expand...

Oooh,scary. Fat redneck called me a faggot while spitting cheetohs on himself. Oh no, I might have to break into a brisk walk to escape....


----------



## Crepitus

Marion Morrison said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO!!!
> 
> They were looking for BP anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhh they found them.. in the form of a militia.. be careful young Mexicans we shoot.. cowboy up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they had shot them they would be in jail.  This ain't the wild west kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s the West and it’s wild... your liberal laws can’t stop what’s going to happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is America son, we don't shoot people for misdemeanor offenses, and murder is murder no matter what color the victim is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if it's traitors like you n FFI, faggots! Keep on being POS traitors all you want, just know that someday there may be a reckoning.
Click to expand...

More empty threats from the conservitard peanut gallery.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhh they found them.. in the form of a militia.. be careful young Mexicans we shoot.. cowboy up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they had shot them they would be in jail.  This ain't the wild west kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s the West and it’s wild... your liberal laws can’t stop what’s going to happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is America son, we don't shoot people for misdemeanor offenses, and murder is murder no matter what color the victim is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if it's traitors like you n FFI, faggots! Keep on being POS traitors all you want, just know that someday there may be a reckoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oooh,scary. Fat redneck called me a faggot while spitting cheetohs on himself. Oh no, I might have to break into a brisk walk to escape....
Click to expand...


Too bad if I sprint and slam your sorry ass for why not, huh?


----------



## Crepitus

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhh they found them.. in the form of a militia.. be careful young Mexicans we shoot.. cowboy up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they had shot them they would be in jail.  This ain't the wild west kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s the West and it’s wild... your liberal laws can’t stop what’s going to happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is America son, we don't shoot people for misdemeanor offenses, and murder is murder no matter what color the victim is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if it's traitors like you n FFI, faggots! Keep on being POS traitors all you want, just know that someday there may be a reckoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oooh,scary. Fat redneck called me a faggot while spitting cheetohs on himself. Oh no, I might have to break into a brisk walk to escape....
Click to expand...

Terrifying aren't they?


----------



## Marion Morrison

Crepitus said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhh they found them.. in the form of a militia.. be careful young Mexicans we shoot.. cowboy up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they had shot them they would be in jail.  This ain't the wild west kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s the West and it’s wild... your liberal laws can’t stop what’s going to happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is America son, we don't shoot people for misdemeanor offenses, and murder is murder no matter what color the victim is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if it's traitors like you n FFI, faggots! Keep on being POS traitors all you want, just know that someday there may be a reckoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More empty threats from the conservitard peanut gallery.
> 
> View attachment 256821
Click to expand...


I dream about punching faggots like you in the face. Tired of your bullshit, seriously.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Marion Morrison said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they had shot them they would be in jail.  This ain't the wild west kid.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s the West and it’s wild... your liberal laws can’t stop what’s going to happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is America son, we don't shoot people for misdemeanor offenses, and murder is murder no matter what color the victim is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if it's traitors like you n FFI, faggots! Keep on being POS traitors all you want, just know that someday there may be a reckoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oooh,scary. Fat redneck called me a faggot while spitting cheetohs on himself. Oh no, I might have to break into a brisk walk to escape....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too bad if I sprint and slam your sorry ass for why not, huh?
Click to expand...

The only thing you will be slamming is a 3-day old PBR you stole off Meemaw's headboard.


----------



## Crepitus

Marion Morrison said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they had shot them they would be in jail.  This ain't the wild west kid.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s the West and it’s wild... your liberal laws can’t stop what’s going to happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is America son, we don't shoot people for misdemeanor offenses, and murder is murder no matter what color the victim is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if it's traitors like you n FFI, faggots! Keep on being POS traitors all you want, just know that someday there may be a reckoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oooh,scary. Fat redneck called me a faggot while spitting cheetohs on himself. Oh no, I might have to break into a brisk walk to escape....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too bad if I sprint and slam your sorry ass for why not, huh?
Click to expand...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Crepitus said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they had shot them they would be in jail.  This ain't the wild west kid.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s the West and it’s wild... your liberal laws can’t stop what’s going to happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is America son, we don't shoot people for misdemeanor offenses, and murder is murder no matter what color the victim is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if it's traitors like you n FFI, faggots! Keep on being POS traitors all you want, just know that someday there may be a reckoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oooh,scary. Fat redneck called me a faggot while spitting cheetohs on himself. Oh no, I might have to break into a brisk walk to escape....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Terrifying aren't they?
Click to expand...

I'm paralyzed with fear. Or laughter.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhh they found them.. in the form of a militia.. be careful young Mexicans we shoot.. cowboy up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they had shot them they would be in jail.  This ain't the wild west kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s the West and it’s wild... your liberal laws can’t stop what’s going to happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is America son, we don't shoot people for misdemeanor offenses, and murder is murder no matter what color the victim is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if it's traitors like you n FFI, faggots! Keep on being POS traitors all you want, just know that someday there may be a reckoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oooh,scary. Fat redneck called me a faggot while spitting cheetohs on himself. Oh no, I might have to break into a brisk walk to escape....
Click to expand...


What are you going to bring to the conflict? Apparently you want one, dick cheese. FYI, I am well-versed in dumping you on your neck, faggot. Also putting bullets right between your eyes, cocksucker. You don't stand a chance, faggot, you better seek another avenue of doing, boy.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Marion Morrison said:


> What are you going to bring to the conflict?


Maybe a squeegee to scrape you off the dirt you call your lawn?


----------



## Marion Morrison

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you going to bring to the conflict?
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe a squeegee to scrape you off the dirt you call your lawn?
Click to expand...

Come step onto my lawn and we'll take it from there! This can be fun!


----------



## EvilCat Breath

The sad fat Japanese.  Isn't it racist to make fun of them?

The invaders should not be shot.  Get horses and ATVs.   Take all food and water they might have.  Break up the groups and drive them into the desert away from the trails.  Chase them until they drop.

Let the desert take care of them in a natural way.


----------



## ozro

Stay off my lawn!!!!

wait, I don't have a lawn.

Well stay off my dirt, walk on the dirt on your side of my gate dammit.


----------



## Crepitus

Marion Morrison said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they had shot them they would be in jail.  This ain't the wild west kid.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s the West and it’s wild... your liberal laws can’t stop what’s going to happen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is America son, we don't shoot people for misdemeanor offenses, and murder is murder no matter what color the victim is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if it's traitors like you n FFI, faggots! Keep on being POS traitors all you want, just know that someday there may be a reckoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oooh,scary. Fat redneck called me a faggot while spitting cheetohs on himself. Oh no, I might have to break into a brisk walk to escape....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you going to bring to the conflict? Apparently you want one, dick cheese. FYI, I am well-versed in dumping you on your neck, faggot. Also putting bullets right between your eyes, cocksucker. You don't stand a chance, faggot, you better seek another avenue of doing, boy.
Click to expand...


----------



## Marion Morrison

ozro said:


> Stay off my lawn!!!!
> 
> wait, I don't have a lawn.
> 
> Well stay off my dirt, walk on the dirt on your side of my gate dammit.



I do have a lawn, if asshole here appears on it, he'll most likely be perforated. I have a gun in my pocket right now. I'm not messing around with faggots like this.


----------



## ozro

Marion Morrison said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stay off my lawn!!!!
> 
> wait, I don't have a lawn.
> 
> Well stay off my dirt, walk on the dirt on your side of my gate dammit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do have a lawn, if asshole here appears on it, he'll most likely be perforated. I have a gun in my pocket right now. I'm not messing around with faggots like this.
Click to expand...


Oh I don't doubt it. I really do mean it when i tell people to stay on their side of my gate. 
If the dogs leave a big enough piece, then I would shoot them


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Marion Morrison said:


> I have a gun in my pocket right now.


Oooh, scary!  A redneck with a gun!  A/k/a, a redneck. When you piss yourself with fear and shoot your remaining nut off, would it be fair if i still punched a hole through your face? I don't think it would.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a gun in my pocket right now.
> 
> 
> 
> Oooh, scary!  A redneck with a gun!  A/k/a, a redneck. When you piss yourself with fear and shoot your remaining nut off, would it be fair if i still punched a hole through your face? I don't think it would.
Click to expand...


Sucks for you I know how to bob and weave and smash your face right into the back of your empty skull, punk.

1 time this younger guy swung at me 9X and I dodged them all and laughed. He was seriously trying to hurt me. It didn't happen like that.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Pilot1 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me put it this way. I live close to the border. I am an American citizen. I pack a 9MM. Let's say that I am a Latino, for the sake of discussion. Now, if some asshole wearing camies with no legal authority to do so, points a gun at me, I would be within my legal rights to shoot him dead, at worst, or sue him for false imprisonment, at least. And, I definitely would do one or the other.
> 
> 
> 
> If we are in a crisis why wouldn’t you put you hands  up and be civil and show identification until the crisis is over??  Seems like you want to provoke
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone I do not know who is not an authorized officer of the law is pointing a gun at me, I would shoot first and ask questions later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> With what, Mr. Shooter McShooterton? Pew Pew Pew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, Pilgrim, I pack a 9 MM when I am in the AZ desert on my motorcycle, since I do not want to be at the mercy of a drug trafficker, or a right wing radical militia man if I break down out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you ever harassed by "right wing radical militia"?  Bottom line, for whatever reason our government can not keep up with all the hordes of illegal aliens, drug traffickers, coyotes, etc so THE PEOPLE need to pick up the slack.
Click to expand...


I live 30 miles from the border, and I have never been harassed by illegal immigrants, either, but they don't go around brandishing rifles and playing Rambo.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Vandalshandle said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we are in a crisis why wouldn’t you put you hands  up and be civil and show identification until the crisis is over??  Seems like you want to provoke
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If someone I do not know who is not an authorized officer of the law is pointing a gun at me, I would shoot first and ask questions later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> With what, Mr. Shooter McShooterton? Pew Pew Pew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, Pilgrim, I pack a 9 MM when I am in the AZ desert on my motorcycle, since I do not want to be at the mercy of a drug trafficker, or a right wing radical militia man if I break down out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you ever harassed by "right wing radical militia"?  Bottom line, for whatever reason our government can not keep up with all the hordes of illegal aliens, drug traffickers, coyotes, etc so THE PEOPLE need to pick up the slack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live 30 miles from the border, and I have never been harassed by illegal immigrants, either, but they don't go around brandishing rifles and playing Rambo.
Click to expand...


You're probably a cuck bitch.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Marion Morrison said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone I do not know who is not an authorized officer of the law is pointing a gun at me, I would shoot first and ask questions later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With what, Mr. Shooter McShooterton? Pew Pew Pew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, Pilgrim, I pack a 9 MM when I am in the AZ desert on my motorcycle, since I do not want to be at the mercy of a drug trafficker, or a right wing radical militia man if I break down out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you ever harassed by "right wing radical militia"?  Bottom line, for whatever reason our government can not keep up with all the hordes of illegal aliens, drug traffickers, coyotes, etc so THE PEOPLE need to pick up the slack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live 30 miles from the border, and I have never been harassed by illegal immigrants, either, but they don't go around brandishing rifles and playing Rambo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably a cuck bitch.
Click to expand...


I grew up in the deep South in the 1950's. We had "militia's" too. Only they wore white sheets.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Rightwing fear, hate, and bigotry.



Left*Wrong*wing treason.


----------



## deanrd

Jitss617 said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's sad to see Republicans so terrified of women and babies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Americans are scared and are struggling because of the resources being taken away by illegals.. are you ok with this??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like the 20 million people living in Appalachia. The very center of the Republican Party. Some of them don’t even have electricity or running water.
> So Republicans, being the kind of people they are, gave a $1.5 trillion tax cut to needy billionaires.
> See Republicans have a heart of gold.  Seriously, where their heart should be, is a coin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’d give up all that shit If I could.. id rather be free then have a Dime.. You need some diversity in your life
Click to expand...

Sorry, I rather have both.

And if you have some coin, you can buy a lot of freedom.


----------



## deanrd

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwing fear, hate, and bigotry.
> 
> 
> 
> Left wing duplicity, idiocy, treachery and back stabbing.
Click to expand...


Left wing duplicity, idiocy, treachery and back stabbing.

I don't understand how those are left wing.

Especially  the back stabbing.  Isn't that what Republicans do?  Remember when Trump told the coal miners their jobs were coming back and they would have the best healthcare?  I remember.

Trump Promised Coal Miners the World. He's Made Their Lives Worse in Every Way That Matters.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

> Left wing duplicity, idiocy, treachery and back stabbing.


oh they're not exclusive 
but we seem to get the most of it outta them ....lil bit 

not really lil  ...ITS A YUGE AMOUNT


----------



## skookerasbil

Natural Citizen said:


> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not, as the article claims, a "New Mexico militia."
> A "New Mexico militia" would act _through _the state.
> Just because some dolts wanna play cowboy and happen to be in New Mexico doesn't make it a "New Mexico militia."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some interpret the Constitution differently.
> 
> I don't believe that, having waged war against Great Britain, that the intent was to limit armed opposition to only government entities.
> 
> The Right to Bear Arms implies that We The People shall have possession of the power and means to defend against government tyranny, where ever it originates, and that that right Shall Not Be Infringed by the Federal Government NOR any State Government.
> 
> We The People are specifically empowered by the Constitution to form militias independent of any government sanctioning.
> 
> Think about it.   If we have to be "Allowed" to form militias by government authorities, that negates the entire spirit of the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> Does that mean that any armed group can just band together and undertake actions normally delegated to government authorities?
> 
> No.
> 
> But when such groups have formed to carry out those actions stated within the Constitution, then it overrides any government authority.   Again, that is the spirit of the 2nd amendment and the Constitution in it's entirety as iot is a document specifically designed to LIMIT the powers of the Federal government, but also state governments by proxy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militias are empowered to function through the state.
> 
> And you already negated to second amendment when you relinquished your first, fifth and tenth amendments in order to require a gun. Go try to buy one and when they ask you for your name to run the background check, tell em no and see if the government lets you leave there exercising your second amendment right with a gun.
Click to expand...


Oy.....another philosopher guy in here!

As I've said numerous times in recent month....we are going to be seeing shit we've never seen before leading up to late 2020. This is an example s0ns....people out there are not going to tolerate their country being turned into a shithole. This is not Europe! You'll see..........others in this country are going to ( the hard way ) come to understand embracing limpwristedness was really not worth it at all!


----------



## Hellbilly

andaronjim said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with repelling an invading horde of diseased criminals from our country?  If killing a few thousand stops the migration, that would be a good thing...Those that die in the desert are far worse, so show those who are willing to make the arduous trek, that it isnt worth it, and save even more lives, by killing a few...The needs of the many out way the needs of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do not have to condone murder. ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Murder isnt defending your borders from diseases that want to cross into our country and kill US.  Murder isnt defending yourself from criminals with the intent to rape our women and kill US.  Is it really that hard to see why we need to "Shoot" people who shouldn't belong here?  They are dying in the 10 of 1000s crossing into areas that will kill them anyway.  Why aren't we just euthanizing them out of their misery...Call it "Post Birth Abortions"..​
Click to expand...


“Thou shalt not kill.”
-God


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lysistrata

Anyone at our borders who is carrying arms and holding themselves out to be law-enforcement officers when they are not should be jailed and tried as criminals.They have absolutely NO AUTHORITY to represent anyone.


----------



## Pilot1

Vandalshandle said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> With what, Mr. Shooter McShooterton? Pew Pew Pew?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Pilgrim, I pack a 9 MM when I am in the AZ desert on my motorcycle, since I do not want to be at the mercy of a drug trafficker, or a right wing radical militia man if I break down out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you ever harassed by "right wing radical militia"?  Bottom line, for whatever reason our government can not keep up with all the hordes of illegal aliens, drug traffickers, coyotes, etc so THE PEOPLE need to pick up the slack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live 30 miles from the border, and I have never been harassed by illegal immigrants, either, but they don't go around brandishing rifles and playing Rambo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably a cuck bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I grew up in the deep South in the 1950's. We had "militia's" too. Only they wore white sheets.
Click to expand...


So what?  That has absolutely no bearing today.  I grew up in the city where Blacks kill each other to this day in large numbers.  Total non sequitur.


----------



## OldLady

Jitss617 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, a roving band of heavily armed men tracking "enemies" in the desert and making up all their own rules as they go along--what could possibly go wrong?
> Instead of spending his time vilifying these dispossessed, poor, and powerless people, maybe Trump could have spent his energy pulling together folks who could do something about this.  We need changes made yesterday today our immigration laws, but this administration is just making it harder for people to share ideas and come to a workable compromise.  Instead, we get vigilantes roving the border with guns and extremists here screaming for blood.  We are getting farther and farther away from a solution.
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing you tow weren’t around for the revolution you would have threw John Adams in jail or killed him lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As soon as you revolutionaries came to my house bearing torches and a bucket of tar and sack of feathers, though, I would have taken your side fast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> check your history jt, even the colonial militia operated with authority. it may not have been legal as the king wasnt the authority, but it was a chain of command
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, every town had a Captain that kept the militia in order; they trained regularly, too.  I have read a lot of 1700's town records.  Each had its well organized militia and it definitely had a command structure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said that these men don’t? Do you have a name? Do you know anything about them?? Stop your ad hominem.
Click to expand...

Where did you get a personal insult out of that post?
I'm going by what ozro, who ACTUALLY works on the border, says.  You work as a waiter in Boston.  What do YOU know about them?   The town militias in the 1700's were commanded by Captains who were selected and instructed by the government.


----------



## OldLady

toobfreak said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are they wearing masks?
> If the United Constitutional Patriots are so great, why are they all wearing masks?  Pro Tip:  If you belong to an organization where it is necessary to hide your face, you are in the wrong organization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like the nm gov did not authorize this group.
> no chain of command.
> With no chain of command it is nothing more than a vigilant group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, a roving band of heavily armed men tracking "enemies" in the desert and making up all their own rules as they go along--what could possibly go wrong?
> Instead of spending his time vilifying these dispossessed, poor, and powerless people, maybe Trump could have spent his energy pulling together folks who could do something about this.  We need changes made yesterday today our immigration laws, but this administration is just making it harder for people to share ideas and come to a workable compromise.  Instead, we get vigilantes roving the border with guns and extremists here screaming for blood.  We are getting farther and farther away from a solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good thing you tow weren’t around for the revolution you would have threw John Adams in jail or killed him lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As soon as you revolutionaries came to my house bearing torches and a bucket of tar and sack of feathers, though, I would have taken your side fast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lady, you seem to have a very jaded view of your nation's history.  Maybe you'd be better off moving to another country for a few years for a reality adjustment.  Only question will be how long before you are glad to come back here.
Click to expand...

The Tories were driven out of town, out of the country, for even being "neutral" toward the British or continuing to earn their livelihood by doing business with them.  There is nothing jaded about my view.


----------



## OldLady

I tried to catch up on this thread, but I didn't have the heart to read all 8 pages I'd missed. 

There is just too much hate here.


----------



## Natural Citizen

"They Killed Us": Crowdfunding Sites Have Cut Off An Armed Militia Detaining Migrants At The Border
_
The militia detained hundreds of migrants at gunpoint this week and is accused of violating the crowdfunding sites' policy on the promotion of hate or violence.

A right-wing “patriot” group that detained hundreds of migrants at gunpoint at the southern border this week after raising thousands of dollars online was notified by crowdfunding giants PayPal and GoFundMe that its fundraising campaigns have been shut down, dealing a major blow to the militia's operation.

Known as the United Constitutional Patriots (UCP), the militia has been patrolling a remote stretch of the New Mexico desert near the Mexico border for months with heavily armed members reportedly detaining dozens of migrants a day.

The group has used the thousands of dollars donated online to supply food, gasoline, propane, and a portable toilet at a camp in Sunland, New Mexico, but by Friday members of the militia learned they would no longer be able to use PayPal or GoFundMe to raise money._


----------



## Pilot1

Well of course.  Paypal and GoFundMe are owned and operated by Far Left Progressives that hate America, and want Open Borders.


----------



## Natural Citizen

OldLady said:


> I tried to catch up on this thread, but I didn't have the heart to read all 8 pages I'd missed.
> 
> There is just too much hate here.



Some of the dialogue in threads like these attract the feds. I've seen it before, then you have to turn over everybody's names, ip addresses and all sorts of stuff. I've only seen extremist commentary from two people that contained direct threats, but it only takes one report.

How stupid are people? Ya know? I wouldn't let those whacko birds lead a lunch line. Gosh. 

Then they wanna whine about oh nos, muh gun rights, well shit like this is why all of us have to be wrung through the wringer whenever we require one for whatever reason.


----------



## skookerasbil

Natural Citizen said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I tried to catch up on this thread, but I didn't have the heart to read all 8 pages I'd missed.
> 
> There is just too much hate here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the dialogue in threads like these attract the feds. I've seen it before, then you have to turn over everybody's names, ip addresses and all sorts of stuff. I've only seen extremist commentary from two people, but it only takes one report.
> 
> How stupid are people? Ya know?
> 
> Then they wanna whine about oh nos, muh gun rights, well shit like this is why all of us have to be wrung through the wringer whenever we require one for whatever reason.
Click to expand...


Lol....whatever you say s0n!


----------



## Natural Citizen

skookerasbil said:


> Lol....whatever you say s0n!



Heh heh. You're a badass, are ya? I'll tell you something. And listen to me here, dipshit. You're talking to a trained killer. Okay? You're talking to somebody who's been dropped in a desert a couple times.

You lack discipline. You lack maturity. You're reckless. And you're a moron on top of that, you don't even understand liberty, much less purport to defend it responsibly, I've read your posts. Nobody in their right mind who holds any position of responsible leadership would let a half-wit wanna be a cowboy shit talking  dweeb like you within a hundred miles of confrontation. And they sure as shit wouldn't ask for your opinion or physical input. By your own words and the way you carry yourself you've proven yourself to be not only irresponsible with a deadly weapon, you've proven you aren't capable of thinking and reasoning responsibly without supervision. You're led by your emotion, similar to the many mass shooters who have acted on the same emotional presence you're forwarding here.

Stick to watching Bonanza or The Lone Ranger or plinking off pigeons in your back yard or whatever the fuck else you entertain yourself with to make yourself feel like a cowboy. Leave the hard stuff to responsible people who are qualified and who have the training, authority and duty to police the nation's border.

You're reckless in your thinking, you're reckless in your language and you carry yourself like you're twelve. I know militiamen, both male and female, who belong to legitimate, known militia groups. Many of them. Most are active duty and retired police, firemen, emt, and military personnel. These are responsible, experienced, trained people who understand 1- the proper role of government and 2- the proper role of militia. They don't carry themselves the way you carry yourself. They don't pop their pie holes off in the same reckless manner in which you do. They don't go around on publicy accessible web platforms talking about pointing a gun and shooting people. Shit like that is why they want our social media accounts in order to require a gun now. Ya stupid fuck. Go ahead an give yourself a pat on the back. Heck, I'll go on a hunch and contend that you're likely not even physically fit to hump through weeds and desert with a load on your back anyway, Mr. 30,000 posts. lol. The only thing they'd likely find any use for you for is a donation once a week. Maybe they'll send you a hat or a tee shirt or something. You can march around the mall sucking on a pretzel dog and a mountain dew with your chest pushed out or something.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Pilot1 said:


> Well of course.  Paypal and GoFundMe are owned and operated by Far Left Progressives that hate America, and want Open Borders.


Neat! But kidnapping people at gunpoint is clearly violence.


----------



## Pilot1

When the Government continues to put American Citizens at risk by allowing criminals, potential terrorists, and drug traffickers into the country in large numbers then THE PEOPLE have a right to act to defend themselves from these threats.


----------



## longknife

*See my post on the subject: Human smugglers are firing AK-47s at Border Patrol personnel!*


----------



## Jitss617

OldLady said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing you tow weren’t around for the revolution you would have threw John Adams in jail or killed him lol
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as you revolutionaries came to my house bearing torches and a bucket of tar and sack of feathers, though, I would have taken your side fast.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> check your history jt, even the colonial militia operated with authority. it may not have been legal as the king wasnt the authority, but it was a chain of command
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, every town had a Captain that kept the militia in order; they trained regularly, too.  I have read a lot of 1700's town records.  Each had its well organized militia and it definitely had a command structure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said that these men don’t? Do you have a name? Do you know anything about them?? Stop your ad hominem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did you get a personal insult out of that post?
> I'm going by what ozro, who ACTUALLY works on the border, says.  You work as a waiter in Boston.  What do YOU know about them?   The town militias in the 1700's were commanded by Captains who were selected and instructed by the government.
Click to expand...

Please stay home make a sandwich you are clueless what is real men do


----------



## Vandalshandle

Pilot1 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Pilgrim, I pack a 9 MM when I am in the AZ desert on my motorcycle, since I do not want to be at the mercy of a drug trafficker, or a right wing radical militia man if I break down out there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you ever harassed by "right wing radical militia"?  Bottom line, for whatever reason our government can not keep up with all the hordes of illegal aliens, drug traffickers, coyotes, etc so THE PEOPLE need to pick up the slack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live 30 miles from the border, and I have never been harassed by illegal immigrants, either, but they don't go around brandishing rifles and playing Rambo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably a cuck bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I grew up in the deep South in the 1950's. We had "militia's" too. Only they wore white sheets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?  That has absolutely no bearing today.  I grew up in the city where Blacks kill each other to this day in large numbers.  Total non sequitur.
Click to expand...


Oh, well, then, never mind. It is ok, then.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Pilot1 said:


> When the Government continues to put American Citizens at risk by allowing criminals, potential terrorists, and drug traffickers into the country in large numbers then THE PEOPLE have a right to act to defend themselves from these threats.


...will say no judge, anywhere, ever, regarding this.


----------



## Jitss617

Dear tyrannical oppressive government may we please make a milita so that one day we can defeat you? Lol


----------



## Pilot1

Jitss617 said:


> Dear tyrannical oppressive government may we please make a milita so that one day we can defeat you? Lol



We have corrupt courts upholding unconstitutional laws passed by corrupt politicians which has enabled Government to once again become Tyrannical.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Pilot1 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear tyrannical oppressive government may we please make a milita so that one day we can defeat you? Lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have corrupt courts upholding unconstitutional laws passed by corrupt politicians which has enabled Government to once again become Tyrannical.
Click to expand...

Haha...so you want the laws enforced, but all the laws are corrupt. You mentally ill freaks don't even know what you are going to say next, do you?


----------



## Jitss617

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear tyrannical oppressive government may we please make a milita so that one day we can defeat you? Lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have corrupt courts upholding unconstitutional laws passed by corrupt politicians which has enabled Government to once again become Tyrannical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha...so you want the laws enforced, but all the laws are corrupt. You mentally ill freaks don't even know what you are going to say next, do you?
Click to expand...

You are deeply flawed in your thinking


----------



## Pilot1

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear tyrannical oppressive government may we please make a milita so that one day we can defeat you? Lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have corrupt courts upholding unconstitutional laws passed by corrupt politicians which has enabled Government to once again become Tyrannical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha...so you want the laws enforced, but all the laws are corrupt. You mentally ill freaks don't even know what you are going to say next, do you?
Click to expand...


Said like a good little Progressive, Statist Stooge.  I never said all laws were unconstitutional.  Duh.  Stop lying.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Jitss617 said:


> You are deeply flawed in your thinking


Well that's disconcerting.


----------



## Lysistrata

Marion Morrison said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone I do not know who is not an authorized officer of the law is pointing a gun at me, I would shoot first and ask questions later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With what, Mr. Shooter McShooterton? Pew Pew Pew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, Pilgrim, I pack a 9 MM when I am in the AZ desert on my motorcycle, since I do not want to be at the mercy of a drug trafficker, or a right wing radical militia man if I break down out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you ever harassed by "right wing radical militia"?  Bottom line, for whatever reason our government can not keep up with all the hordes of illegal aliens, drug traffickers, coyotes, etc so THE PEOPLE need to pick up the slack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live 30 miles from the border, and I have never been harassed by illegal immigrants, either, but they don't go around brandishing rifles and playing Rambo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably a cuck bitch.
Click to expand...


What is a "cuck bitch"? Sounds like gang speech. john wayne, are you a gang-banger?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Pilot1 said:


> I never said all laws were unconstitutional.


You didnt say "some", either. In the absence of qualifiers, your statements default to "all". But hey, not everyone makes it out of high school with a mastery of the English language... Otherwise trump would get no votes...


----------



## Marion Morrison

Lysistrata said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> With what, Mr. Shooter McShooterton? Pew Pew Pew?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Pilgrim, I pack a 9 MM when I am in the AZ desert on my motorcycle, since I do not want to be at the mercy of a drug trafficker, or a right wing radical militia man if I break down out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you ever harassed by "right wing radical militia"?  Bottom line, for whatever reason our government can not keep up with all the hordes of illegal aliens, drug traffickers, coyotes, etc so THE PEOPLE need to pick up the slack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live 30 miles from the border, and I have never been harassed by illegal immigrants, either, but they don't go around brandishing rifles and playing Rambo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably a cuck bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is a "cuck bitch"? Sounds like gang speech. john wayne, are you a gang-banger?
Click to expand...


A pusilanimous type of individual.


----------



## bodecea

Lysistrata said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> With what, Mr. Shooter McShooterton? Pew Pew Pew?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Pilgrim, I pack a 9 MM when I am in the AZ desert on my motorcycle, since I do not want to be at the mercy of a drug trafficker, or a right wing radical militia man if I break down out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you ever harassed by "right wing radical militia"?  Bottom line, for whatever reason our government can not keep up with all the hordes of illegal aliens, drug traffickers, coyotes, etc so THE PEOPLE need to pick up the slack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live 30 miles from the border, and I have never been harassed by illegal immigrants, either, but they don't go around brandishing rifles and playing Rambo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably a cuck bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is a "cuck bitch"? Sounds like gang speech. john wayne, are you a gang-banger?
Click to expand...

He's not a Chad...that's for sure.


----------



## danielpalos

Jitss617 said:


> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?


They should go show Texans how to lower their property crime rates.


----------



## Lysistrata

Marion Morrison said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Pilgrim, I pack a 9 MM when I am in the AZ desert on my motorcycle, since I do not want to be at the mercy of a drug trafficker, or a right wing radical militia man if I break down out there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you ever harassed by "right wing radical militia"?  Bottom line, for whatever reason our government can not keep up with all the hordes of illegal aliens, drug traffickers, coyotes, etc so THE PEOPLE need to pick up the slack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live 30 miles from the border, and I have never been harassed by illegal immigrants, either, but they don't go around brandishing rifles and playing Rambo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably a cuck bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is a "cuck bitch"? Sounds like gang speech. john wayne, are you a gang-banger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A pusilanimous type of individual.
Click to expand...


I am not so impressed with your erudition that I cannot ask if you are a gangbanger. You sound like you are.


----------



## danielpalos

Jitss617 said:


> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?


right wing bigots?  There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals in our Republic.

And, entry into the Union is a sovereign federal power; the States gave up that power after 1808 and Individuals are just plain criminals attempting to exercise that power as Individuals.


----------



## danielpalos

andaronjim said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with repelling an invading horde of diseased criminals from our country?  If killing a few thousand stops the migration, that would be a good thing...Those that die in the desert are far worse, so show those who are willing to make the arduous trek, that it isnt worth it, and save even more lives, by killing a few...The needs of the many out way the needs of the few.
Click to expand...

don't believe in natural rights?  why complain like hypocrites in abortion threads.


----------



## Natural Citizen

longknife said:


> *See my post on the subject: Human smugglers are firing AK-47s at Border Patrol personnel!*



That's a whloe different ball game. Gosh. Where'd you post that report?


----------



## danielpalos

Tipsycatlover said:


> The invaders were turned in.  The militia could be more effective.


especially in Texas.


----------



## danielpalos

Pilot1 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Unorganized Militia are not vigilantes.  It exists legitimately under U.S. Code.  They are doing what they are supposed to do when people try to illegally invade the U.S.
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 246 -  Militia: composition and classes
Click to expand...

the unorganized militia has no federal authority; they should be locked up.


----------



## danielpalos

Jitss617 said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's sad to see Republicans so terrified of women and babies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Americans are scared and are struggling because of the resources being taken away by illegals.. are you ok with this??
Click to expand...

our crime, drug, and terror wars are worse and only create refugees not solve any problems.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

danielpalos said:


> the unorganized militia has no federal authority; they should be locked up.


And they would be, if not for the "good ol' boys" network. 

Dont believe me? Hold someone at gunpoint and stream it on social media. Report back what happens next.


----------



## Natural Citizen

danielpalos said:


> the unorganized militia has no federal authority; they should be locked up.



Militias function through the states. Not the feds.


----------



## Lysistrata

The "WELL REGULATED MALITIA" became the National Guard in each state. The rest of these "militias" are gangbangers with no authority whatsoever. They are impersonators.


----------



## deanrd

Marion Morrison said:


> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one in a position of power is going to fix the border. Those turned over to the border patrol simply claim asylum status and are released into the general population. The rules are this way for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> The "rules" are this way because the pols find it more expedient to ignore the laws and to cripple the agency tasked with enforcing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rules are this way because the people in power want things...
> Dems want more 'people of color' whose predilection for 'gibs me dats' voting patterns will keep them in power
> Reps need to make their true constituents 'big business' fed with lots of cheap labor.
> 
> NOTHING is going to get done...there will be no wall...no true reform...no one in any power position will ever get locked up...just a slow cancer to the bottom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fie on your negativity! There will be a wall and deportations!
> 
> American blacks in the south need this to happen.
> 
> They are Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, there will be no wall. Blacks have no real power in this country. They are, when compared to other groups, the poorest, the most crime ridden, the least educated. Blacks are simply a voting block that Dems have exploited for votes. Dems do not care about blacks and black politicians who have the bully pulpit are too corrupt to genuinely care about their constituencies. Doubt me? Name me one prominent black Democrat who has spoken out against the southern invasion? They haven't...they won't...and if they want those dirty dollars to keep flooding in, they had better do their job and keep the blacks focused on the boogey man...whites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 256816
Click to expand...


----------



## deanrd

Lysistrata said:


> The "WELL REGULATED MALITIA" became the National Guard in each state. The rest of these "militias" are gangbangers with no authority whatsoever. They are impersonators.


No, they are Republicans. 

A group of Americans who put on OD Greens and then hold children and babies at gunpoint.

It has to be Republicans.  Who else would do such a thing?


----------



## OldLady

Natural Citizen said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I tried to catch up on this thread, but I didn't have the heart to read all 8 pages I'd missed.
> 
> There is just too much hate here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the dialogue in threads like these attract the feds. I've seen it before, then you have to turn over everybody's names, ip addresses and all sorts of stuff. I've only seen extremist commentary from two people that contained direct threats, but it only takes one report.
> 
> How stupid are people? Ya know? I wouldn't let those whacko birds lead a lunch line. Gosh.
> 
> Then they wanna whine about oh nos, muh gun rights, well shit like this is why all of us have to be wrung through the wringer whenever we require one for whatever reason.
Click to expand...

I don't take many "shoot 'em all" threats seriously, although I suppose that's someone's job--fortunately not mine.  I just get tired sometimes, trying to combat such negative, one-sided and unfair stereotypes of Mexicans, immigrants, illegals, etc.  And some days I just can't bear to keep hearing it over and over again.

What I said early in this thread is born out by many of the responses here:  We are moving farther and farther from coming up with workable solutions by letting hate and mindless, baseless bigotry take over the dialogue.  Left leaning posters get too extreme, too, by saying NO WALL.  Well, in places it would make sense.   Sanctuary cities go too far by releasing folks who have warrants for deportation instead of holding them for ICE.  Some progressives are even saying that ICE needs to be completely rethought.  It seems to be working, so why?

Your perspective is interesting.  I never thought about the fact that the federales might be scanning our words.  Maybe I should be more careful what I say about the Pres?  LOL


----------



## justoffal

Jitss617 said:


> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?


I'm in! You know it's coming. 

Jo


----------



## OldLady

Jitss617 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as you revolutionaries came to my house bearing torches and a bucket of tar and sack of feathers, though, I would have taken your side fast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> check your history jt, even the colonial militia operated with authority. it may not have been legal as the king wasnt the authority, but it was a chain of command
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, every town had a Captain that kept the militia in order; they trained regularly, too.  I have read a lot of 1700's town records.  Each had its well organized militia and it definitely had a command structure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said that these men don’t? Do you have a name? Do you know anything about them?? Stop your ad hominem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did you get a personal insult out of that post?
> I'm going by what ozro, who ACTUALLY works on the border, says.  You work as a waiter in Boston.  What do YOU know about them?   The town militias in the 1700's were commanded by Captains who were selected and instructed by the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please stay home make a sandwich you are clueless what is real men do
Click to expand...

lol


----------



## Marion Morrison

deanrd said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tijn Von Ingersleben said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gallantwarrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "rules" are this way because the pols find it more expedient to ignore the laws and to cripple the agency tasked with enforcing them.
> 
> 
> 
> The rules are this way because the people in power want things...
> Dems want more 'people of color' whose predilection for 'gibs me dats' voting patterns will keep them in power
> Reps need to make their true constituents 'big business' fed with lots of cheap labor.
> 
> NOTHING is going to get done...there will be no wall...no true reform...no one in any power position will ever get locked up...just a slow cancer to the bottom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fie on your negativity! There will be a wall and deportations!
> 
> American blacks in the south need this to happen.
> 
> They are Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, there will be no wall. Blacks have no real power in this country. They are, when compared to other groups, the poorest, the most crime ridden, the least educated. Blacks are simply a voting block that Dems have exploited for votes. Dems do not care about blacks and black politicians who have the bully pulpit are too corrupt to genuinely care about their constituencies. Doubt me? Name me one prominent black Democrat who has spoken out against the southern invasion? They haven't...they won't...and if they want those dirty dollars to keep flooding in, they had better do their job and keep the blacks focused on the boogey man...whites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 256816
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


This is why a wall needs to be taller and concrete.


----------



## justoffal

deanrd said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "WELL REGULATED MALITIA" became the National Guard in each state. The rest of these "militias" are gangbangers with no authority whatsoever. They are impersonators.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are Republicans.
> 
> A group of Americans who put on OD Greens and then hold children and babies at gunpoint.
> 
> It has to be Republicans.  Who else would do such a thing?
Click to expand...


Wow babies and children traveling by themselves. I'm impressed.

Jo


----------



## Marion Morrison

danielpalos said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Unorganized Militia are not vigilantes.  It exists legitimately under U.S. Code.  They are doing what they are supposed to do when people try to illegally invade the U.S.
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 246 -  Militia: composition and classes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized militia has no federal authority; they should be locked up.
Click to expand...


Why? The government obviously is not doing their job. Fuck that shit, I want a tax reduction!


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Gosh...if only we had some sort of, oh, I don't know....a "barrier" of some type (a wall perhaps) at the border to prevent all these unauthorized illegals from entering our nation we wouldn't need these ad hoc militia groups forming to stem the human tide that constitutes an invasion of sorts. 

I'm sure if Chuck and Nancy care about the country they might come to some sort of agreement with the president on the matter.


----------



## OldLady

Jitss617 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as you revolutionaries came to my house bearing torches and a bucket of tar and sack of feathers, though, I would have taken your side fast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> check your history jt, even the colonial militia operated with authority. it may not have been legal as the king wasnt the authority, but it was a chain of command
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, every town had a Captain that kept the militia in order; they trained regularly, too.  I have read a lot of 1700's town records.  Each had its well organized militia and it definitely had a command structure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said that these men don’t? Do you have a name? Do you know anything about them?? Stop your ad hominem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did you get a personal insult out of that post?
> I'm going by what ozro, who ACTUALLY works on the border, says.  You work as a waiter in Boston.  What do YOU know about them?   The town militias in the 1700's were commanded by Captains who were selected and instructed by the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please stay home make a sandwich you are clueless what is real men do
Click to expand...


----------



## Marion Morrison

OldLady said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> check your history jt, even the colonial militia operated with authority. it may not have been legal as the king wasnt the authority, but it was a chain of command
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, every town had a Captain that kept the militia in order; they trained regularly, too.  I have read a lot of 1700's town records.  Each had its well organized militia and it definitely had a command structure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said that these men don’t? Do you have a name? Do you know anything about them?? Stop your ad hominem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did you get a personal insult out of that post?
> I'm going by what ozro, who ACTUALLY works on the border, says.  You work as a waiter in Boston.  What do YOU know about them?   The town militias in the 1700's were commanded by Captains who were selected and instructed by the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please stay home make a sandwich you are clueless what is real men do
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Marion Morrison

OldLady said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> check your history jt, even the colonial militia operated with authority. it may not have been legal as the king wasnt the authority, but it was a chain of command
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, every town had a Captain that kept the militia in order; they trained regularly, too.  I have read a lot of 1700's town records.  Each had its well organized militia and it definitely had a command structure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said that these men don’t? Do you have a name? Do you know anything about them?? Stop your ad hominem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did you get a personal insult out of that post?
> I'm going by what ozro, who ACTUALLY works on the border, says.  You work as a waiter in Boston.  What do YOU know about them?   The town militias in the 1700's were commanded by Captains who were selected and instructed by the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please stay home make a sandwich you are clueless what is real men do
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


He's gotta be a faggot. I could get all that on 1 arm.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Lysistrata said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were you ever harassed by "right wing radical militia"?  Bottom line, for whatever reason our government can not keep up with all the hordes of illegal aliens, drug traffickers, coyotes, etc so THE PEOPLE need to pick up the slack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I live 30 miles from the border, and I have never been harassed by illegal immigrants, either, but they don't go around brandishing rifles and playing Rambo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably a cuck bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is a "cuck bitch"? Sounds like gang speech. john wayne, are you a gang-banger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A pusilanimous type of individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not so impressed with your erudition that I cannot ask if you are a gangbanger. You sound like you are.
Click to expand...


I am not affiliated with any gang.


----------



## Vandalshandle

...and here is what the New Mexico governor says about it:

'No authority': New Mexico governor tells militia to stop arresting migrants at border


----------



## Lysistrata

deanrd said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "WELL REGULATED MALITIA" became the National Guard in each state. The rest of these "militias" are gangbangers with no authority whatsoever. They are impersonators.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are Republicans.
> 
> A group of Americans who put on OD Greens and then hold children and babies at gunpoint.
> 
> It has to be Republicans.  Who else would do such a thing?
Click to expand...


I worry that there are groups of Americans who do not have any legitimate authority are running around trying to pretend that they have any authority to represent the people of the United States. Referring to their gangs as "militias" does not add any legitimacy to their gang-banger actions. These "play soldier" gangs need to be stopped.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Vandalshandle said:


> ...and here is what the New Mexico governor says about it:
> 
> 'No authority': New Mexico governor tells militia to stop arresting migrants at border


She's a committed leftist shill. I'm not surprised. 

But is it illegal to detain someone in the commission of a crime?  Not that I know of. 
Can I stop an arsonist after burning a house down and hold him for the police? I sure can.


----------



## Jitss617

danielpalos said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> right wing bigots?  There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals in our Republic.
> 
> And, entry into the Union is a sovereign federal power; the States gave up that power after 1808 and Individuals are just plain criminals attempting to exercise that power as Individuals.
Click to expand...

These men and more like them are going to be in your life very soon, we will be looking for communist racist materials ..noth you can do about it


----------



## Vandalshandle

Militias are an American tradition. This picture captures them marching for Jesus and America in 1925.


----------



## Jitss617

danielpalos said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Unorganized Militia are not vigilantes.  It exists legitimately under U.S. Code.  They are doing what they are supposed to do when people try to illegally invade the U.S.
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 246 -  Militia: composition and classes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized militia has no federal authority; they should be locked up.
Click to expand...

Come and stop us


----------



## Vandalshandle

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and here is what the New Mexico governor says about it:
> 
> 'No authority': New Mexico governor tells militia to stop arresting migrants at border
> 
> 
> 
> She's a committed leftist shill. I'm not surprised.
> 
> But is it illegal to detain someone in the commission of a crime?  Not that I know of.
> Can I stop an arsonist after burning a house down and hold him for the police? I sure can.
Click to expand...


Eric, don't give up your day job to practice law.


----------



## Pilot1

Vandalshandle said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and here is what the New Mexico governor says about it:
> 
> 'No authority': New Mexico governor tells militia to stop arresting migrants at border
> 
> 
> 
> She's a committed leftist shill. I'm not surprised.
> 
> But is it illegal to detain someone in the commission of a crime?  Not that I know of.
> Can I stop an arsonist after burning a house down and hold him for the police? I sure can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eric, don't give up your day job to practice law.
Click to expand...


Just because they are "LAWS" doesn't mean they are moral, Constitutional, or just.  Slavery was legal once.  That was a law too.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

justoffal said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "WELL REGULATED MALITIA" became the National Guard in each state. The rest of these "militias" are gangbangers with no authority whatsoever. They are impersonators.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are Republicans.
> 
> A group of Americans who put on OD Greens and then hold children and babies at gunpoint.
> 
> It has to be Republicans.  Who else would do such a thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow babies and children traveling by themselves. I'm impressed.
> 
> Jo
Click to expand...

These are fighting men and gang members hiding behind a human shield of women and children.


----------



## Lysistrata

Jitss617 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Unorganized Militia are not vigilantes.  It exists legitimately under U.S. Code.  They are doing what they are supposed to do when people try to illegally invade the U.S.
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 246 -  Militia: composition and classes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized militia has no federal authority; they should be locked up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come and stop us
Click to expand...


Just who are this "us"? I suspect that you are a gangster.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Jitss617 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Unorganized Militia are not vigilantes.  It exists legitimately under U.S. Code.  They are doing what they are supposed to do when people try to illegally invade the U.S.
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 246 -  Militia: composition and classes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized militia has no federal authority; they should be locked up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Come and stop us
Click to expand...


----------



## Jitss617

I just joined up with this group and asked if I could join, within 20 mins I was in uniform holding AK to the temple of an illegal called jeasus .. I plan to be here in the Desert for a good 25 days. I’ll do what ever it takes to defend America!


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Lysistrata said:


> I worry that there are groups of Americans who do not have any legitimate authority are running around trying to pretend that they have any authority to represent the people of the United States. Referring to their gangs as "militias" does not add any legitimacy to their gang-banger actions. These "play soldier" gangs need to be stopped.


"Gang banger"?    These groups are on the side of the federal law, whether you like it or not, when illegal immigrants are detained. They don't have to pretend. They DO represent the people of the United States.

Or at least the people that still believe our federal immigration laws should be enforced and obeyed. I know this doesn't apply to you and other leftists who are actively trying to flood the nation with illegal immigrants for political gain.
But our borders are being assaulted on a daily basis and the Southern border is a cesspool of crime and real gang activity.

So do I object to the actions of a  tiny group of people trying to help our Border Patrol? No. Why do you?


----------



## Lysistrata

Jitss617 said:


> I just joined up with this group and asked if I could join, within 20 mins I was in uniform holding AK to the temple of an illegal called jeasus .. I plan to be here in the Desert for a good 25 days. I’ll do all it takes to defend America!



What "uniform" are you wearing? Whom do you presume to represent?


----------



## Vandalshandle

Jitss617 said:


> I just joined up with this group and asked if I could join, within 20 mins I was in uniform holding AK to the temple of an illegal called jeasus .. I plan to be here in the Desert for a good 25 days. I’ll do what ever it takes to defend America!



Seriously, Jit, have you reached your 18th birthday, yet?


----------



## Jitss617

Lysistrata said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just joined up with this group and asked if I could join, within 20 mins I was in uniform holding AK to the temple of an illegal called jeasus .. I plan to be here in the Desert for a good 25 days. I’ll do all it takes to defend America!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "uniform" are you wearing? Whom do you presume to represent?
Click to expand...

Can’t give away to much details but we are well run and well stocked! Some of us use horse back or RV’s 
Right now we have detained  7 who tried to escape.. that was the wrong move taco


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Vandalshandle said:


> Eric, don't give up your day job to practice law.


Or you. If I've stated something that is not factual I expect you will point it out and correct me.

But you haven't therefor I will just assume you were barking from behind a big safe fence and not really interested in a scrap. Smart dog.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Vandalshandle said:


> ...and here is what the New Mexico governor says about it:
> 
> 'No authority': New Mexico governor tells militia to stop arresting migrants at border



He's a POS and should be removed from office, then.

*Article IV, Section IV*


*Section 4
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; 


^ Failure to uphold his oath of office. He should have already called out the National Guard.*

*His allowing invasion could very well land him in Federal prison.*


----------



## Vandalshandle

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eric, don't give up your day job to practice law.
> 
> 
> 
> Or you. If I've stated something that is not factual I expect you will point it out and correct me.
> 
> But you haven't therefor I will just assume you were barking from behind a big safe fence and not really interested in a scrap. Smart dog.
Click to expand...


Eric, I am not going to argue about law with someone who obviously slept through 8th grade Civics. As for Jit, this guy is reading too many Batman comic books. I'm off to find some adults.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Marion Morrison said:


> He's a POS and should be removed from office, then.


It's a she-piece of shit, and I agree. But she's a democrat and supporter of sanctuary policy so she doesn't really care about the law and what the Constitution says, like all shitbag leftists. 
She's part of the New Jim Crow movement called sanctuary policy and doesn't think the law applies to her and her state.


----------



## danielpalos

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the unorganized militia has no federal authority; they should be locked up.
> 
> 
> 
> And they would be, if not for the "good ol' boys" network.
> 
> Dont believe me? Hold someone at gunpoint and stream it on social media. Report back what happens next.
Click to expand...

only illegals care more about their bigotry than the law.


----------



## danielpalos

Natural Citizen said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> the unorganized militia has no federal authority; they should be locked up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militias function through the states. Not the feds.
Click to expand...

States have no authority over entry into the Union since 1808.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Vandalshandle said:


> Eric, I am not going to argue about law with someone who obviously slept through 8th grade Civics. As for Jit, this guy is reading too many Batman comic books. I'm off to find some adults.


Right. You _won't_ argue about it because you know I'm absolutely in the right. So points for being smart to at least that small degree and no points for your transparently phony bluffing and bluster. Take a hike, bike-boy.


----------



## danielpalos

Marion Morrison said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Unorganized Militia are not vigilantes.  It exists legitimately under U.S. Code.  They are doing what they are supposed to do when people try to illegally invade the U.S.
> 
> 10 U.S. Code § 246 -  Militia: composition and classes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized militia has no federal authority; they should be locked up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? The government obviously is not doing their job. Fuck that shit, I want a tax reduction!
Click to expand...

Dallas County can use your help more.


----------



## danielpalos

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Gosh...if only we had some sort of, oh, I don't know....a "barrier" of some type (a wall perhaps) at the border to prevent all these unauthorized illegals from entering our nation we wouldn't need these ad hoc militia groups forming to stem the human tide that constitutes an invasion of sorts.
> 
> I'm sure if Chuck and Nancy care about the country they might come to some sort of agreement with the president on the matter.


don't be illegals right wingers, enforce Constitutional law.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Vandalshandle said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eric, don't give up your day job to practice law.
> 
> 
> 
> Or you. If I've stated something that is not factual I expect you will point it out and correct me.
> 
> But you haven't therefor I will just assume you were barking from behind a big safe fence and not really interested in a scrap. Smart dog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eric, I am not going to argue about law with someone who obviously slept through 8th grade Civics. As for Jit, this guy is reading too many Batman comic books. I'm off to find some adults.
Click to expand...


At the gay bar, amirite?


----------



## Marion Morrison

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's a POS and should be removed from office, then.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a she-piece of shit, and I agree. But she's a democrat and supporter of sanctuary policy so she doesn't really care about the law and what the Constitution says, like all shitbag leftists.
> She's part of the New Jim Crow movement called sanctuary policy and doesn't think the law applies to her and her state.
Click to expand...


Seriously, there is legal recourse for that malarkey. She very well could end up in prison.


----------



## Marion Morrison

danielpalos said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh...if only we had some sort of, oh, I don't know....a "barrier" of some type (a wall perhaps) at the border to prevent all these unauthorized illegals from entering our nation we wouldn't need these ad hoc militia groups forming to stem the human tide that constitutes an invasion of sorts.
> 
> I'm sure if Chuck and Nancy care about the country they might come to some sort of agreement with the president on the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> don't be illegals right wingers, enforce Constitutional law.
Click to expand...


STFU you dumbass gnat motherfucker!


----------



## justoffal

Tipsycatlover said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "WELL REGULATED MALITIA" became the National Guard in each state. The rest of these "militias" are gangbangers with no authority whatsoever. They are impersonators.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are Republicans.
> 
> A group of Americans who put on OD Greens and then hold children and babies at gunpoint.
> 
> It has to be Republicans.  Who else would do such a thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow babies and children traveling by themselves. I'm impressed.
> 
> Jo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These are fighting men and gang members hiding behind a human shield of women and children.
Click to expand...


Ohhhh you mean the real criminals are the kidnapping assholes pretending to be refugees... hmmmm....kinda what Trump already said.

Jo


----------



## deanrd

Jitss617 said:


> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?


 Cowards don’t protect women and children and babies. They don’t hold them at gunpoint. Next you’ll be telling us that the Sandyhook shooter was a hero.
 It’s a shame really that Republicans don’t have the same concern for babies that they do for a fetus.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

danielpalos said:


> don't be illegals right wingers, enforce Constitutional law.


 To say anything to a crank like you is to encourage you. But you will post your brainless nonsense whether anyone
encourages you or not because you are a real dumb fucker!

The Constitution gives to the federal government the duty of protecting the nation. Illegal immigration is a very real and pernicious threat to the nation. Period.


----------



## deanrd

justoffal said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "WELL REGULATED MALITIA" became the National Guard in each state. The rest of these "militias" are gangbangers with no authority whatsoever. They are impersonators.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are Republicans.
> 
> A group of Americans who put on OD Greens and then hold children and babies at gunpoint.
> 
> It has to be Republicans.  Who else would do such a thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow babies and children traveling by themselves. I'm impressed.
> 
> Jo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These are fighting men and gang members hiding behind a human shield of women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ohhhh you mean the real criminals are the kidnapping assholes pretending to be refugees... hmmmm....kinda what Trump already said.
> 
> Jo
Click to expand...

 Wow. We were just schooled into what a delusion looks like.


----------



## danielpalos

Marion Morrison said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gosh...if only we had some sort of, oh, I don't know....a "barrier" of some type (a wall perhaps) at the border to prevent all these unauthorized illegals from entering our nation we wouldn't need these ad hoc militia groups forming to stem the human tide that constitutes an invasion of sorts.
> 
> I'm sure if Chuck and Nancy care about the country they might come to some sort of agreement with the president on the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> don't be illegals right wingers, enforce Constitutional law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> STFU you dumbass gnat motherfucker!
Click to expand...

dumb bigot.


----------



## Natural Citizen

danielpalos said:


> States have no authority over entry into the Union since 1808.



We're talking about militias, though. Militias function through the state, in support of the state against federal usurpers. That's it.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

deanrd said:


> Cowards don’t protect women and children and babies. They don’t hold them at gunpoint. Next you’ll be telling us that the Sandyhook shooter was a hero.
> It’s a shame really that Republicans don’t have the same concern for babies that they do for a fetus.


The greater shame was that your mom wasn't sufficiently pro choice enough.


----------



## danielpalos

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't be illegals right wingers, enforce Constitutional law.
> 
> 
> 
> To say anything to a crank like you is to encourage you. But you will post your brainless nonsense whether anyone
> encourages you or not because you are a real dumb fucker!
> 
> The Constitution gives to the federal government the duty of protecting the nation. Illegal immigration is a very real and pernicious threat to the nation. Period.
Click to expand...

only illegals don't care about the law.


----------



## Jitss617

deanrd said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Cowards don’t protect women and children and babies. They don’t hold them at gunpoint. Next you’ll be telling us that the Sandyhook shooter was a hero.
> It’s a shame really that Republicans don’t have the same concern for babies that they do for a fetus.
Click to expand...

We are protecting American babies that need a good education, that need to learn first class culture.


----------



## danielpalos

Natural Citizen said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> States have no authority over entry into the Union since 1808.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about militias, though. Militias function through the state, in support of the state against federal usurpers. That's it.
Click to expand...

so what. 

States have no authority over entry into the Union since 1808.


----------



## justoffal

deanrd said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "WELL REGULATED MALITIA" became the National Guard in each state. The rest of these "militias" are gangbangers with no authority whatsoever. They are impersonators.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are Republicans.
> 
> A group of Americans who put on OD Greens and then hold children and babies at gunpoint.
> 
> It has to be Republicans.  Who else would do such a thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow babies and children traveling by themselves. I'm impressed.
> 
> Jo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These are fighting men and gang members hiding behind a human shield of women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ohhhh you mean the real criminals are the kidnapping assholes pretending to be refugees... hmmmm....kinda what Trump already said.
> 
> Jo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow. We were just schooled into what a delusion looks like.
Click to expand...


Yeah pay attention Mortimer....
You are a complicit human trafficking POS.

Jo


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

danielpalos said:


> only illegals don't care about the law.


Yes. Criminals don't care about the law. Brilliant point!


----------



## skookerasbil

Im laughing......check out the explosion of posts on this thread. Nothing gets limpwristers more disturbed than shit like this. Pooping the pants disturbed....because progressives are a bunch of fags and they know it.

There are Americans out there...….lots and lots of them that aren't going to let their country become a shithole. And lets face it...….progressives don't want to be losing all their shit when the Alinksy strategy starts going south like it is now. They are not equipped to deal.

Are progressive groups going to show up to defend the illegals in the face of these types of militia groups?

I don't think so!!

As Ive been saying on here for 2 years...….we're gonna start seeing shit in this country like weve never seen before. And progressives are going to stand back on the sidelines with their thumbs up their asses and like it.


----------



## OldLady

skookerasbil said:


> Im laughing......check out the explosion of posts on this thread. Nothing gets limpwristers more disturbed than shit like this. Pooping the pants disturbed....because progressives are a bunch of fags and they know it.
> 
> There are Americans out there...….lots and lots of them that aren't going to let their country become a shithole. And lets face it...….progressives don't want to be losing all their shit when the Alinksy strategy starts going south like it is now. They are not equipped to deal.
> 
> Are progressive groups going to show up to defend the illegals in the face of these typos of militia groups?
> 
> I don't think so!!


They already have--the internet funding sources have been shut off and the State of New Mexico is investigating UCP and arrests will be forthcoming--particularly if they don't desist.  That's called the grown up way to "defend the illegals," in other words, to protect unarmed human beings from armed cowboys.


----------



## Jitss617

OldLady said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im laughing......check out the explosion of posts on this thread. Nothing gets limpwristers more disturbed than shit like this. Pooping the pants disturbed....because progressives are a bunch of fags and they know it.
> 
> There are Americans out there...….lots and lots of them that aren't going to let their country become a shithole. And lets face it...….progressives don't want to be losing all their shit when the Alinksy strategy starts going south like it is now. They are not equipped to deal.
> 
> Are progressive groups going to show up to defend the illegals in the face of these typos of militia groups?
> 
> I don't think so!!
> 
> 
> 
> They already have--the internet funding sources have been shut off and the State of New Mexico is investigating UCP and arrests will be forthcoming--particularly if they don't desist.  That's called the grown up way to "defend the illegals," in other words, to protect unarmed human beings from armed cowboys.
Click to expand...

They are invading us that is causing harm.. what don’t you get


----------



## Wyatt earp

OldLady said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im laughing......check out the explosion of posts on this thread. Nothing gets limpwristers more disturbed than shit like this. Pooping the pants disturbed....because progressives are a bunch of fags and they know it.
> 
> There are Americans out there...….lots and lots of them that aren't going to let their country become a shithole. And lets face it...….progressives don't want to be losing all their shit when the Alinksy strategy starts going south like it is now. They are not equipped to deal.
> 
> Are progressive groups going to show up to defend the illegals in the face of these typos of militia groups?
> 
> I don't think so!!
> 
> 
> 
> They already have--the internet funding sources have been shut off and the State of New Mexico is investigating UCP and arrests will be forthcoming--particularly if they don't desist.  That's called the grown up way to "defend the illegals," in other words, to protect unarmed human beings from armed cowboys.
Click to expand...


So you are on the side of an enemy invasion of America?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

OldLady said:


> They already have--the internet funding sources have been shut off and the State of New Mexico is investigating UCP and arrests will be forthcoming--particularly if they don't desist. That's called the grown up way to "defend the illegals," in other words, to protect unarmed human beings from armed cowboys.


New Mexico should take this group to court if they think assisting the Border Patrol is illegal. I'd love to see the Supreme Court issue a ruling.
If Nazis or Communists were swarming all over the Southwest and entering the nation would the New Mexico governor think that it was illegal for a militia to lend a hand?


----------



## Natural Citizen

danielpalos said:


> so what.
> 
> States have no authority over entry into the Union since 1808.



Again, militias operate through the state to combat federal usurpers. That's it. See Federalist numbers 28 and 46. After that, come back here and I'll direct you to the Constitution so you're square on intent in relation to 28 and 46.  If you wanna talk about the states' authority in terms of immigration, start a topic and I'll be glad to contribute to it. This thead is about an non state sanctioned militia operating outside of the parameters of how a militia is supposed to exist and function in order to justify its status as legitimate militia.


----------



## danielpalos

Jitss617 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im laughing......check out the explosion of posts on this thread. Nothing gets limpwristers more disturbed than shit like this. Pooping the pants disturbed....because progressives are a bunch of fags and they know it.
> 
> There are Americans out there...….lots and lots of them that aren't going to let their country become a shithole. And lets face it...….progressives don't want to be losing all their shit when the Alinksy strategy starts going south like it is now. They are not equipped to deal.
> 
> Are progressive groups going to show up to defend the illegals in the face of these typos of militia groups?
> 
> I don't think so!!
> 
> 
> 
> They already have--the internet funding sources have been shut off and the State of New Mexico is investigating UCP and arrests will be forthcoming--particularly if they don't desist.  That's called the grown up way to "defend the illegals," in other words, to protect unarmed human beings from armed cowboys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are invading us that is causing harm.. what don’t you get
Click to expand...

it is a refugee problem not an invasion; it is Only an invasion in right wing fantasy.


----------



## danielpalos

Natural Citizen said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what.
> 
> States have no authority over entry into the Union since 1808.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, militias operate through the state to combat federal usurpers. That's it. If you wanna talk about the states' authority in terms of immigration, start a topic and I'll be glad to contribute to it. This thead is about an non sate sanctioned militia operating outside of the parameters of what a militia is supposed to do in order to justify its status as legitimate militia.
Click to expand...

States have no authority over entry into the Union and have no basis to care if someone is from out  of State or from out of state since 1808.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Natural Citizen said:


> Again, militias operate through the state to combat federal usurpers. That's it. If you wanna talk about the states' authority in terms of immigration, start a topic and I'll be glad to contribute to it. This thead is about an non sate sanctioned militia operating outside of the parameters of what a militia is supposed to do in order to justify its status as legitimate militia.


Does Texas or Arizona reject a militia like this? If they don't but New Mexico does then it raises lots of questions about 
how a pro sanctuary governor is politicizing the issue and thus, making her threats and actions politically motivated and
thereby not valid or truly legal.


----------



## Pilot1

The Sanctuary Governor is enabling these militias to operate by her policies, and an argument can be made to justify their existence.  The State is illegally choosing not to cooperate with the Feds, and has created a vacuum.  Guess what?  Nature hates a vacuum.


----------



## Jitss617

Democrats are terrified that we are taking our country back


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

danielpalos said:


> it is a refugee problem not an invasion; it is Only an invasion in right wing fantasy.


It's an organized planned and financed attempt to crash our border security using waves of humanity as weapons. 
Fuck off, dimwit.


----------



## Natural Citizen

daniel, I took you off my ignore list a week or so ago. I'm that kinda guy. Ya know? I hate doin that, I really do. I believe in givin a feller a second chance if he does dumb stuff all the time. But now I remember why I had you on there in the first place. You're annoying.


----------



## Natural Citizen

Jitss617 said:


> Democrats are terrified that we are taking our country back



That's deep, man. lol.


----------



## danielpalos

Pilot1 said:


> The Sanctuary Governor is enabling these militias to operate by her policies, and an argument can be made to justify their existence.  The State is illegally choosing not to cooperate with the Feds, and has created a vacuum.  Guess what?  Nature hates a vacuum.


Organize those gun lovers and send them to Dallas County, Texas to solve that problem!


----------



## danielpalos

Natural Citizen said:


> daniel, I took you off my ignore list a week or so ago. I'm that kinda guy. Ya know? I hate doin that, I really do. I believe in givin a feller a second chance if he does dumb stuff all the time. But now I remember why I had you on there in the first place. You're annoying.


There is no such Thing as any form of well regulated militia of Individuals in our Republic.



> To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;


----------



## OldLady

bear513 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im laughing......check out the explosion of posts on this thread. Nothing gets limpwristers more disturbed than shit like this. Pooping the pants disturbed....because progressives are a bunch of fags and they know it.
> 
> There are Americans out there...….lots and lots of them that aren't going to let their country become a shithole. And lets face it...….progressives don't want to be losing all their shit when the Alinksy strategy starts going south like it is now. They are not equipped to deal.
> 
> Are progressive groups going to show up to defend the illegals in the face of these typos of militia groups?
> 
> I don't think so!!
> 
> 
> 
> They already have--the internet funding sources have been shut off and the State of New Mexico is investigating UCP and arrests will be forthcoming--particularly if they don't desist.  That's called the grown up way to "defend the illegals," in other words, to protect unarmed human beings from armed cowboys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are on the side of an enemy invasion of America?
Click to expand...

Sure.  I'm a commie, maoist, statist, Venezuelan, Nazi, whatever.
       There.  Is.   No.   Invasion.
I will happily discuss the problem with you if you call it a surge of asylum seekers or something similar.   It.  Is.  Not.  An.  Invasion.  And.  We.  Are.  Not.  Entitled.  To.  Treat.  Them.  As.  Enemy.  Combatants.
Capiche?


----------



## Natural Citizen

danielpalos said:


> There is no such Thing as any form of well regulated militia of Individuals in our Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Click to expand...



Alright, daniel. Why'd you type that like that? Hm? Why? See, that's the kind of dumb stuff you do that I'm talking about right there.

Explain yourself, please. Thanks!


----------



## Jitss617

OldLady said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im laughing......check out the explosion of posts on this thread. Nothing gets limpwristers more disturbed than shit like this. Pooping the pants disturbed....because progressives are a bunch of fags and they know it.
> 
> There are Americans out there...….lots and lots of them that aren't going to let their country become a shithole. And lets face it...….progressives don't want to be losing all their shit when the Alinksy strategy starts going south like it is now. They are not equipped to deal.
> 
> Are progressive groups going to show up to defend the illegals in the face of these typos of militia groups?
> 
> I don't think so!!
> 
> 
> 
> They already have--the internet funding sources have been shut off and the State of New Mexico is investigating UCP and arrests will be forthcoming--particularly if they don't desist.  That's called the grown up way to "defend the illegals," in other words, to protect unarmed human beings from armed cowboys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are on the side of an enemy invasion of America?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure.  I'm a commie, maoist, statist, Venezuelan, Nazi, whatever.
> There.  Is.   No.   Invasion.
> I will happily discuss the problem with you if you call it a surge of asylum seekers or something similar.   It.  Is.  Not.  An.  Invasion.  And.  We.  Are.  Not.  Entitled.  To.  Treat.  Them.  As.  Enemy.  Combatants.
> Capiche?
Click to expand...

How’s my sandwich coming along


----------



## danielpalos

Natural Citizen said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such Thing as any form of well regulated militia of Individuals in our Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Alright, daniel. Why'd you type that like that? Hm? Why? See, that's the kind of dumb stuff you do that I'm talking about right there.
> 
> Explain yourself, please. Thanks!
Click to expand...

I quoted our federal Constitution.


----------



## Natural Citizen

danielpalos said:


> Organize those gun lovers and send them to Dallas County, Texas to solve that problem!



Not if they're on their own property, you can't. They do have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness on their private property. The article made no mention of that. But then again, it's a Fox screed, it's the war channel, so they're gonna be strategically selective with what they choose to report as well as equally selective in how they choose to report it. They called them a "New Mexico Militia" for one thing. It's a clever spin on words to solicit a prescribed response from the gun nuts who are already just jonesing to kill some em r mexee cans. It also forwards an intellectual falsehood in a clever way. The only way there could be a legit "New Mexico Militia" is if they were operating through the state to combat federal usurpers. Which they aren't in either case. 

They can't call themselves a militia, militia doesn't work that way at all. Not in America. The way they're playing militia is like an arbitrary fad type of fan boy stuff. So, no, that's a naw naw.

If hell ever did break out, they're the first ones you wanna watch out for. Look how some of em act and talk. That's not what men do. Huh uh.


----------



## Natural Citizen

danielpalos said:


> I quoted our federal Constitution.



Yes, I know. But why? What's it have to do with the thread. I'd like to expand on it if you'd forward the courtesy of supporting your paste in some coherent sort of context. That's how functional debat works, daniel. So, again, explain, please. Thanks!

It's probably gonna be your last chance, btw. If you keep screwing around I'm gonna put you back on ignore and start new threads myself, that way I know it'll be discussed right. It's a win/win for me, daniel. Ya know? So quit fukin around and support yourself in a way that's relative to some point, any point, I don't even care, daniel. Just pick one.


----------



## skookerasbil

OldLady said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im laughing......check out the explosion of posts on this thread. Nothing gets limpwristers more disturbed than shit like this. Pooping the pants disturbed....because progressives are a bunch of fags and they know it.
> 
> There are Americans out there...….lots and lots of them that aren't going to let their country become a shithole. And lets face it...….progressives don't want to be losing all their shit when the Alinksy strategy starts going south like it is now. They are not equipped to deal.
> 
> Are progressive groups going to show up to defend the illegals in the face of these typos of militia groups?
> 
> I don't think so!!
> 
> 
> 
> They already have--the internet funding sources have been shut off and the State of New Mexico is investigating UCP and arrests will be forthcoming--particularly if they don't desist.  That's called the grown up way to "defend the illegals," in other words, to protect unarmed human beings from armed cowboys.
Click to expand...



Sweetie......youre not quite getting it. In short order, we are going to be playing Cowboys and Liberals. That's what this story is essentially about.


----------



## OldLady

skookerasbil said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im laughing......check out the explosion of posts on this thread. Nothing gets limpwristers more disturbed than shit like this. Pooping the pants disturbed....because progressives are a bunch of fags and they know it.
> 
> There are Americans out there...….lots and lots of them that aren't going to let their country become a shithole. And lets face it...….progressives don't want to be losing all their shit when the Alinksy strategy starts going south like it is now. They are not equipped to deal.
> 
> Are progressive groups going to show up to defend the illegals in the face of these typos of militia groups?
> 
> I don't think so!!
> 
> 
> 
> They already have--the internet funding sources have been shut off and the State of New Mexico is investigating UCP and arrests will be forthcoming--particularly if they don't desist.  That's called the grown up way to "defend the illegals," in other words, to protect unarmed human beings from armed cowboys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sweetie......youre not quite getting it. In short order, we are going to be playing Cowboys and Liberals. That's what this story is essentially about.
Click to expand...


----------



## danielpalos

Natural Citizen said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Organize those gun lovers and send them to Dallas County, Texas to solve that problem!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not if they're on their own property, you can't. They do have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness on their private property. The article made no mention of that. But then again, it's a Fox screed, it's the war channel, so they're gonna be strategically selective with what they choose to report as well as equally selective in how they choose to report it. They called them a "New Mexico Militia" for one thing. It's a clever spin on words to solicit a prescribed response from the gun nuts who are already just jonesing to kill some em r mexee cans. It also forwards an intellectual falsehood in a clever way. The only way there could be a legit "New Mexico Militia" is if they were operating through the state to combat federal usurpers. Which they aren't in either case.
> 
> They can't call themselves a militia, militia doesn't work that way at all. Not in America. The way they're playing militia is like an arbitrary fad type of fan boy stuff. So, no, that's a naw naw.
> 
> If hell ever did break out, they're the first ones you wanna watch out for. Look how some of em act and talk. That's not what men do. Huh uh.
Click to expand...

what price point in property crimes do New Mexico district attorneys no longer prosecute?


----------



## miketx

Jitss617 said:


> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?


Since there is no left wing militia, why the over kill? Oh, libstains.


----------



## danielpalos

Natural Citizen said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. But why? What's it have to do with the thread. I'd like to expand on it if you'd forward the courtesy of supporting your paste in some coherent sort of context. That's how functional debat works, daniel. So, again, explain, please. Thanks!
> 
> It's probably gonna be your last chance, btw. If you keep screwing around I'm gonna put you back on ignore and start new threads myself, that way I know it'll be discussed right. It's a win/win for me, daniel. Ya know? So quit fukin around and support yourself in a way that's relative to some point, any point, I don't even care, daniel. Just pick one.
Click to expand...

I simply understand the concepts.  Congress has power over the land and naval forces; there is no such Thing as "well regulated militia of Individuals, in our Republic", you are either well regulated or unorganized militia.


----------



## Natural Citizen

danielpalos said:


> I simply understand the concepts.  Congress has power over the land and naval forces; there is no such Thing as "well regulated militia of Individuals, in our Republic", you are either well regulated or unorganized militia.



Okay. But if you're not a legitimate militia, then what? How is anything you pasted from the Constitution relevant here, daniel?

That's a discussion that could be had by itself, it's just not relevant here.


----------



## Jitss617

danielpalos said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. But why? What's it have to do with the thread. I'd like to expand on it if you'd forward the courtesy of supporting your paste in some coherent sort of context. That's how functional debat works, daniel. So, again, explain, please. Thanks!
> 
> It's probably gonna be your last chance, btw. If you keep screwing around I'm gonna put you back on ignore and start new threads myself, that way I know it'll be discussed right. It's a win/win for me, daniel. Ya know? So quit fukin around and support yourself in a way that's relative to some point, any point, I don't even care, daniel. Just pick one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I simply understand the concepts.  Congress has power over the land and naval forces; there is no such Thing as "well regulated militia of Individuals, in our Republic", you are either well regulated or unorganized militia.
Click to expand...

When we are knocking on your door don’t worry we don’t exist lol


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. But why? What's it have to do with the thread. I'd like to expand on it if you'd forward the courtesy of supporting your paste in some coherent sort of context. That's how functional debat works, daniel. So, again, explain, please. Thanks!
> 
> It's probably gonna be your last chance, btw. If you keep screwing around I'm gonna put you back on ignore and start new threads myself, that way I know it'll be discussed right. It's a win/win for me, daniel. Ya know? So quit fukin around and support yourself in a way that's relative to some point, any point, I don't even care, daniel. Just pick one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I simply understand the concepts.  Congress has power over the land and naval forces; there is no such Thing as "well regulated militia of Individuals, in our Republic", you are either well regulated or unorganized militia.
Click to expand...


Incorrect.
The term "well regulated" means well practiced, familiar with weapons, and not in need of weapons training.
The word regular means timely and well functioning, like a regulator clock or regular bowels.
All militia is both well regulated AND unorganized initially.
It is ONLY when the unorganized militia is called up for emergencies by the federal government, that is becomes the organized Militia.
The whole point of the 2nd amendment is to ensure everyone is armed and practiced, so therefore is well regulated in arms.
So everyone is well regulated as long as the 2nd amendment is followed.


----------



## Natural Citizen

Jitss617 said:


> When we are knocking on your door don’t worry we don’t exist lol



Listen, man. We're not gonna have that kinda shit on here. Huh uh. You'd do well to tread very lightly. Seriously.


----------



## Rigby5

Natural Citizen said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Organize those gun lovers and send them to Dallas County, Texas to solve that problem!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not if they're on their own property, you can't. They do have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness on their private property. The article made no mention of that. But then again, it's a Fox screed, it's the war channel, so they're gonna be strategically selective with what they choose to report as well as equally selective in how they choose to report it. They called them a "New Mexico Militia" for one thing. It's a clever spin on words to solicit a prescribed response from the gun nuts who are already just jonesing to kill some em r mexee cans. It also forwards an intellectual falsehood in a clever way. The only way there could be a legit "New Mexico Militia" is if they were operating through the state to combat federal usurpers. Which they aren't in either case.
> 
> They can't call themselves a militia, militia doesn't work that way at all. Not in America. The way they're playing militia is like an arbitrary fad type of fan boy stuff. So, no, that's a naw naw.
> 
> If hell ever did break out, they're the first ones you wanna watch out for. Look how some of em act and talk. That's not what men do. Huh uh.
Click to expand...



Good post.  I tend to agree.


----------



## Natural Citizen

Rigby5 said:


> Incorrect.
> The term "well regulated" means well practiced, familiar with weapons, and not in need of weapons training.
> The word regular means timely and well functioning, like a regulator clock or regular bowels.
> All militia is both well regulated AND unorganized initially.
> It is ONLY when the unorganized militia is called up for emergencies by the federal government, that is becomes the organized Militia.
> The whole point of the 2nd amendment is to ensure everyone is armed and practices, so therefore is well regulated in arms.
> So everyone is well regulated.



That's the common debate. Gonna have to support it in constitutional context, though. And the only thing we have are the Federalist and the Constitution. The Federalst being, of course, the blueprint for the Constitution. It's a good discussion if you could keep the children outta the thread, it's an intellectual discussion. A good one.


----------



## Jitss617

Natural Citizen said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we are knocking on your door don’t worry we don’t exist lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen, man. We're not gonna have that kinda shit on here. Huh uh. You'd do well to tread very lightly. Seriously.
Click to expand...

I can’t knock on someone’s door? I thought we were all friends


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Jitss617 said:


> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?


‘New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham on Friday lashed out at members of a militia group who are stopping migrants at the border, declaring "regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone."

[…]

"It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone," she said. "My office and our state police are coordinating with the Attorney General's Office and local police to determine what has gone on and what can be done."

[…]

The ACLU of New Mexico raised the alarm about the arrests in a letter sent Thursday to Grisham and Balderas.

The letter said that on Tuesday members of the group arrested nearly 300 people near Sunland Park, New Mexico. The ACLU posted excerpts of the letter on its website with video that appeared to have been made by one of the militia members.

 “The Trump administration’s vile racism has emboldened white nationals and fascists to flagrantly violate the law,” the ACLU said. “This has no place in our state: We cannot allow racist and armed vigilantes to kidnap and detain people seeking asylum. We urge you to immediately investigate this atrocious and unlawful conduct."’

'No authority': New Mexico governor tells militia to stop arresting migrants at border

True.

Indeed, it’s the bigoted, hateful militia members who are in violation of the law, not those lawfully seeking asylum.


----------



## impuretrash

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Indeed, it’s the bigoted, hateful militia members who are in violation of the law, not those lawfully seeking asylum.



Did you just criticize Mexicans?! Is that even allowed?


----------



## Jitss617

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> ‘New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham on Friday lashed out at members of a militia group who are stopping migrants at the border, declaring "regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone."
> 
> […]
> 
> "It should go without saying that regular citizens have no authority to arrest or detain anyone," she said. "My office and our state police are coordinating with the Attorney General's Office and local police to determine what has gone on and what can be done."
> 
> […]
> 
> The ACLU of New Mexico raised the alarm about the arrests in a letter sent Thursday to Grisham and Balderas.
> 
> The letter said that on Tuesday members of the group arrested nearly 300 people near Sunland Park, New Mexico. The ACLU posted excerpts of the letter on its website with video that appeared to have been made by one of the militia members.
> 
> “The Trump administration’s vile racism has emboldened white nationals and fascists to flagrantly violate the law,” the ACLU said. “This has no place in our state: We cannot allow racist and armed vigilantes to kidnap and detain people seeking asylum. We urge you to immediately investigate this atrocious and unlawful conduct."’
> 
> 'No authority': New Mexico governor tells militia to stop arresting migrants at border
> 
> True.
> 
> Indeed, it’s the bigoted, hateful militia members who are in violation of the law, not those lawfully seeking asylum.
Click to expand...

Come and stop us


----------



## Natural Citizen

Jitss617 said:


> what price point in property crimes do New Mexico district attorneys no longer prosecute?



Heck if I know, daniel. I was thinking about building one of those stone houses in New Mexico, though, I dig those a lot.

Not sure about now, though, all thes cats on here talking about knockin on doors and shooting people. lol. Ho leesht. Probably gonna stick to the original plan of a little pad on a Mexican beach with the lil mrs.


----------



## Jitss617

Natural Citizen said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what price point in property crimes do New Mexico district attorneys no longer prosecute?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heck if I know, daniel. I was thinking about building one of those stone houses in Ne Mexico, though, I dig those a lot.
> 
> Not sure about now, though, all thes cats on here talking about knockin on doors and shooting people. lol. Ho leesht. Probably gonna stick to the original plan of a little pad on a Mexican beach with the lil mrs.
Click to expand...

No one said anything about shooting anyone except for invaders


----------



## Jitss617

Jitss617 said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what price point in property crimes do New Mexico district attorneys no longer prosecute?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heck if I know, daniel. I was thinking about building one of those stone houses in Ne Mexico, though, I dig those a lot.
> 
> Not sure about now, though, all thes cats on here talking about knockin on doors and shooting people. lol. Ho leesht. Probably gonna stick to the original plan of a little pad on a Mexican beach with the lil mrs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one said anything about shooting anyone except for invaders
Click to expand...


----------



## Rigby5

Jitss617 said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what price point in property crimes do New Mexico district attorneys no longer prosecute?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heck if I know, daniel. I was thinking about building one of those stone houses in Ne Mexico, though, I dig those a lot.
> 
> Not sure about now, though, all thes cats on here talking about knockin on doors and shooting people. lol. Ho leesht. Probably gonna stick to the original plan of a little pad on a Mexican beach with the lil mrs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one said anything about shooting anyone except for invaders
Click to expand...


Mexicans are not invaders.
When the US bought AZ, NM, CO, CA, UT, NV, TX, etc., we agreed to the conditions of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ensured free passage through the border to these lands full of Spanish land grants.
It is illegal to block them without voiding the treaty and having to give all these states back.


----------



## Rigby5

Natural Citizen said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> The term "well regulated" means well practiced, familiar with weapons, and not in need of weapons training.
> The word regular means timely and well functioning, like a regulator clock or regular bowels.
> All militia is both well regulated AND unorganized initially.
> It is ONLY when the unorganized militia is called up for emergencies by the federal government, that is becomes the organized Militia.
> The whole point of the 2nd amendment is to ensure everyone is armed and practices, so therefore is well regulated in arms.
> So everyone is well regulated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the common debate. Gonna have to support it in constitutional context, though. And the only thing we have are the Federalist and the Constitution. The Federalst being, of course, the blueprint for the Constitution. It's a good discussion if you could keep the children outta the thread, it's an intellectual discussion. A good one.
Click to expand...


We also have writings by Jefferson, Washington, etc., saying how they wanted citizens soldiers instead of professional military.
But since the whole Bill of Rights is only about restrictions on the federal government, added due to reluctance of states to sign on, the 2nd amendment can't be to stop the federal government from disarming its own National Guard.
The goal had to either be for the states, municipalities, or individuals.


----------



## ozro

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, militias operate through the state to combat federal usurpers. That's it. If you wanna talk about the states' authority in terms of immigration, start a topic and I'll be glad to contribute to it. This thead is about an non sate sanctioned militia operating outside of the parameters of what a militia is supposed to do in order to justify its status as legitimate militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Does Texas or Arizona reject a militia like this? If they don't but New Mexico does then it raises lots of questions about
> how a pro sanctuary governor is politicizing the issue and thus, making her threats and actions politically motivated and
> thereby not valid or truly legal.
Click to expand...


I can tell you that any paramilitary or miltia group can only operate legally in Arizona with authority of the governor. This excludes licensed private security guards. Militas may be formed, and drill on private property. 

Anything else is in violation of AZ law.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

ozro said:


> I can tell you that any paramilitary or miltia group can only operate legally in Arizona with authority of the governor. This excludes licensed private security guards. Militas may be formed, and drill on private property.
> 
> Anything else is in violation of AZ law.


I haven't disputed that...only the propriety of a sanctuary state governor outlawing a militia purely because she believes
she has the right to ignore federal law and do whatever the fck she wants, just like Jim Crow era governors.

The hypocrisy and sanctimony stinks like a skunk carcass left out in the midday sun.


----------



## ozro

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you that any paramilitary or miltia group can only operate legally in Arizona with authority of the governor. This excludes licensed private security guards. Militas may be formed, and drill on private property.
> 
> Anything else is in violation of AZ law.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't disputed that...only the propriety of a sanctuary state governor outlawing a militia purely because she believes
> she has the right to ignore federal law and do whatever the fck she wants, just like Jim Crow era governors.
> 
> The hypocrisy and sanctimony stinks like a skunk carcass left out in the midday sun.
Click to expand...


I cannot dispute what it stinks like. I agree with you on that.


The gov still retains all the power afford her position under the law, and subject to penalty if found in deliction ect. 

An investigation into ger actions is the rule of law. We need the rule of law, and history shows several examples of the slippery slope to despotism and or anarchy.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

ozro said:


> I cannot dispute what it stinks like. I agree with you on that.
> 
> 
> The gov still retains all the power afford her position under the law, and subject to penalty if found in deliction ect.
> 
> An investigation into ger actions is the rule of law. We need the rule of law, and history shows several examples of the slippery slope to despotism and or anarchy.


Absolutely. Granted William Barr is busy, but an inquiry into the legality of gov. Michele Lujan Grisham's actions
with regards to sanctuary policy, and all sanctuary entities throughout the country,  would be very welcome news.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Indeed, it’s the bigoted, hateful militia members who are in violation of the law, not those lawfully seeking asylum.


People wandering around on this side of the border are not lawfully seeking asylum. People "lawfully" seeking asylum would be at the US embassy in Mexico or putting themselves under the authority of Border Patrol agents so they can make their legal asylum claims.

Whether out of pure stupidity or deceitful malevolence you are perpetuating a lie. The left are good at that.


----------



## Jitss617

Rigby5 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what price point in property crimes do New Mexico district attorneys no longer prosecute?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heck if I know, daniel. I was thinking about building one of those stone houses in Ne Mexico, though, I dig those a lot.
> 
> Not sure about now, though, all thes cats on here talking about knockin on doors and shooting people. lol. Ho leesht. Probably gonna stick to the original plan of a little pad on a Mexican beach with the lil mrs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one said anything about shooting anyone except for invaders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mexicans are not invaders.
> When the US bought AZ, NM, CO, CA, UT, NV, TX, etc., we agreed to the conditions of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ensured free passage through the border to these lands full of Spanish land grants.
> It is illegal to block them without voiding the treaty and having to give all these states back.
Click to expand...

Sorry we did block them and we will continue to do so


----------



## McRocket

Jitss617 said:


> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?



Leave it to a Trumpbot to comment about a seemingly decent act (though I would like to hear more details from a source other then Fox News) and turn it into sounding like someone who should be under psychiatric care.

Man...you need to get more exercise or get laid or take more meds...or something.

You sound 'unbalanced'.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Rigby5 said:


> Mexicans are not invaders.


The ones illegally crossing our border and residing in the U.S. are. _Reconquista, amigo. _
Wise up.




> When the US bought AZ, NM, CO, CA, UT, NV, TX, etc., we agreed to the conditions of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ensured free passage through the border to these lands full of Spanish land grants.
> It is illegal to block them without voiding the treaty and having to give all these states back.


All Mexican citizens are free to enter the country legally as much as they wish. They are NOT free to _illegally_ enter the country or stay here without
obtaining citizenship or some other legal authorization.

I'll bet you thought you really had a clever point when you made your post, didn't you. LOL...


----------



## ozro

what is so hard about the rule of law.

one cannot argue that breaking one law, like crossing the border, jusitfies breaking another law, ie: operating as an armed miltia without legal authority.

it is that simple


----------



## LoneLaugher

Oops! 

FBI Arrests New Mexico Border Militia Leader Larry Mitchell Hopkins


----------



## Porter Rockwell

LoneLaugher said:


> Oops!
> 
> FBI Arrests New Mexico Border Militia Leader Larry Mitchell Hopkins



It appears at least one dumb ass don't understand the law and gives the militia a black eye during an exercise in futility and a demonstration of stupidity by some  who have never read the Constitution.


----------



## skookerasbil

lol.....a lot of philosophers in here!! Nobody cares. When you're being invaded, philosophers always end up the biggest losers.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

LoneLaugher said:


> Oops!
> 
> FBI Arrests New Mexico Border Militia Leader Larry Mitchell Hopkins


The FBI: Instantaneous in arresting a two bit New Mexico militia leader.
Taking down the Marxists in Chicago who engineered the invasion on our Southern border?....Not so much at all.

These are the things that erode confidence in our government.


----------



## Rigby5

ozro said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, militias operate through the state to combat federal usurpers. That's it. If you wanna talk about the states' authority in terms of immigration, start a topic and I'll be glad to contribute to it. This thead is about an non sate sanctioned militia operating outside of the parameters of what a militia is supposed to do in order to justify its status as legitimate militia.
> 
> 
> 
> Does Texas or Arizona reject a militia like this? If they don't but New Mexico does then it raises lots of questions about
> how a pro sanctuary governor is politicizing the issue and thus, making her threats and actions politically motivated and
> thereby not valid or truly legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can tell you that any paramilitary or miltia group can only operate legally in Arizona with authority of the governor. This excludes licensed private security guards. Militas may be formed, and drill on private property.
> 
> Anything else is in violation of AZ law.
Click to expand...



At first I though of disagreeing, since anyone defending their home is a militia, a posse raised by a municipality to catch bank robbers is a militia, etc.  But since immigration is federal law, then the only militia that could act under the jurisdiction of those federal immigration laws would be the state militia under the command of the governor, which is what you are saying.
So then I realized I was agreeing.


----------



## Rigby5

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you that any paramilitary or miltia group can only operate legally in Arizona with authority of the governor. This excludes licensed private security guards. Militas may be formed, and drill on private property.
> 
> Anything else is in violation of AZ law.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't disputed that...only the propriety of a sanctuary state governor outlawing a militia purely because she believes
> she has the right to ignore federal law and do whatever the fck she wants, just like Jim Crow era governors.
> 
> The hypocrisy and sanctimony stinks like a skunk carcass left out in the midday sun.
Click to expand...


It is not a question of outlawing a militia, but that only those appropriately authorized by the governor's chain of command can enforce federal law when the federal government requests it.
Militias have no authority or jurisdiction under federal law otherwise.
Anyone can defend themselves or arrest a bank robber, but immigration is not a question of individual defense.


----------



## Rigby5

Jitss617 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what price point in property crimes do New Mexico district attorneys no longer prosecute?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heck if I know, daniel. I was thinking about building one of those stone houses in Ne Mexico, though, I dig those a lot.
> 
> Not sure about now, though, all thes cats on here talking about knockin on doors and shooting people. lol. Ho leesht. Probably gonna stick to the original plan of a little pad on a Mexican beach with the lil mrs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one said anything about shooting anyone except for invaders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mexicans are not invaders.
> When the US bought AZ, NM, CO, CA, UT, NV, TX, etc., we agreed to the conditions of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ensured free passage through the border to these lands full of Spanish land grants.
> It is illegal to block them without voiding the treaty and having to give all these states back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry we did block them and we will continue to do so
Click to expand...


We did not block then for the first 50 years or so, and blocking them is likely a violation of the original treaty.


----------



## Rigby5

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexicans are not invaders.
> 
> 
> 
> The ones illegally crossing our border and residing in the U.S. are. _Reconquista, amigo. _
> Wise up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the US bought AZ, NM, CO, CA, UT, NV, TX, etc., we agreed to the conditions of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ensured free passage through the border to these lands full of Spanish land grants.
> It is illegal to block them without voiding the treaty and having to give all these states back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All Mexican citizens are free to enter the country legally as much as they wish. They are NOT free to _illegally_ enter the country or stay here without
> obtaining citizenship or some other legal authorization.
> 
> I'll bet you thought you really had a clever point when you made your post, didn't you. LOL...
Click to expand...


I have no problem with Mexicans having to follow legal procedures when crossing the border.
But there really can be no restrictions on temporary agricultural workers, visitors, etc., and there were about half a million Mexicans murdered or illegally chased off their land in what is now the US, but used to be Mexico.
The clever point is that people need to remember that CA, AZ, UT, NV, CO, NM, TX, etc., were once part of Mexico, and that Mexicans must still be able to freely access these states.  The Mexican citizens who owned land in these states, (almost all of the land in these states), were not required to become US citizens.
The point is that those looking at this like a Mexican invasion have it wrong.
By law these states are supposed to retain almost exclusive land ownership by Mexicans.


----------



## Rigby5

ozro said:


> what is so hard about the rule of law.
> 
> one cannot argue that breaking one law, like crossing the border, jusitfies breaking another law, ie: operating as an armed miltia without legal authority.
> 
> it is that simple



It is not that simple.
The rules that were negotiated between Mexico and the US when those states were transfered, can not legally be changed.
And those rules do not include keeping Mexicans out.
So it is changing the laws and excluding free travel by Mexicans that is contrary to the rule of law.

But  while it is legal to operate an armed militia, that militia can not have any more than the jurisdiction of any private citizens, without being authorized by some larger entity.  A private militia can defend an individuals home or property, but can't ;ega;;u enforce state or federal law without being authorized by the governor or president.


----------



## ozro

Rigby5 said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is so hard about the rule of law.
> 
> one cannot argue that breaking one law, like crossing the border, jusitfies breaking another law, ie: operating as an armed miltia without legal authority.
> 
> 
> 
> it is that simple
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not that simple.
> The rules that were negotiated between Mexico and the US when those states were transfered, can not legally be changed.
> And those rules do not include keeping Mexicans out.
> So it is changing the laws and excluding free travel by Mexicans that is contrary to the rule of law.
> 
> But  while it is legal to operate an armed militia, that militia can not have any more than the jurisdiction of any private citizens, without being authorized by some larger entity.  A private militia can defend an individuals home or property, but can't ;ega;;u enforce state or federal law without being authorized by the governor or president.
Click to expand...

I don't argue the lack of access to previous land holdings is, or seems to be aan illegal act.
I also know, from seeing it, that if these folks drive accross the border at their ranch, they might be stopped and checked, but let go.
I have a friend in saint johns, az that is a Pena family member. He still has family in mexico and his wife is a mexican citizen. They load up the whole family regularly for visits and the southern family members do the same. they dont seem to encounter any issues

edited to add that my buddy's f amily has claim to portions of the Baca Float.....which does not indicate its an island.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

When the invaders approached the militia intending to ask for asylum they should have been ignored.  The BP shouldn't have been told they were there.


----------



## Crepitus

Jitss617 said:


> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?


So, turns out the lease is a felon illegally possessing firearms as well as a nut-bar conspiracy theorist pushing this q-anon bullshit.

FBI Arrests New Mexico Border Militia Leader Larry Mitchell Hopkins


----------



## skookerasbil

Lol....almost 50 pages in 24 hours on this thread!

Some are pooping their pants. We know who's not!!

Alot more Larry's out there sons!


----------



## Rigby5

ozro said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is so hard about the rule of law.
> 
> one cannot argue that breaking one law, like crossing the border, jusitfies breaking another law, ie: operating as an armed miltia without legal authority.
> 
> 
> 
> it is that simple
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not that simple.
> The rules that were negotiated between Mexico and the US when those states were transfered, can not legally be changed.
> And those rules do not include keeping Mexicans out.
> So it is changing the laws and excluding free travel by Mexicans that is contrary to the rule of law.
> 
> But  while it is legal to operate an armed militia, that militia can not have any more than the jurisdiction of any private citizens, without being authorized by some larger entity.  A private militia can defend an individuals home or property, but can't ;ega;;u enforce state or federal law without being authorized by the governor or president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't argue the lack of access to previous land holdings is, or seems to be aan illegal act.
> I also know, from seeing it, that if these folks drive accross the border at their ranch, they might be stopped and checked, but let go.
> I have a friend in saint johns, az that is a Pena family member. He still has family in mexico and his wife is a mexican citizen. They load up the whole family regularly for visits and the southern family members do the same. they dont seem to encounter any issues
> 
> edited to add that my buddy's f amily has claim to portions of the Baca Float.....which does not indicate its an island.
Click to expand...


What I was thinking of is that when the US purchased these states, the Mexicans who owned almost all of the land in these states, depended on migrant Mexican farm workers.  It would seem a violation of the treaty to suddenly prevent access by these Mexicans owning land in what is now US states, to their rightful migrant Mexican workers.
One of the ways Mexican land owners were illegally forced off their land in states purchased by the US, was deliberate interference in their ability to do business.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

skookerasbil said:


> lol.....a lot of philosophers in here!! Nobody cares. When you're being invaded, philosophers always end up the biggest losers.



Militias have no legal authority to act unless directed by the governor of a state.  If a state says they are not being invaded, it is illegal for any select militia to act on its own.  Period.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oops!
> 
> FBI Arrests New Mexico Border Militia Leader Larry Mitchell Hopkins
> 
> 
> 
> The FBI: Instantaneous in arresting a two bit New Mexico militia leader.
> Taking down the Marxists in Chicago who engineered the invasion on our Southern border?....Not so much at all.
> 
> These are the things that erode confidence in our government.
Click to expand...



You are mixing oranges with apples.

The average brainwashed, deluded, misguided, and misinformed proselytes to socialism have been making these ridiculous arguments for over fifteen years now.  It's time you pull your head out of your ass.

At a very early age the average American is taught by our system a set of humanist, secular, and counter-productive measures designed to con them into participating in their own genocide.

To that end, misguided parents, school officials, the government, doctors, and Big Pharma begin making drug addicts and mommy dependent children.  The aforementioned parties start their kids on drugs of NONEXISTENT conditions and give them Adderall and Ritalin.  Those kids then advance to opioids - whether legal or illegal and then into illegal drugs.

You create a worthless generation who thinks the world owes them a living and it results in Americans consuming 80 percent of the world's opioid supply, having more people in prisons and jails than any nation in the world and an entire generation - FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF OUR NATION - being less affluent, living shorter lives, and being less healthy than their parents.  

That being the case, employers* WELCOME *foreign workers.  You aren't being invaded.  The American people are sitting on their ass, giving the country away.  Adding insult to injury, it is of no big consequence to most of the people in the U.S. since we are at what economists consider to be statistical ZERO unemployment.


----------



## skookerasbil

Porter Rockwell said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....a lot of philosophers in here!! Nobody cares. When you're being invaded, philosophers always end up the biggest losers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militias have no legal authority to act unless directed by the governor of a state.  If a state says they are not being invaded, it is illegal for any select militia to act on its own.  Period.
Click to expand...


Again.....philosophy is ghey. When the government isnt protecting its citizens, community message board banter means very little. Buckle up s0n....we're going to soon be seeing shit we've never seen before. The hate-America folks will be l0sInG!


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Rigby5 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what price point in property crimes do New Mexico district attorneys no longer prosecute?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heck if I know, daniel. I was thinking about building one of those stone houses in Ne Mexico, though, I dig those a lot.
> 
> Not sure about now, though, all thes cats on here talking about knockin on doors and shooting people. lol. Ho leesht. Probably gonna stick to the original plan of a little pad on a Mexican beach with the lil mrs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one said anything about shooting anyone except for invaders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mexicans are not invaders.
> When the US bought AZ, NM, CO, CA, UT, NV, TX, etc., we agreed to the conditions of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ensured free passage through the border to these lands full of Spanish land grants.
> It is illegal to block them without voiding the treaty and having to give all these states back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry we did block them and we will continue to do so
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We did not block then for the first 50 years or so, and blocking them is likely a violation of the original treaty.
Click to expand...


I don't know if that is really relevant.

In the 1950s, the United States began a program called _Operation Wetback_.   It was put into place in 1953 and in 1954 the government rounded up every Hispanic they could find and deported them.

In less than five years, our unemployment rate *DOUBLED!*  Adding insult to injury, America's unemployment rate would not be at those 1950s level again until now.  The wallists are arguing economics and history testifies *against *them.

Furthermore, the federal government, under the Constitution has little de jure / constitutional authority on this issue.  So, we would need to study the Rule of Law in order figure out what it would take for those drunk on the liberals Kool Aid to listen to a legitimate method of addressing the issue.  This is clearly a question of jurisdiction and the wallists are abusing the Hell out of it AND being put on notice that the blade will cut both ways.  One day the Democrats will come back to power and the precedents being set by the wallists will be fodder for their own genocide.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Rigby5 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexicans are not invaders.
> 
> 
> 
> The ones illegally crossing our border and residing in the U.S. are. _Reconquista, amigo. _
> Wise up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the US bought AZ, NM, CO, CA, UT, NV, TX, etc., we agreed to the conditions of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ensured free passage through the border to these lands full of Spanish land grants.
> It is illegal to block them without voiding the treaty and having to give all these states back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All Mexican citizens are free to enter the country legally as much as they wish. They are NOT free to _illegally_ enter the country or stay here without
> obtaining citizenship or some other legal authorization.
> 
> I'll bet you thought you really had a clever point when you made your post, didn't you. LOL...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with Mexicans having to follow legal procedures when crossing the border.
> But there really can be no restrictions on temporary agricultural workers, visitors, etc., and there were about half a million Mexicans murdered or illegally chased off their land in what is now the US, but used to be Mexico.
> The clever point is that people need to remember that CA, AZ, UT, NV, CO, NM, TX, etc., were once part of Mexico, and that Mexicans must still be able to freely access these states.  The Mexican citizens who owned land in these states, (almost all of the land in these states), were not required to become US citizens.
> The point is that those looking at this like a Mexican invasion have it wrong.
> By law these states are supposed to retain almost exclusive land ownership by Mexicans.
Click to expand...


I guess I could agree with you to a point, but it is far broader.  The Constitution does *not *give Congress the authority to limit who each state government can invite into their respective states.

The federal government has only one constitutional area of operation on this matter:

"_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"_  (Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution)

When Trump finally said, okay let the Sanctuary Cities take in all the foreigners they wanted, it was brilliant.  The people in other states are not responsible for the people Sanctuary Cities bring in, so the federal government can deny federal funds to help subsidize the presence of foreigners.  When we act according to the law, any perceived problem will work itself out.


----------



## ozro

Rigby5 said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is so hard about the rule of law.
> 
> one cannot argue that breaking one law, like crossing the border, jusitfies breaking another law, ie: operating as an armed miltia without legal authority.
> 
> 
> 
> it is that simple
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not that simple.
> The rules that were negotiated between Mexico and the US when those states were transfered, can not legally be changed.
> And those rules do not include keeping Mexicans out.
> So it is changing the laws and excluding free travel by Mexicans that is contrary to the rule of law.
> 
> But  while it is legal to operate an armed militia, that militia can not have any more than the jurisdiction of any private citizens, without being authorized by some larger entity.  A private militia can defend an individuals home or property, but can't ;ega;;u enforce state or federal law without being authorized by the governor or president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't argue the lack of access to previous land holdings is, or seems to be aan illegal act.
> I also know, from seeing it, that if these folks drive accross the border at their ranch, they might be stopped and checked, but let go.
> I have a friend in saint johns, az that is a Pena family member. He still has family in mexico and his wife is a mexican citizen. They load up the whole family regularly for visits and the southern family members do the same. they dont seem to encounter any issues
> 
> edited to add that my buddy's f amily has claim to portions of the Baca Float.....which does not indicate its an island.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I was thinking of is that when the US purchased these states, the Mexicans who owned almost all of the land in these states, depended on migrant Mexican farm workers.  It would seem a violation of the treaty to suddenly prevent access by these Mexicans owning land in what is now US states, to their rightful migrant Mexican workers.
> One of the ways Mexican land owners were illegally forced off their land in states purchased by the US, was deliberate interference in their ability to do business.
Click to expand...


2 things, one is the concept of land ownership in mexico at the time of the hildago purchase was nothing like our concept of ownership in modern america.
two, even if it was, the mexican government itself nulified most nonchurch land grants from spain when they pitched spain out.
land was owned by a quasinoble and everyone else lived and worked on his land at his pleasure. in other words, a fuedal system.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

skookerasbil said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....a lot of philosophers in here!! Nobody cares. When you're being invaded, philosophers always end up the biggest losers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militias have no legal authority to act unless directed by the governor of a state.  If a state says they are not being invaded, it is illegal for any select militia to act on its own.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again.....philosophy is ghey. When the government isnt protecting its citizens, community message board banter means very little. Buckle up s0n....we're going to soon be seeing shit we've never seen before. The hate-America folks will be l0sInG!
Click to expand...


I think you have me confused with someone else.  I am IN a militia and I've been IN the militia since 1987.  The times I've been in court-rooms, written legal briefs, testified, and been a part of legal actions would amount to more time alone than all your studies combined!  That's not bragging; that is fact.

IF America is in the condition you claim, there IS a blueprint to follow.  No point in criticizing it.  I've been doing it for 32 years now and have yet to meet anyone who has spent the night in jail or even arrested for following the script:

How do we effect change?

The author of that has recruited more people into the militia than any other civilian militia in existence today.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Well, now, it would appear that the FBI takes a dim view of a self appointed "militia" run by convicted felons, who don't even have the right to carry a gun:

FBI arrests leader of U.S. 'patriots' stopping migrants at border

Sorry, Trumpetts. Anarchy is not on the menu, and the Constitution and the rule of law still prevail.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

ozro said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is so hard about the rule of law.
> 
> one cannot argue that breaking one law, like crossing the border, jusitfies breaking another law, ie: operating as an armed miltia without legal authority.
> 
> 
> 
> it is that simple
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not that simple.
> The rules that were negotiated between Mexico and the US when those states were transfered, can not legally be changed.
> And those rules do not include keeping Mexicans out.
> So it is changing the laws and excluding free travel by Mexicans that is contrary to the rule of law.
> 
> But  while it is legal to operate an armed militia, that militia can not have any more than the jurisdiction of any private citizens, without being authorized by some larger entity.  A private militia can defend an individuals home or property, but can't ;ega;;u enforce state or federal law without being authorized by the governor or president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't argue the lack of access to previous land holdings is, or seems to be aan illegal act.
> I also know, from seeing it, that if these folks drive accross the border at their ranch, they might be stopped and checked, but let go.
> I have a friend in saint johns, az that is a Pena family member. He still has family in mexico and his wife is a mexican citizen. They load up the whole family regularly for visits and the southern family members do the same. they dont seem to encounter any issues
> 
> edited to add that my buddy's f amily has claim to portions of the Baca Float.....which does not indicate its an island.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I was thinking of is that when the US purchased these states, the Mexicans who owned almost all of the land in these states, depended on migrant Mexican farm workers.  It would seem a violation of the treaty to suddenly prevent access by these Mexicans owning land in what is now US states, to their rightful migrant Mexican workers.
> One of the ways Mexican land owners were illegally forced off their land in states purchased by the US, was deliberate interference in their ability to do business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2 things, one is the concept of land ownership in mexico at the time of the hildago purchase was nothing like our concept of ownership in modern america.
> two, even if it was, the mexican government itself nulified most nonchurch land grants from spain when they pitched spain out.
> land was owned by a quasinoble and everyone else lived and worked on his land at his pleasure. in other words, a fuedal system.
Click to expand...

You are all confused.  There is no Hidalgo purchase.  You have to be thinking of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which was a peace treaty to end the war.  Five years later there was a land purchase, the Gadsden Purchase.  So what is it you mean?


----------



## cwise76

Jitss617 said:


> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?


Yes is the answer.  Enjoy the next 10-15 years behind bars dipshit


----------



## cwise76

andaronjim said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with repelling an invading horde of diseased criminals from our country?  If killing a few thousand stops the migration, that would be a good thing...Those that die in the desert are far worse, so show those who are willing to make the arduous trek, that it isnt worth it, and save even more lives, by killing a few...The needs of the many out way the needs of the few.
Click to expand...

I think your meds must be wearing off.


----------



## cwise76

gallantwarrior said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwing fear, hate, and bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Left wing stupidity and willingness to ignore facts in order to gain political points and further their sick, twisted narrative.
Click to expand...

Pot meet kettle


----------



## Vandalshandle

The Border Patrol has announced that they do not deal with these people, and even Paypal and GoFundMe has turned their back on these nuts:

FBI Arrests New Mexico Border Militia Leader Larry Mitchell Hopkins


----------



## cwise76

Vandalshandle said:


> The Border Patrol has announced that they do not deal with these people, and even Paypal and GoFundMe has turned their back on these nuts:
> 
> FBI Arrests New Mexico Border Militia Leader Larry Mitchell Hopkins


Wow shocking revelation. Dumb mother fuckers prob thought trump would fly in on his golden helicopter and give them all medals.


----------



## Tijn Von Ingersleben

deanrd said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "WELL REGULATED MALITIA" became the National Guard in each state. The rest of these "militias" are gangbangers with no authority whatsoever. They are impersonators.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are Republicans.
> 
> A group of Americans who put on OD Greens and then hold children and babies at gunpoint.
> 
> It has to be Republicans.  Who else would do such a thing?
Click to expand...

As with all self hating white shitlibs...I can only pray that you get the opportunity to be truly...'enriched' by those you seek to place in the victim category. You are the worst and most dangerous type of American. You are truly disgusting.


----------



## Lysistrata

Tijn Von Ingersleben said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "WELL REGULATED MALITIA" became the National Guard in each state. The rest of these "militias" are gangbangers with no authority whatsoever. They are impersonators.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are Republicans.
> 
> A group of Americans who put on OD Greens and then hold children and babies at gunpoint.
> 
> It has to be Republicans.  Who else would do such a thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As with all self hating white shitlibs...I can only pray that you get the opportunity to be truly...'enriched' by those you seek to place in the victim category. You are the worst and most dangerous type of American. You are truly disgusting.
Click to expand...


Who hates oneself? Explain, please. Loyal Americans do not accept self-appointed vigilante gangs. We do not accept or glorify gangsters. Law-enforcement authority only exists when We The People grant it, and it can be stripped if any individual who has been given it mis-uses it.

The people whom you are defending have not gone through any legitimate process to obtain lawful authority. They are criminals.


----------



## Moonglow

Jitss617 said:


> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?


US arrests rightwing militia member said to detain migrants


----------



## LoneLaugher

Porter Rockwell said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....a lot of philosophers in here!! Nobody cares. When you're being invaded, philosophers always end up the biggest losers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militias have no legal authority to act unless directed by the governor of a state.  If a state says they are not being invaded, it is illegal for any select militia to act on its own.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again.....philosophy is ghey. When the government isnt protecting its citizens, community message board banter means very little. Buckle up s0n....we're going to soon be seeing shit we've never seen before. The hate-America folks will be l0sInG!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you have me confused with someone else.  I am IN a militia and I've been IN the militia since 1987.  The times I've been in court-rooms, written legal briefs, testified, and been a part of legal actions would amount to more time alone than all your studies combined!  That's not bragging; that is fact.
> 
> IF America is in the condition you claim, there IS a blueprint to follow.  No point in criticizing it.  I've been doing it for 32 years now and have yet to meet anyone who has spent the night in jail or even arrested for following the script:
> 
> How do we effect change?
> 
> The author of that has recruited more people into the militia than any other civilian militia in existence today.
Click to expand...


That guy is a nut. You're a nut. 

If he has all the answers, and he is so damned certain that he has the moral and legal high ground, why doesn't he tell us all his fucking name? 

I am always amused by nutbags who think they can start a revolution without anyone ever knowing who they are.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


> That being the case, employers* WELCOME *foreign workers. You aren't being invaded. The American people are sitting on their ass, giving the country away. Adding insult to injury, it is of no big consequence to most of the people in the U.S. since we are at what economists consider to be statistical ZERO unemployment.


Tens of millions of illegals have entered this country and reside here siphoning off the social services intended for citizens, filling the class rooms with ESL students over burdening our education system, our hospitals are HMOs for illegals,
they fill our jails with felons who clog the justice system, and they cost tax payers billions of dollars every year and so much more.

I left a county in Northern California where illegals are violating so many laws and city/county ordinances every single day it would make your head spin. But the blind eye is very active in a place where wealthy winery owners need the cheap labor they provide. So yes, I consider that an invasion.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Rigby5 said:


> I have no problem with Mexicans having to follow legal procedures when crossing the border.
> But there really can be no restrictions on temporary agricultural workers, visitors, etc., and there were about half a million Mexicans murdered or illegally chased off their land in what is now the US, but used to be Mexico.
> The clever point is that people need to remember that CA, AZ, UT, NV, CO, NM, TX, etc., were once part of Mexico, and that Mexicans must still be able to freely access these states. The Mexican citizens who owned land in these states, (almost all of the land in these states), were not required to become US citizens.
> The point is that those looking at this like a Mexican invasion have it wrong.
> By law these states are supposed to retain almost exclusive land ownership by Mexicans.


You are simply mistaken and all Mexican nationals living in lands transferred over to the US by Guadalupe Hidalgo had one year to declare if they would stay in the US or leave for Mexico.
Ninety percent decided to stay and they became citizens of the US.

Once more Mexicans can travel freely anywhere in the nation, the same as any other nationals visiting here, provided they are here legally. 

And unless those former Mexican nationals transferred their land holdings voluntarily through sale they still hold their land. But the idea that a state like New Mexico is "supposed" to retain land ownership by Mexicans is absurd. Anyone can buy a piece of what was formerly Mexico
by simply making a real estate purchase, the same as anywhere else.


----------



## bodecea

Vandalshandle said:


> Well, now, it would appear that the FBI takes a dim view of a self appointed "militia" run by convicted felons, who don't even have the right to carry a gun:
> 
> FBI arrests leader of U.S. 'patriots' stopping migrants at border
> 
> Sorry, Trumpetts. Anarchy is not on the menu, and the Constitution and the rule of law still prevail.


Yeah...I saw that...


----------



## Tijn Von Ingersleben

Lysistrata said:


> Who hates oneself? Explain, please. Loyal Americans do not accept self-appointed vigilante gangs.




What is one supposed to do when the nation state is not protecting the interior? What are citizens supposed to do when the country has, by some estimates 20M illegal immigrants?




Lysistrata said:


> We do not accept or glorify gangsters. Law-enforcement authority only exists when We The People grant it, and it can be stripped if any individual who has been given it mis-uses it.



Authorities? Who do not have the authority to deport based upon a technicality? Would you expect the state to come to your house and eradicate a pest infestation? How is the US not your home? 



Lysistrata said:


> The people whom you are defending have not gone through any legitimate process to obtain lawful authority. They are criminals



Yes...because those vetted and vested with authority are able, willing or vested with enough authority to do it effectively?

I am not stating that what they are doing will result in a reduction of anything but more catch and release. However, what they are doing is being proactive. They ARE taking the steps they feel are needed to protect their home. However you cannot understand this because you have been conditioned to bow, and pray to the state. You are an automaton. You are a fucking robot. Yet YOU will curse the very state who you are defending when your life goes upside down at the hands of one of these intruders.


----------



## busybee01

Jitss617 said:


> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?



Then they will be spending a lot of time in jail. They are not allowed to enforce border security.


----------



## Correll

busybee01 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then they will be spending a lot of time in jail. They are not allowed to enforce border security.
Click to expand...



Why not?


----------



## busybee01

andaronjim said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with repelling an invading horde of diseased criminals from our country?  If killing a few thousand stops the migration, that would be a good thing...Those that die in the desert are far worse, so show those who are willing to make the arduous trek, that it isnt worth it, and save even more lives, by killing a few...The needs of the many out way the needs of the few.
Click to expand...


There is no invasion. It is lawful for them to come to the US to declare asylum. Kill them and there is something called murder.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Vandalshandle said:


> Sorry, Trumpetts. Anarchy is not on the menu, and the Constitution and the rule of law still prevail.


Did you intend for your words to be such an ironic joke? Or did it escape your ability to see that clearly there wouldn't be
people in New Mexico trying to assist the Border Patrol if the Constitution and rule of law truly did prevail?

You wouldn't have the leftist governor of New Mexico only interested in enforcing the laws she wants enforced while ignoring the others (like US immigration law Bill would make NM sanctuary state) if the law and Constitution truly mattered in that state.

Clearly you are yourself a fan of anarchy and ala carte law enforcement and are too dumb or dishonest to admit it.


----------



## busybee01

Correll said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then they will be spending a lot of time in jail. They are not allowed to enforce border security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
Click to expand...


There is no law that grants them that power. These people are completely unregulated.


----------



## Correll

busybee01 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then they will be spending a lot of time in jail. They are not allowed to enforce border security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no law that grants them that power. These people are completely unregulated.
Click to expand...




YOu are not allowed to call cops to arrest criminals?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Tipsycatlover said:


> You are all confused. There is no Hidalgo purchase. You have to be thinking of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which was a peace treaty to end the war. Five years later there was a land purchase, the Gadsden Purchase. So what is it you mean?


Mexican Cession - Wikipedia


----------



## busybee01

Correll said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then they will be spending a lot of time in jail. They are not allowed to enforce border security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no law that grants them that power. These people are completely unregulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are not allowed to call cops to arrest criminals?
Click to expand...


You are not allowed to detain people. That is called kidnapping and is a federal crime.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

busybee01 said:


> There is no invasion. It is lawful for them to come to the US to declare asylum. Kill them and there is something called murder.


There is a legal and transparent process for applying for asylum and it doesn't involve sneaking across the border and 
making your way secretly to the interior of the country where you blend in with all the other illegals who have done the same.

This militia whether you approve of them or not was not holding asylum seekers. Got it? NOT holding asylum seekers.

Got that subtle difference? The asylum process is a legal one that requires people seeking asylum to engage in an application process. That process, once again, does NOT involve illegally crossing the border and sneaking away like thieves in the night.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Jitss617 said:


> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?



See. As the country is divided people are taking the law into their own hands. Just build the damn wall and eliminate sanctuary cities. It’s not difficult


----------



## Correll

busybee01 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then they will be spending a lot of time in jail. They are not allowed to enforce border security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no law that grants them that power. These people are completely unregulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are not allowed to call cops to arrest criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not allowed to detain people. That is called kidnapping and is a federal crime.
Click to expand...



Maybe an exception needs to be made in the case of foreign invaders.


----------



## Jitss617

busybee01 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with repelling an invading horde of diseased criminals from our country?  If killing a few thousand stops the migration, that would be a good thing...Those that die in the desert are far worse, so show those who are willing to make the arduous trek, that it isnt worth it, and save even more lives, by killing a few...The needs of the many out way the needs of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no invasion. It is lawful for them to come to the US to declare asylum. Kill them and there is something called murder.
Click to expand...

But they refuse to claim asylum, so they have invaded


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

busybee01 said:


> You are not allowed to detain people. That is called kidnapping and is a federal crime.


I can't detain a bank robber, rapist, arsonist if I am able to for the police to take custody? When was that law passed?
Please cite this law.

You should find out what kidnapping really is. Here: I'll give you a hand since you are so stupid and such a simpleton.

"Generally, kidnapping occurs when a person, without lawful authority, physically asports (i.e., moves) another person without that other person's consent, with the intent to use the abduction in connection with some other nefarious objective. Under the Model Penal Code (a set of exemplary criminal rules fashioned by the American Law Institute), kidnapping occurs when any person is unlawfully and non-consensually asported and held for certain purposes. These purposes include gaining a ransom or reward; facilitating the commission of a felony or a flight after the commission of a felony; terrorizing or inflicting bodily injury on the victim or a third person; and interfering with a governmental or political function (Model Penal Code § 212.1)." kidnapping

You tell me how holding law breakers for the Border Patrol is a "nefarious objective". I mean, it probably is in your opinion
and that of other shitbag leftists because it thwarts people who are entering the country illegally. But is enforcing US federal law a "nefarious" criminal objective?
I doubt even you are that stupid that you can't figure that one out.


----------



## Jitss617

busybee01 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then they will be spending a lot of time in jail. They are not allowed to enforce border security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no law that grants them that power. These people are completely unregulated.
Click to expand...

What do you think is going to happen to you democrats disrespecting America we just gonna take it.. you will be seeing a lot more of us


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Here's another clue for all you riddlers: If the governor of your state opposes federal immigration law and will not enforce the law of the land and she tries to prosecute and outlaw the people who *are* making an effort to follow the law, who is truly at fault?

The people following our Constitution and it's laws? Or the person ignoring US law and the Constitution and aiding those in the commission of crimes?

Who has the guts to seriously address that riddle?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Not Orzo, I see. He is self identifying as a gutless clueless whiner.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

LoneLaugher said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....a lot of philosophers in here!! Nobody cares. When you're being invaded, philosophers always end up the biggest losers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militias have no legal authority to act unless directed by the governor of a state.  If a state says they are not being invaded, it is illegal for any select militia to act on its own.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again.....philosophy is ghey. When the government isnt protecting its citizens, community message board banter means very little. Buckle up s0n....we're going to soon be seeing shit we've never seen before. The hate-America folks will be l0sInG!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you have me confused with someone else.  I am IN a militia and I've been IN the militia since 1987.  The times I've been in court-rooms, written legal briefs, testified, and been a part of legal actions would amount to more time alone than all your studies combined!  That's not bragging; that is fact.
> 
> IF America is in the condition you claim, there IS a blueprint to follow.  No point in criticizing it.  I've been doing it for 32 years now and have yet to meet anyone who has spent the night in jail or even arrested for following the script:
> 
> How do we effect change?
> 
> The author of that has recruited more people into the militia than any other civilian militia in existence today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That guy is a nut. You're a nut.
> 
> If he has all the answers, and he is so damned certain that he has the moral and legal high ground, why doesn't he tell us all his fucking name?
> 
> I am always amused by nutbags who think they can start a revolution without anyone ever knowing who they are.
Click to expand...


Dude, *nobody* can tell you that they are IN a civilian militia and NOT know who drew up that blueprint.


----------



## Natural Citizen

LoneLaugher said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....a lot of philosophers in here!! Nobody cares. When you're being invaded, philosophers always end up the biggest losers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militias have no legal authority to act unless directed by the governor of a state.  If a state says they are not being invaded, it is illegal for any select militia to act on its own.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again.....philosophy is ghey. When the government isnt protecting its citizens, community message board banter means very little. Buckle up s0n....we're going to soon be seeing shit we've never seen before. The hate-America folks will be l0sInG!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you have me confused with someone else.  I am IN a militia and I've been IN the militia since 1987.  The times I've been in court-rooms, written legal briefs, testified, and been a part of legal actions would amount to more time alone than all your studies combined!  That's not bragging; that is fact.
> 
> IF America is in the condition you claim, there IS a blueprint to follow.  No point in criticizing it.  I've been doing it for 32 years now and have yet to meet anyone who has spent the night in jail or even arrested for following the script:
> 
> How do we effect change?
> 
> The author of that has recruited more people into the militia than any other civilian militia in existence today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That guy is a nut. You're a nut.
> 
> If he has all the answers, and he is so damned certain that he has the moral and legal high ground, why doesn't he tell us all his fucking name?
> 
> I am always amused by nutbags who think they can start a revolution without anyone ever knowing who they are.
Click to expand...


I flipped through the link to see who he was referencing. Which shoudn't be posted here in the first place if we're gonna stick to forum rules.

The guy whines like a little baby in pretty much all of his threads. Same repetitive arbitrary victim status malarchy.

Seems like he's on a recruiting campaign on all of the sites he hasn't yet been banned from.

The only thing he was right about in that specific regard is that, yes, the feds do populate Internet message boards under clever screen names. I know that from experience. Apparently, they've got his number every place he goes recruiting.  Heh heh.

Guess this is the next place on the list of boards he and his minions wanna flock to in their little recruiting gig, seems like it. I've seen a few of em elsewhere on web platforms. Same screen names for the most part. Same reckless posting style. And definitely the same chips on their shoulders.

They should thank their lucky stars I don't run this joint. lol.


----------



## Jitss617

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Here's another clue for all you riddlers: If the governor of your state opposes federal immigration law and will not enforce the law of the land and she tries to prosecute and outlaw the people who *are* making an effort to follow the law, who is truly at fault?
> 
> The people following our Constitution and it's laws? Or the person ignoring US law and the Constitution and aiding those in the commission of crimes?
> 
> Who has the guts to seriously address that riddle?


The  supreme court will always side with the law .. not the anti American democrat


----------



## Vandalshandle

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, Trumpetts. Anarchy is not on the menu, and the Constitution and the rule of law still prevail.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you intend for your words to be such an ironic joke? Or did it escape your ability to see that clearly there wouldn't be
> people in New Mexico trying to assist the Border Patrol if the Constitution and rule of law truly did prevail?
> 
> You wouldn't have the leftist governor of New Mexico only interested in enforcing the laws she wants enforced while ignoring the others (like US immigration law Bill would make NM sanctuary state) if the law and Constitution truly mattered in that state.
> 
> Clearly you are yourself a fan of anarchy and ala carte law enforcement and are too dumb or dishonest to admit it.
Click to expand...


I understand that, as a Trumpette, you are unable to tie your own shoes, so I will explain it to you as clearly as possible. It is not up to states to enforce federal law, just as it is not up to vigilantes to enforce ANY law. I work for the county, and as strange as it may seem to you, our sheriff would not look kindly on the FBI handing out speeding tickets on our county roads, either.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> That being the case, employers* WELCOME *foreign workers. You aren't being invaded. The American people are sitting on their ass, giving the country away. Adding insult to injury, it is of no big consequence to most of the people in the U.S. since we are at what economists consider to be statistical ZERO unemployment.
> 
> 
> 
> Tens of millions of illegals have entered this country and reside here siphoning off the social services intended for citizens, filling the class rooms with ESL students over burdening our education system, our hospitals are HMOs for illegals,
> they fill our jails with felons who clog the justice system, and they cost tax payers billions of dollars every year and so much more.
> 
> I left a county in Northern California where illegals are violating so many laws and city/county ordinances every single day it would make your head spin. But the blind eye is very active in a place where wealthy winery owners need the cheap labor they provide. So yes, I consider that an invasion.
Click to expand...


Obviously you are deluded AND misinformed.  I could debate you on each of those issues and then you'd be swearing and be damned I'm a liberal.  Bottom line:  you are wrong and if anyone wants a job, there are millions of jobs to be had.

As for your throw some shit on the wall and see how much of it sticks, you let me know which of those myths you want addressed first.  You're going to lose on the economic issues.  It doesn't mean we don't have a problem.  It means you don't know what is really going on and probably unwilling to man up and own up to your part in the equation.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Here's another clue for all you riddlers


And here's one for you:

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/04/20/us/border-militia-arrests/index.html?r=https://www.cnn.com/


----------



## Jitss617

Natural Citizen said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....a lot of philosophers in here!! Nobody cares. When you're being invaded, philosophers always end up the biggest losers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militias have no legal authority to act unless directed by the governor of a state.  If a state says they are not being invaded, it is illegal for any select militia to act on its own.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again.....philosophy is ghey. When the government isnt protecting its citizens, community message board banter means very little. Buckle up s0n....we're going to soon be seeing shit we've never seen before. The hate-America folks will be l0sInG!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you have me confused with someone else.  I am IN a militia and I've been IN the militia since 1987.  The times I've been in court-rooms, written legal briefs, testified, and been a part of legal actions would amount to more time alone than all your studies combined!  That's not bragging; that is fact.
> 
> IF America is in the condition you claim, there IS a blueprint to follow.  No point in criticizing it.  I've been doing it for 32 years now and have yet to meet anyone who has spent the night in jail or even arrested for following the script:
> 
> How do we effect change?
> 
> The author of that has recruited more people into the militia than any other civilian militia in existence today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That guy is a nut. You're a nut.
> 
> If he has all the answers, and he is so damned certain that he has the moral and legal high ground, why doesn't he tell us all his fucking name?
> 
> I am always amused by nutbags who think they can start a revolution without anyone ever knowing who they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I flipped through the link. Which shoudn't be posted here in the first place if we're gonna stick to forum rules.
> 
> The guy whines like a little baby in pretty much all of his threads.
> 
> Seems like he's on a recruiting campaign on all of the sites he hasn't yet been banned from.
> 
> The only thing he was right about in thtspecific regard is that, yes, the feds do populate Internet message boards under clever screen names. I know that from experience. Apparently, they've got his number every place he goes. Heh heh.
> 
> Guess this is the next place on the list of boards he and his minions wana flock to in their little recruiting gig, seems like it. I've seen a few of em elsewhere on web larforms. Same screen names for the most part. Same reckless posting style. And definitaly the same chips on their shoulders.
> 
> They should thank their lucky stars I don't run this joint. lol.
Click to expand...

Who you taking about keyboard commando?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Natural Citizen said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....a lot of philosophers in here!! Nobody cares. When you're being invaded, philosophers always end up the biggest losers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militias have no legal authority to act unless directed by the governor of a state.  If a state says they are not being invaded, it is illegal for any select militia to act on its own.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again.....philosophy is ghey. When the government isnt protecting its citizens, community message board banter means very little. Buckle up s0n....we're going to soon be seeing shit we've never seen before. The hate-America folks will be l0sInG!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you have me confused with someone else.  I am IN a militia and I've been IN the militia since 1987.  The times I've been in court-rooms, written legal briefs, testified, and been a part of legal actions would amount to more time alone than all your studies combined!  That's not bragging; that is fact.
> 
> IF America is in the condition you claim, there IS a blueprint to follow.  No point in criticizing it.  I've been doing it for 32 years now and have yet to meet anyone who has spent the night in jail or even arrested for following the script:
> 
> How do we effect change?
> 
> The author of that has recruited more people into the militia than any other civilian militia in existence today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That guy is a nut. You're a nut.
> 
> If he has all the answers, and he is so damned certain that he has the moral and legal high ground, why doesn't he tell us all his fucking name?
> 
> I am always amused by nutbags who think they can start a revolution without anyone ever knowing who they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I flipped through the link. Which shoudn't be posted here in the first place if we're gonna stick to forum rules.
> 
> The guy whines like a little baby in pretty much all of his threads.
> 
> Seems like he's on a recruiting campaign on all of the sites he hasn't yet been banned from.
> 
> The only thing he was right about in thtspecific regard is that, yes, the feds do populate Internet message boards under clever screen names. I know that from experience. Apparently, they've got his number every place he goes. Heh heh.
> 
> Guess this is the next place on the list of boards he and his minions wana flock to in their little recruiting gig, seems like it. I've seen a few of em elsewhere on web larforms. Same screen names for the most part. Same reckless posting style. And definitaly the same chips on their shoulders.
> 
> They should thank their lucky stars I don't run this joint. lol.
Click to expand...



I suppose when you cannot prevail on the facts censorship is the answer.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Jitss617 said:


> The supreme court will always side with the law .. not the anti American democrat


If Trump was truly serious about getting a handle on the problem of illegal immigration and not just blowing smoke up the skirts of his base he would find a way to get the issue of sanctuary cities, counties and states before the Supreme Court.

There is absolutely zero doubt that ignoring the laws you don't like, as the Jim Crow era governors of the South did
at one time, and applying the law in an ala carte way, is not legal or Constitutional. 

So why is someone like Michelle Lujan Grisham getting away with coming down on militia members in her state (and I am not especially enamored with militias in general and don't even own a gun)? 
They are attempting to aid our Border Patrol in enforcing the law. She is demonizing them for it. Where is the justice?


----------



## LoneLaugher

Porter Rockwell said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....a lot of philosophers in here!! Nobody cares. When you're being invaded, philosophers always end up the biggest losers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militias have no legal authority to act unless directed by the governor of a state.  If a state says they are not being invaded, it is illegal for any select militia to act on its own.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again.....philosophy is ghey. When the government isnt protecting its citizens, community message board banter means very little. Buckle up s0n....we're going to soon be seeing shit we've never seen before. The hate-America folks will be l0sInG!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you have me confused with someone else.  I am IN a militia and I've been IN the militia since 1987.  The times I've been in court-rooms, written legal briefs, testified, and been a part of legal actions would amount to more time alone than all your studies combined!  That's not bragging; that is fact.
> 
> IF America is in the condition you claim, there IS a blueprint to follow.  No point in criticizing it.  I've been doing it for 32 years now and have yet to meet anyone who has spent the night in jail or even arrested for following the script:
> 
> How do we effect change?
> 
> The author of that has recruited more people into the militia than any other civilian militia in existence today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That guy is a nut. You're a nut.
> 
> If he has all the answers, and he is so damned certain that he has the moral and legal high ground, why doesn't he tell us all his fucking name?
> 
> I am always amused by nutbags who think they can start a revolution without anyone ever knowing who they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, *nobody* can tell you that they are IN a civilian militia and NOT know who drew up that blueprint.
Click to expand...


Dude...fuck your militia. You should stick to paintball.


----------



## OldLady

Jitss617 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then they will be spending a lot of time in jail. They are not allowed to enforce border security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no law that grants them that power. These people are completely unregulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think is going to happen to you democrats disrespecting America we just gonna take it.. you will be seeing a lot more of us
Click to expand...

Just as soon as you save enough quarters in your tip jar for a bus ticket out of Boston?   Or are you gonna go Rambo at the Cracker Barrel?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And here's one for you:
> 
> https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/04/20/us/border-militia-arrests/index.html?r=https://www.cnn.com/


Thanks for the news everyone already has. Got anything about Charles Manson?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Jitss617 said:


> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?



FBI Arrests Leader Of Right-Wing Anti-Immigrant Militia In New Mexico | HuffPost

Now you know


----------



## Jitss617

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The supreme court will always side with the law .. not the anti American democrat
> 
> 
> 
> If Trump was truly serious about getting a handle on the problem of illegal immigration and not just blowing smoke up the skirts of his base he would find a way to get the issue of sanctuary cities, counties and states before the Supreme Court.
> 
> There is absolutely zero doubt that ignoring the laws you don't like, as the Jim Crow era governors of the South did
> at one time, and applying the law in an ala carte way, is not legal or Constitutional.
> 
> So why is someone like Michelle Lujan Grisham getting away with coming down on militia members in her state (and I am not especially enamored with militias in general and don't even own a gun)?
> They are attempting to aid our Border Patrol in enforcing the law. She is demonizing them for it. Where is the justice?
Click to expand...

We need a fund** where patriots can leave work and fight the tyrannical democrat operation in America and not have to worry about losing homes or jobs.
I think many want to fight but are afraid to get fired or miss a payment on a mortgage.. if we can get a fund going to protect  patriotic Americans I think we could turn democrats world upside down and run them off this land again


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


> Obviously you are deluded AND misinformed. I could debate you on each of those issues and then you'd be swearing and be damned I'm a liberal. Bottom line: you are wrong and if anyone wants a job, there are millions of jobs to be had.
> 
> As for your throw some shit on the wall and see how much of it sticks, you let me know which of those myths you want addressed first. You're going to lose on the economic issues. It doesn't mean we don't have a problem. It means you don't know what is really going on and probably unwilling to man up and own up to your part in the equation.


I lived through the coming of the illegal tide since the early eighties, Jocko!
I think I know what I saw with my own two eyes and experienced every single day of my life
since that time. 

I am not impressed by your overblown blather.


----------



## OldLady

Natural Citizen said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....a lot of philosophers in here!! Nobody cares. When you're being invaded, philosophers always end up the biggest losers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militias have no legal authority to act unless directed by the governor of a state.  If a state says they are not being invaded, it is illegal for any select militia to act on its own.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again.....philosophy is ghey. When the government isnt protecting its citizens, community message board banter means very little. Buckle up s0n....we're going to soon be seeing shit we've never seen before. The hate-America folks will be l0sInG!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you have me confused with someone else.  I am IN a militia and I've been IN the militia since 1987.  The times I've been in court-rooms, written legal briefs, testified, and been a part of legal actions would amount to more time alone than all your studies combined!  That's not bragging; that is fact.
> 
> IF America is in the condition you claim, there IS a blueprint to follow.  No point in criticizing it.  I've been doing it for 32 years now and have yet to meet anyone who has spent the night in jail or even arrested for following the script:
> 
> How do we effect change?
> 
> The author of that has recruited more people into the militia than any other civilian militia in existence today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That guy is a nut. You're a nut.
> 
> If he has all the answers, and he is so damned certain that he has the moral and legal high ground, why doesn't he tell us all his fucking name?
> 
> I am always amused by nutbags who think they can start a revolution without anyone ever knowing who they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I flipped through the link. Which shoudn't be posted here in the first place if we're gonna stick to forum rules.
> 
> The guy whines like a little baby in pretty much all of his threads. Same repetitive arbitrary victim status malarchy.
> 
> Seems like he's on a recruiting campaign on all of the sites he hasn't yet been banned from.
> 
> The only thing he was right about in that specific regard is that, yes, the feds do populate Internet message boards under clever screen names. I know that from experience. Apparently, they've got his number every place he goes recruiting.  Heh heh.
> 
> Guess this is the next place on the list of boards he and his minions wanna flock to in their little recruiting gig, seems like it. I've seen a few of em elsewhere on web platforms. Same screen names for the most part. Same reckless posting style. And definitely the same chips on their shoulders.
> 
> They should thank their lucky stars I don't run this joint. lol.
Click to expand...

So, I wonder who the fed is here--what's the clever screen name?
When I fly, I like to play "Who's the Spy" while I sit in the airport.  Now I'm gonna be playing "Who's the fed?"
It will drive me crazy.


----------



## Jitss617

OldLady said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then they will be spending a lot of time in jail. They are not allowed to enforce border security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no law that grants them that power. These people are completely unregulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think is going to happen to you democrats disrespecting America we just gonna take it.. you will be seeing a lot more of us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just as soon as you save enough quarters in your tip jar for a bus ticket out of Boston?   Or are you gonna go Rambo at the Cracker Barrel?
Click to expand...

More ad hominem from a female mad her world is about to have have men telling here what  to do again lol


----------



## Pilot1

The Militia member have adamantly DENIED that they pointed guns at anyone.  They may have been carrying firearms, but it seems the MEDIA yet again invented the issue of being held at "gun point".


----------



## ozro

Quantrill's Raiders were a group that called themselves a militia. When the civil war was in it's early stages, "bloody" bill Anderson was comissioned by the confederate government. 
After the raid on Lawerence ks, the confederate government withdrew that commision and the authority to operate as a militia.
Under Usa AND CSA law, these men became outlaws to both sides.
After the war was ended, confederate soldiars were granted amnesty and granted citizenship in the usa.
Quantrill's Raiders, and groups like them were not granted anything and were hunted outlaws.
The law remains the same now as it was then.(Partisan Ranger Act)
These guys acted illegally. They are not heros and likely will face charges.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Pilot1 said:


> The Militia member have adamantly DENIED that they pointed guns at anyone. They may have been carrying firearms, but it seems the MEDIA yet again invented the issue of being held at "gun point".


The ACLU will swear otherwise and their clients will have a very well rehearsed tale.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Thanks for the news everyone already has.


The way you were prattling on, you seemed ignorant of it. And, you're welcome.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

This is what happens when you leave invaders alive to complain.


----------



## Jitss617

OldLady said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Militias have no legal authority to act unless directed by the governor of a state.  If a state says they are not being invaded, it is illegal for any select militia to act on its own.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again.....philosophy is ghey. When the government isnt protecting its citizens, community message board banter means very little. Buckle up s0n....we're going to soon be seeing shit we've never seen before. The hate-America folks will be l0sInG!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you have me confused with someone else.  I am IN a militia and I've been IN the militia since 1987.  The times I've been in court-rooms, written legal briefs, testified, and been a part of legal actions would amount to more time alone than all your studies combined!  That's not bragging; that is fact.
> 
> IF America is in the condition you claim, there IS a blueprint to follow.  No point in criticizing it.  I've been doing it for 32 years now and have yet to meet anyone who has spent the night in jail or even arrested for following the script:
> 
> How do we effect change?
> 
> The author of that has recruited more people into the militia than any other civilian militia in existence today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That guy is a nut. You're a nut.
> 
> If he has all the answers, and he is so damned certain that he has the moral and legal high ground, why doesn't he tell us all his fucking name?
> 
> I am always amused by nutbags who think they can start a revolution without anyone ever knowing who they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I flipped through the link. Which shoudn't be posted here in the first place if we're gonna stick to forum rules.
> 
> The guy whines like a little baby in pretty much all of his threads. Same repetitive arbitrary victim status malarchy.
> 
> Seems like he's on a recruiting campaign on all of the sites he hasn't yet been banned from.
> 
> The only thing he was right about in that specific regard is that, yes, the feds do populate Internet message boards under clever screen names. I know that from experience. Apparently, they've got his number every place he goes recruiting.  Heh heh.
> 
> Guess this is the next place on the list of boards he and his minions wanna flock to in their little recruiting gig, seems like it. I've seen a few of em elsewhere on web platforms. Same screen names for the most part. Same reckless posting style. And definitely the same chips on their shoulders.
> 
> They should thank their lucky stars I don't run this joint. lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, I wonder who the fed is here--what's the clever screen name?
> When I fly, I like to play "Who's the Spy" while I sit in the airport.  Now I'm gonna be playing "Who's the fed?"
> It will drive me crazy.
Click to expand...

If you guys need help from the government I can write you a welfare check lol


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

ozro said:


> Quantrill's Raiders were a group that called themselves a militia. When the civil war was in it's early stages, "bloody" bill Anderson was comissioned by the confederate government.
> After the raid on Lawerence ks, the confederate government withdrew that commision and the authority to operate as a militia.
> Under Usa AND CSA law, these men became outlaws to both sides.
> After the war was ended, confederate soldiars were granted amnesty and granted citizenship in the usa.
> Quantrill's Raiders, and groups like them were not granted anything and were hunted outlaws.
> The law remains the same now as it was then.(Partisan Ranger Act)
> These guys acted illegally. They are not heros and likely will face charges.


LO fucking L!! How are these people in New Mexico _anything _remotely like Quantrell's Raiders?

You can't deny you are trying to make some sort of analogy here. 

That is hyperbolic bullshit completely devoid of facts.


----------



## Natural Citizen

OldLady said:


> So, I wonder who the fed is here--what's the clever screen name?
> When I fly, I like to play "Who's the Spy" while I sit in the airport.  Now I'm gonna be playing "Who's the fed?"
> It will drive me crazy.



lol. It's not even important enough to worry about, OL. You've got nothing to worry about I've never seen you openly contend that you and your group are coming to knock on doors in the same context with shooting people and that people should expect them. If somebody ever did end up in court for dumb stuff like that nobody here would ever even know anything about it anyway. And that's the way it should be.

It's just the way things are in this day and age. It should just be expected. There have been a couple of bills that passed in the last few years that were about that very thing, basically the bills said watch what you say on the web because we'll be watching for suspicious activity or any dialogue that could be considered a vague or even direct threat to Individual or public safety.  I always say that liberty should never ever be spoken or written absent the word responsibility. And for good reason. But that's a thread of its own, unfortunately.


----------



## Jitss617

Natural Citizen said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, I wonder who the fed is here--what's the clever screen name?
> When I fly, I like to play "Who's the Spy" while I sit in the airport.  Now I'm gonna be playing "Who's the fed?"
> It will drive me crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol. It's not even important enough to worry about. You've got nothing to worry about I've never seen yo usay you're coming to knock on doors in the same context wit hshooting people. If somebody ever did end up in court for dumb stuff nobody here would ever even know anything about it anyway.
> 
> It's just the way things are in this day and age. It should just be expected. There have been a couple of bills that passed that were about that very thing, basically the bill said watch what you say on the web.  I always say that liberty should never ever be spoken or written absent the word responsibility.
Click to expand...

I think the the British should be more worried about the militia to be honest,, my courts are a lot worse


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The way you were prattling on, you seemed ignorant of it. And, you're welcome.


No. There is a record of my comments on the matter and I guess you were just so eager to jump in and take a swing at me you completely ignored that fact. Better trolling next time, champ.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> There is a record of my comments


And yet you prattled on with your nonsense. You also seem utterly ignorant of the images and video showing their guns drawn. So it appears someone needs to hold your hand for you.


----------



## ozro

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quantrill's Raiders were a group that called themselves a militia. When the civil war was in it's early stages, "bloody" bill Anderson was comissioned by the confederate government.
> After the raid on Lawerence ks, the confederate government withdrew that commision and the authority to operate as a militia.
> Under Usa AND CSA law, these men became outlaws to both sides.
> After the war was ended, confederate soldiars were granted amnesty and granted citizenship in the usa.
> Quantrill's Raiders, and groups like them were not granted anything and were hunted outlaws.
> The law remains the same now as it was then.(Partisan Ranger Act)
> These guys acted illegally. They are not heros and likely will face charges.
> 
> 
> 
> LO fucking L!! How are these people in New Mexico _anything _remotely like Quantrell's Raiders?
> 
> You can't deny you are trying to make some sort of analogy here.
> 
> That is hyperbolic bullshit completely devoid of facts.
Click to expand...


no sir, it is a valid comparison.


----------



## Natural Citizen

Jitss617 said:


> I think the the British should be more worried about the militia to be honest,, my courts are a lot worse



Well, it's a good thing you don't get paid to think, now, isn't it?


----------



## Jitss617

Natural Citizen said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the the British should be more worried about the militia to be honest,, my courts are a lot worse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's a good thing you don't get paid to think, now, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Knock knock lol


----------



## OldLady

Jitss617 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they will be spending a lot of time in jail. They are not allowed to enforce border security.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no law that grants them that power. These people are completely unregulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think is going to happen to you democrats disrespecting America we just gonna take it.. you will be seeing a lot more of us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just as soon as you save enough quarters in your tip jar for a bus ticket out of Boston?   Or are you gonna go Rambo at the Cracker Barrel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More ad hominem from a female mad her world is about to have have men telling here what  to do again lol
Click to expand...

Yes, that was kinda mean of me.  Report it and a mod will pull it for you.


----------



## Natural Citizen

Jitss617 said:


> Knock knock lol



Go color, runt.


----------



## Jitss617

OldLady said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no law that grants them that power. These people are completely unregulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think is going to happen to you democrats disrespecting America we just gonna take it.. you will be seeing a lot more of us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just as soon as you save enough quarters in your tip jar for a bus ticket out of Boston?   Or are you gonna go Rambo at the Cracker Barrel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More ad hominem from a female mad her world is about to have have men telling here what  to do again lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that was kinda mean of me.  Report it and a mod will pull it for you.
Click to expand...

I never report, words don’t bother me I’m not a female lol


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And yet you prattled on with your nonsense.


Well this is entirely your own biased and personalized view of things and as such I give it almost zero credence.
That's what happens when you claim things without any supporting evidence whatsoever but old habits are hard to break for you, it seems.



> You also seem utterly ignorant of the images and video showing their guns drawn. So it appears someone needs to hold your hand for you.


If you have a video that no one has seen that you think proves something present it or stop flapping your virtual lips endlessly. Have a nice pointless troll day.


----------



## Vandalshandle

The leader of this gang is a convicted felon, who has been arrested for, among other reasons, simply carrying a gun, which he is prohibited to do. Consequently, it is academic as to whether or not he pointed a gun at anybody. As for the others, if they do point their guns at anyone, they can be arrested for "brandishing a firearm" which is illegal in most states.


----------



## OldLady

Natural Citizen said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, I wonder who the fed is here--what's the clever screen name?
> When I fly, I like to play "Who's the Spy" while I sit in the airport.  Now I'm gonna be playing "Who's the fed?"
> It will drive me crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol. It's not even important enough to worry about, OL. You've got nothing to worry about I've never seen you openly contend that you and your group are coming to knock on doors in the same context with shooting people and that people should expect them. If somebody ever did end up in court for dumb stuff like that nobody here would ever even know anything about it anyway. And that's the way it should be.
> 
> It's just the way things are in this day and age. It should just be expected. There have been a couple of bills that passed in the last few years that were about that very thing, basically the bills said watch what you say on the web because we'll be watching for suspicious activity or any dialogue that could be considered a vague or even direct threat to Individual or public safety.  I always say that liberty should never ever be spoken or written absent the word responsibility. And for good reason. But that's a thread of its own, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

All in good fun, NC.  No worries here; I don't even belong to a "group" as kosher as the Democrats.

_I always say that liberty should never ever be spoken or written absent the word responsibility. _
WINNER!!!!!


----------



## Natural Citizen

Vandalshandle said:


> The leader of this gang is a convicted felon, who has been arrested for, among other reasons, simply carrying a gun, which he is prohibited to do. Consequently, it is academic as to whether or not he pointed a gun at anybody. As for the others, if they do point their guns at anyone, they can be arrested for "brandishing a firearm" which is illegal in most states.



It'll guarantee open new invesitigations, though. Kidnapping, impersonating a police officer, impersonating a federal employee, etc. That's just for starters.


----------



## Jitss617

Natural Citizen said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The leader of this gang is a convicted felon, who has been arrested for, among other reasons, simply carrying a gun, which he is prohibited to do. Consequently, it is academic as to whether or not he pointed a gun at anybody. As for the others, if they do point their guns at anyone, they can be arrested for "brandishing a firearm" which is illegal in most states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It'll guarantee open new invesitigations, though. Kidnapping, impersonating a police officer, impersonating a federal employee, etc. That's just for starters.
Click to expand...

Don’t break the law don’t protect the law breakers ..


----------



## Vandalshandle

OldLady said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no law that grants them that power. These people are completely unregulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think is going to happen to you democrats disrespecting America we just gonna take it.. you will be seeing a lot more of us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just as soon as you save enough quarters in your tip jar for a bus ticket out of Boston?   Or are you gonna go Rambo at the Cracker Barrel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More ad hominem from a female mad her world is about to have have men telling here what  to do again lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that was kinda mean of me.  Report it and a mod will pull it for you.
Click to expand...




OldLady said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no law that grants them that power. These people are completely unregulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think is going to happen to you democrats disrespecting America we just gonna take it.. you will be seeing a lot more of us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just as soon as you save enough quarters in your tip jar for a bus ticket out of Boston?   Or are you gonna go Rambo at the Cracker Barrel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More ad hominem from a female mad her world is about to have have men telling here what  to do again lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that was kinda mean of me.  Report it and a mod will pull it for you.
Click to expand...


I see that you are still poking Jit in the ribs. I put him on "ignore" myself, until he reaches 21, which I figure will be in 2025. In the meantime, I don't see Captain America's posts.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

ozro said:


> no sir, it is a valid comparison.


You are trying to compare war time guerilla fighters who were what would be called today _massacring terrorists_ to this small band of militia members who simply interdicted some illegals and held them for Border Patrol pick up. 

That is absolutely insane and totally devoid of any rational semblance of reality. You are on my list of people not worth responding to.


----------



## ozro

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> no sir, it is a valid comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> You are trying to compare war time guerilla fighters who were what would be called today _massacring terrorists_ to this small band of militia members who simply interdicted some illegals and held them for Border Patrol pick up.
> 
> That is absolutely insane and totally devoid of any rational semblance of reality. You are on my list of people not worth responding to.
Click to expand...


the prrinciple is the same, and the law remains the same


----------



## LoneLaugher

OldLady said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Militias have no legal authority to act unless directed by the governor of a state.  If a state says they are not being invaded, it is illegal for any select militia to act on its own.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again.....philosophy is ghey. When the government isnt protecting its citizens, community message board banter means very little. Buckle up s0n....we're going to soon be seeing shit we've never seen before. The hate-America folks will be l0sInG!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you have me confused with someone else.  I am IN a militia and I've been IN the militia since 1987.  The times I've been in court-rooms, written legal briefs, testified, and been a part of legal actions would amount to more time alone than all your studies combined!  That's not bragging; that is fact.
> 
> IF America is in the condition you claim, there IS a blueprint to follow.  No point in criticizing it.  I've been doing it for 32 years now and have yet to meet anyone who has spent the night in jail or even arrested for following the script:
> 
> How do we effect change?
> 
> The author of that has recruited more people into the militia than any other civilian militia in existence today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That guy is a nut. You're a nut.
> 
> If he has all the answers, and he is so damned certain that he has the moral and legal high ground, why doesn't he tell us all his fucking name?
> 
> I am always amused by nutbags who think they can start a revolution without anyone ever knowing who they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I flipped through the link. Which shoudn't be posted here in the first place if we're gonna stick to forum rules.
> 
> The guy whines like a little baby in pretty much all of his threads. Same repetitive arbitrary victim status malarchy.
> 
> Seems like he's on a recruiting campaign on all of the sites he hasn't yet been banned from.
> 
> The only thing he was right about in that specific regard is that, yes, the feds do populate Internet message boards under clever screen names. I know that from experience. Apparently, they've got his number every place he goes recruiting.  Heh heh.
> 
> Guess this is the next place on the list of boards he and his minions wanna flock to in their little recruiting gig, seems like it. I've seen a few of em elsewhere on web platforms. Same screen names for the most part. Same reckless posting style. And definitely the same chips on their shoulders.
> 
> They should thank their lucky stars I don't run this joint. lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, I wonder who the fed is here--what's the clever screen name?
> When I fly, I like to play "Who's the Spy" while I sit in the airport.  Now I'm gonna be playing "Who's the fed?"
> It will drive me crazy.
Click to expand...


Pssssst! Pssssst! It might be me. Then again, it might not be.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Natural Citizen said:


> It'll guarantee open new invesitigations, though. Kidnapping, impersonating a police officer, impersonating a federal employee, etc. That's just for starters.


I'll just add your name to the list of people who don't seem to know what kidnapping really is.
It's not something you can pull out of the air as a convenient political cudgel and if you want a real legal definition I suggest you look at my post on the matter (post #468).

Note the highlighted portions that show kidnapping is not what you seem to think it is with regards to these militia guys. Nor is there any evidence they impersonated federal employees or police officers. That seems to be wishful thinking.


----------



## OldLady

Vandalshandle said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no law that grants them that power. These people are completely unregulated.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think is going to happen to you democrats disrespecting America we just gonna take it.. you will be seeing a lot more of us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just as soon as you save enough quarters in your tip jar for a bus ticket out of Boston?   Or are you gonna go Rambo at the Cracker Barrel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More ad hominem from a female mad her world is about to have have men telling here what  to do again lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that was kinda mean of me.  Report it and a mod will pull it for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no law that grants them that power. These people are completely unregulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think is going to happen to you democrats disrespecting America we just gonna take it.. you will be seeing a lot more of us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just as soon as you save enough quarters in your tip jar for a bus ticket out of Boston?   Or are you gonna go Rambo at the Cracker Barrel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More ad hominem from a female mad her world is about to have have men telling here what  to do again lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, that was kinda mean of me.  Report it and a mod will pull it for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see that you are still poking Jit in the ribs. I put him on "ignore" myself, until he reaches 21, which I figure will be in 2025. In the meantime, I don't see Captain America's posts.
Click to expand...

Yes, I seldom stoop to ad homs but Jits brings out the devil in me.  I'm trying hard to feel ashamed.


----------



## Natural Citizen

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> I'll just add your name to the list of people who don't seem to know what kidnapping really is.
> It's not something you can pull out of the air as a convenient political cudgel and if you want a real legal definition I suggest you look at my post on the matter (post #468).



As a courtesy, I'll repeat what I said. Since we're taking suggestions, I'd suggest you learn to read before you start poppin off. 



Natural Citizen said:


> It'll guarantee open new invesitigations, though. Kidnapping, impersonating a police officer, impersonating a federal employee, etc. That's just for starters.


----------



## OldLady

LoneLaugher said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again.....philosophy is ghey. When the government isnt protecting its citizens, community message board banter means very little. Buckle up s0n....we're going to soon be seeing shit we've never seen before. The hate-America folks will be l0sInG!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you have me confused with someone else.  I am IN a militia and I've been IN the militia since 1987.  The times I've been in court-rooms, written legal briefs, testified, and been a part of legal actions would amount to more time alone than all your studies combined!  That's not bragging; that is fact.
> 
> IF America is in the condition you claim, there IS a blueprint to follow.  No point in criticizing it.  I've been doing it for 32 years now and have yet to meet anyone who has spent the night in jail or even arrested for following the script:
> 
> How do we effect change?
> 
> The author of that has recruited more people into the militia than any other civilian militia in existence today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That guy is a nut. You're a nut.
> 
> If he has all the answers, and he is so damned certain that he has the moral and legal high ground, why doesn't he tell us all his fucking name?
> 
> I am always amused by nutbags who think they can start a revolution without anyone ever knowing who they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I flipped through the link. Which shoudn't be posted here in the first place if we're gonna stick to forum rules.
> 
> The guy whines like a little baby in pretty much all of his threads. Same repetitive arbitrary victim status malarchy.
> 
> Seems like he's on a recruiting campaign on all of the sites he hasn't yet been banned from.
> 
> The only thing he was right about in that specific regard is that, yes, the feds do populate Internet message boards under clever screen names. I know that from experience. Apparently, they've got his number every place he goes recruiting.  Heh heh.
> 
> Guess this is the next place on the list of boards he and his minions wanna flock to in their little recruiting gig, seems like it. I've seen a few of em elsewhere on web platforms. Same screen names for the most part. Same reckless posting style. And definitely the same chips on their shoulders.
> 
> They should thank their lucky stars I don't run this joint. lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, I wonder who the fed is here--what's the clever screen name?
> When I fly, I like to play "Who's the Spy" while I sit in the airport.  Now I'm gonna be playing "Who's the fed?"
> It will drive me crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pssssst! Pssssst! It might be me. Then again, it might not be.
Click to expand...

I thought I knew you from somewhere!


----------



## Cellblock2429

Jitss617 said:


> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?


/——/ If it hasn’t been posted yet, Mexico is pizzed Mexico warns of 'deep concern' over armed groups on U.S. border - Reuters


----------



## Jitss617

This is just the beginning. I promot more militias to be created with out permission. Lets take our country back!


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Natural Citizen said:


> As a courtesy, I'll repeat what I said. Since we're taking suggestions, I'd suggest you learn to read before you start poppin off.


And I suggest you find out what kidnapping is before you start spouting off politicized bullshit nonsense. 
Your little comment suggests you are very much ignorant of some of the things you claim.


----------



## OldLady

Cellblock2429 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ If it hasn’t been posted yet, Mexico is pizzed Mexico warns of 'deep concern' over armed groups on U.S. border - Reuters
Click to expand...

Here we go, I guess, with tit for tat.  Trump is demanding Mexico get its cartels under control in the next year or we'll close the border.  Mexico is now going to demand that Trump get our local locos under control or Mexico will stop graciously housing all the asylum seekers waiting patiently on their side of the border.


----------



## ozro

Jitss617 said:


> This is just the beginning. I promot more militias to be created with out permission. Lets take our country back!



I would advise that you beware of those of us already in place mr army of one.
A lot of stars and stripes patches out here, you might end up taking back a 4 fooot by 10 foot patch of ground.


----------



## Jitss617

I remember a European leader once said America would be impossible to invade because behind every tree and slope would be a armed trained American ready to defend her. 

Looks like today we have been invaded by people that want us in jail to allow an invasion.. 

The ones that believe this tic toc


----------



## Natural Citizen

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Your little comment suggests you are very much ignorant of some of the things you claim.



Heh heh. Well, I'll simply have to spend more time reading your wisdom across the forum. I like to learn.


----------



## Jitss617

ozro said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is just the beginning. I promot more militias to be created with out permission. Lets take our country back!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would advise that you beware of those of us already in place mr army of one.
> A lot of stars and stripes patches out here, you might end up taking back a 4 fooot by 10 foot patch of ground.
Click to expand...

I think you should go fetch me coffee and stfu before I make you find out how fast you can run


----------



## Rigby5

Porter Rockwell said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....a lot of philosophers in here!! Nobody cares. When you're being invaded, philosophers always end up the biggest losers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militias have no legal authority to act unless directed by the governor of a state.  If a state says they are not being invaded, it is illegal for any select militia to act on its own.  Period.
Click to expand...


That is not really true.
Originally there were no police at all, so militia is what refers to when you protect your own home, when the municipality organizes a posse to catch bank robbers, when the state organizes a defense from a native attack, or when the state fulfills a federal request for a division of troops.  Those are ALL called militia, even though they are all under very different jurisdictions and supervision.  The state and federal levels usually are capitalized because they are organized and issued identifying uniforms.  But if someone comes onto your property to steal something, and you arrest them, you are acting as a militia capacity and it is perfectly legal because you have jurisdiction on your property.  You just can't try to enforce federal immigration law unless you have been called up by the president.  Even the governor can not legally enforce federal law.


----------



## ozro

Jitss617 said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is just the beginning. I promot more militias to be created with out permission. Lets take our country back!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would advise that you beware of those of us already in place mr army of one.
> A lot of stars and stripes patches out here, you might end up taking back a 4 fooot by 10 foot patch of ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you should go fetch me coffee and stfu before I make you find out how fast you can run
Click to expand...


if i run, it will only be to lead you into a trap


----------



## Cellblock2429

Jitss617 said:


> I remember a European leader once said America would be impossible to invade because behind every tree and slope would be a armed trained American ready to defend her.
> 
> Looks like today we have been invaded by people that want us in jail to allow an invasion..
> 
> The ones that believe this tic toc


/——/ Japan’s Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto was rumored to say: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Natural Citizen said:


> Heh heh. Well, I'll simply have to spend more time reading your wisdom across the forum. I like to learn.


My research has been cited and given to you so you can do just that. 

Whether you agree with Gov. Lujan-Grisham or not it's clear that kidnapping is not a crime you can rationally or honestly apply to the militia people.


----------



## Natural Citizen

ozro, was it you or Rigby who mentioned about the founders letters? I was gona respindto that but I forgot about it. Remember whe nI mentioned about the cnstitution and the federalst beingthe only real source we have? I forgot about the old letters completely. 

It's one of my hobbies collecting those. Well, copies ofthem anyhow. There's some good stuff throughout.


----------



## Jitss617

ozro said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is just the beginning. I promot more militias to be created with out permission. Lets take our country back!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would advise that you beware of those of us already in place mr army of one.
> A lot of stars and stripes patches out here, you might end up taking back a 4 fooot by 10 foot patch of ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you should go fetch me coffee and stfu before I make you find out how fast you can run
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if i run, it will only be to lead you into a trap
Click to expand...

Your trap sounds lake a gay orgy.. I’m all set


----------



## Jitss617

Cellblock2429 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember a European leader once said America would be impossible to invade because behind every tree and slope would be a armed trained American ready to defend her.
> 
> Looks like today we have been invaded by people that want us in jail to allow an invasion..
> 
> The ones that believe this tic toc
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ Japan’s Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto was rumored to say: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
Click to expand...

Oops that’s the one I was referring to. Thanks


----------



## ozro

i think that was nightson sir, i may be mistaken but it was not my post


----------



## Rigby5

Porter Rockwell said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heck if I know, daniel. I was thinking about building one of those stone houses in Ne Mexico, though, I dig those a lot.
> 
> Not sure about now, though, all thes cats on here talking about knockin on doors and shooting people. lol. Ho leesht. Probably gonna stick to the original plan of a little pad on a Mexican beach with the lil mrs.
> 
> 
> 
> No one said anything about shooting anyone except for invaders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mexicans are not invaders.
> When the US bought AZ, NM, CO, CA, UT, NV, TX, etc., we agreed to the conditions of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ensured free passage through the border to these lands full of Spanish land grants.
> It is illegal to block them without voiding the treaty and having to give all these states back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry we did block them and we will continue to do so
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We did not block then for the first 50 years or so, and blocking them is likely a violation of the original treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if that is really relevant.
> 
> In the 1950s, the United States began a program called _Operation Wetback_.   It was put into place in 1953 and in 1954 the government rounded up every Hispanic they could find and deported them.
> 
> In less than five years, our unemployment rate *DOUBLED!*  Adding insult to injury, America's unemployment rate would not be at those 1950s level again until now.  The wallists are arguing economics and history testifies *against *them.
> 
> Furthermore, the federal government, under the Constitution has little de jure / constitutional authority on this issue.  So, we would need to study the Rule of Law in order figure out what it would take for those drunk on the liberals Kool Aid to listen to a legitimate method of addressing the issue.  This is clearly a question of jurisdiction and the wallists are abusing the Hell out of it AND being put on notice that the blade will cut both ways.  One day the Democrats will come back to power and the precedents being set by the wallists will be fodder for their own genocide.
Click to expand...


If what you are saying is that low cost immigrant labor is almost like free energy and wealth for everyone else, then I would agree.  It think low cost immigrant labor is a boon to the whole economy, not just those that profit from their labor directly, but also those who profit from selling them food, housing, etc.


----------



## Jitss617

Trump should  deputize these militias  .. then what democrats


----------



## Vastator

Jitss617 said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is just the beginning. I promot more militias to be created with out permission. Lets take our country back!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would advise that you beware of those of us already in place mr army of one.
> A lot of stars and stripes patches out here, you might end up taking back a 4 fooot by 10 foot patch of ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you should go fetch me coffee and stfu before I make you find out how fast you can run
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if i run, it will only be to lead you into a trap
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your trap sounds lake a gay orgy.. I’m all set
Click to expand...

You know that sound, eh?  I’m not judging...


----------



## Natural Citizen

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> My research has been cited and given to you so you can do just that.
> 
> Whether you agree with Gov. Lujan-Grisham or not it's clear that kidnapping is not a crime you can rationally or honestly apply to the militia people.



Doesn't stop it from being investigated. As I said. Twice.

Now. Militias. They have one role. And only one role. And that is to be formed and called upon by the states in order to defend the states against federal usurpers.

There is no other constitutional support for militia other than that.

They had no business patrolling the border. That's the role of the federal government.

And that's where your kidnapping charge will have legs to stand on should they pursue it. They_ will _investigate it. No doubt about it.  These people were not detaining groups of Individuals under any governmental authority. None. That's aside from impersonating a federal employee and assuming their federal duties.


----------



## Cellblock2429

Rigby5 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one said anything about shooting anyone except for invaders
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mexicans are not invaders.
> When the US bought AZ, NM, CO, CA, UT, NV, TX, etc., we agreed to the conditions of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ensured free passage through the border to these lands full of Spanish land grants.
> It is illegal to block them without voiding the treaty and having to give all these states back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry we did block them and we will continue to do so
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We did not block then for the first 50 years or so, and blocking them is likely a violation of the original treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if that is really relevant.
> 
> In the 1950s, the United States began a program called _Operation Wetback_.   It was put into place in 1953 and in 1954 the government rounded up every Hispanic they could find and deported them.
> 
> In less than five years, our unemployment rate *DOUBLED!*  Adding insult to injury, America's unemployment rate would not be at those 1950s level again until now.  The wallists are arguing economics and history testifies *against *them.
> 
> Furthermore, the federal government, under the Constitution has little de jure / constitutional authority on this issue.  So, we would need to study the Rule of Law in order figure out what it would take for those drunk on the liberals Kool Aid to listen to a legitimate method of addressing the issue.  This is clearly a question of jurisdiction and the wallists are abusing the Hell out of it AND being put on notice that the blade will cut both ways.  One day the Democrats will come back to power and the precedents being set by the wallists will be fodder for their own genocide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If what you are saying is that low cost immigrant labor is almost like free energy and wealth for everyone else, then I would agree.  It think low cost immigrant labor is a boon to the whole economy, not just those that profit from their labor directly, but also those who profit from selling them food, housing, etc.
Click to expand...

/——/ Let them in legally to work with green cards then go back to Mexico


----------



## ozro

Natural Citizen said:


> ozro, was it you or Rigby who mentioned about the founders letters? I was gona respindto that but I forgot about it. Remember whe nI mentioned about the cnstitution and the federalst beingthe only real source we have? I forgot about the old letters completely.
> 
> i think nightson posted that
> 
> It's one of my hobbies collecting those. Well, copies ofthem anyhow. There's some good stuff throughout.





Vastator said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is just the beginning. I promot more militias to be created with out permission. Lets take our country back!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would advise that you beware of those of us already in place mr army of one.
> A lot of stars and stripes patches out here, you might end up taking back a 4 fooot by 10 foot patch of ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you should go fetch me coffee and stfu before I make you find out how fast you can run
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if i run, it will only be to lead you into a trap
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your trap sounds lake a gay orgy.. I’m all set
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know that sound, eh?  I’m not judging...
Click to expand...


I don't think he is my type.....


----------



## Jitss617

Trump  should deputize 25,000 militia men in California, we can privately fund them.. I’d love to see the look on the faces of ms-13 who thought they were gangstas lol hahah


----------



## Rigby5

ozro said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is so hard about the rule of law.
> 
> one cannot argue that breaking one law, like crossing the border, jusitfies breaking another law, ie: operating as an armed miltia without legal authority.
> 
> 
> 
> it is that simple
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not that simple.
> The rules that were negotiated between Mexico and the US when those states were transfered, can not legally be changed.
> And those rules do not include keeping Mexicans out.
> So it is changing the laws and excluding free travel by Mexicans that is contrary to the rule of law.
> 
> But  while it is legal to operate an armed militia, that militia can not have any more than the jurisdiction of any private citizens, without being authorized by some larger entity.  A private militia can defend an individuals home or property, but can't ;ega;;u enforce state or federal law without being authorized by the governor or president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't argue the lack of access to previous land holdings is, or seems to be aan illegal act.
> I also know, from seeing it, that if these folks drive accross the border at their ranch, they might be stopped and checked, but let go.
> I have a friend in saint johns, az that is a Pena family member. He still has family in mexico and his wife is a mexican citizen. They load up the whole family regularly for visits and the southern family members do the same. they dont seem to encounter any issues
> 
> edited to add that my buddy's f amily has claim to portions of the Baca Float.....which does not indicate its an island.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I was thinking of is that when the US purchased these states, the Mexicans who owned almost all of the land in these states, depended on migrant Mexican farm workers.  It would seem a violation of the treaty to suddenly prevent access by these Mexicans owning land in what is now US states, to their rightful migrant Mexican workers.
> One of the ways Mexican land owners were illegally forced off their land in states purchased by the US, was deliberate interference in their ability to do business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2 things, one is the concept of land ownership in mexico at the time of the hildago purchase was nothing like our concept of ownership in modern america.
> two, even if it was, the mexican government itself nulified most nonchurch land grants from spain when they pitched spain out.
> land was owned by a quasinoble and everyone else lived and worked on his land at his pleasure. in other words, a fuedal system.
Click to expand...


The land in these states were based on Spanish land grant to nobles, but so were plantations and farms in all colonies that ended up being in the US.  Nor were any land grants ever "pitched".  I live in New Mexico, and Spanish land grants have consistently been ruled as valid under US law.  The only exceptions are when they have been abandoned.  There is no way for any new legal system to void the land grants of previous systems. That would be a violation of the ex post facto principle.
Even in Mexico, land reform is still a big deal in the Yucatan because of the patron land grant monopoly from 400 years ago.


----------



## ozro

Jitss617 said:


> Trump  should deputize 25,000 militia men in California, we can privately fund them.. I’d love to see the look on the faces of ms-13 who thought they were gangstas lol hahah



That is ignorant. The president does not and cannot have militias. 

talk about ignorant.

militias belong to the states dumbass


----------



## ozro

Rigby5 said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is so hard about the rule of law.
> 
> one cannot argue that breaking one law, like crossing the border, jusitfies breaking another law, ie: operating as an armed miltia without legal authority.
> 
> 
> 
> it is that simple
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not that simple.
> The rules that were negotiated between Mexico and the US when those states were transfered, can not legally be changed.
> And those rules do not include keeping Mexicans out.
> So it is changing the laws and excluding free travel by Mexicans that is contrary to the rule of law.
> 
> But  while it is legal to operate an armed militia, that militia can not have any more than the jurisdiction of any private citizens, without being authorized by some larger entity.  A private militia can defend an individuals home or property, but can't ;ega;;u enforce state or federal law without being authorized by the governor or president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't argue the lack of access to previous land holdings is, or seems to be aan illegal act.
> I also know, from seeing it, that if these folks drive accross the border at their ranch, they might be stopped and checked, but let go.
> I have a friend in saint johns, az that is a Pena family member. He still has family in mexico and his wife is a mexican citizen. They load up the whole family regularly for visits and the southern family members do the same. they dont seem to encounter any issues
> 
> edited to add that my buddy's f amily has claim to portions of the Baca Float.....which does not indicate its an island.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I was thinking of is that when the US purchased these states, the Mexicans who owned almost all of the land in these states, depended on migrant Mexican farm workers.  It would seem a violation of the treaty to suddenly prevent access by these Mexicans owning land in what is now US states, to their rightful migrant Mexican workers.
> One of the ways Mexican land owners were illegally forced off their land in states purchased by the US, was deliberate interference in their ability to do business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2 things, one is the concept of land ownership in mexico at the time of the hildago purchase was nothing like our concept of ownership in modern america.
> two, even if it was, the mexican government itself nulified most nonchurch land grants from spain when they pitched spain out.
> land was owned by a quasinoble and everyone else lived and worked on his land at his pleasure. in other words, a fuedal system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The land in these states were based on Spanish land grant to nobles, but so were plantations and farms in all colonies that ended up being in the US.  Nor were any land grants ever "pitched".  I live in New Mexico, and Spanish land grants have consistently been ruled as valid under US law.  The only exceptions are when they have been abandoned.  There is no way for any new legal system to void the land grants of previous systems. That would be a violation of the ex post facto principle.
> Even in Mexico, land reform is still a big deal in the Yucatan because of the patron land grant monopoly from 400 years ago.
Click to expand...



yep, but those claims are a big deal because they were negated. read about pancho a bit. 

it created havoc with land deeds ect because it changed an entiire system. also some grants remained occupied by folks that to this day have stronger forces than the government can muster.


----------



## Rigby5

Jitss617 said:


> Trump  should deputize 25,000 militia men in California, we can privately fund them.. I’d love to see the look on the faces of ms-13 who thought they were gangstas lol hahah



And what would the point of this huge militia gang be?
Have you ever heard of MS-13 causing any problems in the US?
The worst I have heard of is selling drugs, and that should be legal anyway, if US citizens want to buy them.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Natural Citizen said:


> Doesn't stop it from being investigated. As I said.


You can investigate whether Donald Trump kidnapped the Lindbergh baby or not. That doesn't mean it's a good use of time or money. On it's face there was no "kidnapping" of illegals on American soil.




> Now. Militias. They have one role. And only one role, And that is to be formed and called upon by the states in order to defend against federal usurpers.
> 
> There is no other constitutional support for militia other than that.
> 
> They had no business patrollingthe border. That;s the role of the federal government.


This is a conundrum caused by the illegal practice of sanctuary policy and of course if a sanctuary governor (Lujan-Grisham) doesn't want anyone stopping the flow of illegals in her sanctuary haven then it's her call to stop militias from attempting to assist in enforcement of US immigration law (even though she is tacitly aiding criminals in her state break the law),

There is no doubt she has the authority to do what she has done. There is also no doubt her authority is being misused and in a sane country she herself would be removed from office for being a complicit in the crime of illegal immigration.

But I suppose since George Wallace and Lester Maddox got away with defying US law there is little hope she will be paying for her ala carte enforcement of the law. Sanctuary politicians are the ideological step children of Jim Crow governors.


----------



## Rigby5

ozro said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump  should deputize 25,000 militia men in California, we can privately fund them.. I’d love to see the look on the faces of ms-13 who thought they were gangstas lol hahah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is ignorant. The president does not and cannot have militias.
> 
> talk about ignorant.
> 
> militias belong to the states dumbass
Click to expand...


The states are supposed to create militias that the federal government can call up.
Anyone and everyone can create militias, but states are on the hook of being required to provide militias if the federal government requests their use for some legal need.


----------



## Jitss617

ozro said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump  should deputize 25,000 militia men in California, we can privately fund them.. I’d love to see the look on the faces of ms-13 who thought they were gangstas lol hahah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is ignorant. The president does not and cannot have militias.
> 
> talk about ignorant.
> 
> militias belong to the states dumbass
Click to expand...

 I said deputize


----------



## ozro

Rigby5 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump  should deputize 25,000 militia men in California, we can privately fund them.. I’d love to see the look on the faces of ms-13 who thought they were gangstas lol hahah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what would the point of this huge militia gang be?
> Have you ever heard of MS-13 causing any problems in the US?
> The worst I have heard of is selling drugs, and that should be legal anyway, if US citizens want to buy them.
Click to expand...


i remember something about a leader having his own militia....trying to remember the name of that group.......they wore lightning bolts on thier collar and a wolf patch on their hats.
gee if i could only remember who that was


----------



## Jitss617

The British also had laws that crippled are ability to fight back.. we will over come democrats some how some way


----------



## ozro

Jitss617 said:


> The British also had laws that crippled are ability to fight back.. we will over come democrats some how some way



we were british subjects, and fomenting a rebellion against our king.


----------



## Jitss617

ozro said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The British also had laws that crippled are ability to fight back.. we will over come democrats some how some way
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we were british subjects, and fomenting a rebellion against our king.
Click to expand...

Wow,, where is my coffee


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Rigby5 said:


> If what you are saying is that low cost immigrant labor is almost like free energy and wealth for everyone else, then I would agree. It think low cost immigrant labor is a boon to the whole economy, not just those that profit from their labor directly, but also those who profit from selling them food, housing, etc.


Yeah....illegal immigrants are all benefit with no downside. Illegal Immigration: The True Cost to The American Taxpayer
 That's certainly the view of uninformed imbeciles, anyway.


----------



## Rigby5

ozro said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not that simple.
> The rules that were negotiated between Mexico and the US when those states were transfered, can not legally be changed.
> And those rules do not include keeping Mexicans out.
> So it is changing the laws and excluding free travel by Mexicans that is contrary to the rule of law.
> 
> But  while it is legal to operate an armed militia, that militia can not have any more than the jurisdiction of any private citizens, without being authorized by some larger entity.  A private militia can defend an individuals home or property, but can't ;ega;;u enforce state or federal law without being authorized by the governor or president.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't argue the lack of access to previous land holdings is, or seems to be aan illegal act.
> I also know, from seeing it, that if these folks drive accross the border at their ranch, they might be stopped and checked, but let go.
> I have a friend in saint johns, az that is a Pena family member. He still has family in mexico and his wife is a mexican citizen. They load up the whole family regularly for visits and the southern family members do the same. they dont seem to encounter any issues
> 
> edited to add that my buddy's f amily has claim to portions of the Baca Float.....which does not indicate its an island.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I was thinking of is that when the US purchased these states, the Mexicans who owned almost all of the land in these states, depended on migrant Mexican farm workers.  It would seem a violation of the treaty to suddenly prevent access by these Mexicans owning land in what is now US states, to their rightful migrant Mexican workers.
> One of the ways Mexican land owners were illegally forced off their land in states purchased by the US, was deliberate interference in their ability to do business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2 things, one is the concept of land ownership in mexico at the time of the hildago purchase was nothing like our concept of ownership in modern america.
> two, even if it was, the mexican government itself nulified most nonchurch land grants from spain when they pitched spain out.
> land was owned by a quasinoble and everyone else lived and worked on his land at his pleasure. in other words, a fuedal system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The land in these states were based on Spanish land grant to nobles, but so were plantations and farms in all colonies that ended up being in the US.  Nor were any land grants ever "pitched".  I live in New Mexico, and Spanish land grants have consistently been ruled as valid under US law.  The only exceptions are when they have been abandoned.  There is no way for any new legal system to void the land grants of previous systems. That would be a violation of the ex post facto principle.
> Even in Mexico, land reform is still a big deal in the Yucatan because of the patron land grant monopoly from 400 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yep, but those claims are a big deal because they were negated. read about pancho a bit.
> 
> it created havoc with land deeds ect because it changed an entiire system. also some grants remained occupied by folks that to this day have stronger forces than the government can muster.
Click to expand...



Big subject and I know little about land reform in Mexico.  But I believe it was changes in tax laws and the fact land grants were not being inhabited and used by owners that allowed for legal land reform?
{...
During the presidency of liberal general Porfirio Díaz, the situation of landless Mexicans became increasingly worse, since the economic boom of the late 19th century meant that haciendas expanded and actively utilized more of its land, displacing squatters who were not a problem when land was not needed. By the end of the Porfiriato, virtually all (95%) of villages lost their lands.[56][57] In Morelos, the expansion of sugar plantations triggered peasant protests against the Díaz regime and were a major factor in the outbreak and outcomes of the Mexican Revolution. There was resistance in Michoacán.[58]

In 1906, the Liberal Party of Mexico wrote a program of specific demands, many of which were incorporated into the Constitution of 1917. Leftist Ricardo Flores Magón was president of the PLM and his brother Enrique Flores Magón was treasurer. Two demands that were adopted were (Point 34) that landowners needed to make their land productive or risk confiscation by the state. (Point 35) demands that "The Government will grant land to anyone who solicits it, without any conditions other than that the land be used for agricultural production and not be sold. The maximum amount of land that the Government may allot to one person will be fixed."[59]

Some historical studies of land tenure and attempts at land reform remain important for understanding the issue, although written in the first half of the 20th century. In particular, George McBride's _The Land Systems of Mexico_,[60] Helen Phipps's "Some aspects of the agrarian question in Mexico: A historical study,",[61] Frank Tannenbaum's _The Mexican Agrarian Revolution_,[62] Eyler N. Simpson's _The Ejido: Mexico's Way Out_[63] and Nathan Whetten's _Rural Mexico_.[64]

A key influence on agrarian land reform in revolutionary Mexico was of Andrés Molina Enríquez, who is considered the intellectual father of Article 27 of the 1917 Constitution. His 1909 book, _Los Grandes Problemas Nacionales_ (The Great National Problems) laid out his analysis of Mexico's unequal land tenure system and his vision of land reform.[65] On his mother's side Molina Enríquez had come from a prominent, politically well-connected, land-owning family, but his father's side was from a far more modest background and he himself had modest circumstances. For nine years in the late 19th century, Molina Enríquez was a notary in Mexico State, where he observed first-hand how the legal system in Porfirian Mexico was slanted in favor of large estate owners, as he dealt with large estate owners (_hacendados_), small holders (_rancheros_), and peasants who were buying, transferring, or titling land.[66] In his observations, it was not the large estates or the subsistence peasants that produced the largest amount of maize in the region, but the _rancheros_ and considered the hacendado group "inherently evil".[67] In his views on the need for land reform in Mexico, he advocated for the increase in the ranchero group.[68]

In _The Great National Problems_, Molina Enríquez concluded that the Porfirio Díaz regime had promoted the growth of large haciendas although they were not as productive as small holdings. Citing his nearly decade long tenure as a notary, his claims were well-founded that haciendas were vastly under-assessed for tax purposes and that small holders were disadvantaged against the wealth and political connections of large estate owners. Since title transfers of property required payment of fees and that the fee was high enough to negatively affect small holders but not large. In addition, the local tax on title transfers was based on a property's assessment, so in a similar fashion, small holders paid a higher percentage than large holders who had ample means to pay such taxes.[69] Large estates often occupied more land than they actually held title to, counting on their size and clout to survive challenges by those on whom they infringed.[70] A great number of individual small holders had only imperfect title to their land, some no title at all, so that Díaz's requirement that land be properly titled or be subject to appropriation under the "vacant lands" law (_terrenos baldíos_) meant that they were at risk for losing their land. Indian pueblos also lost their land, but the two processes of land loss were not one and the same.[71]

Land loss accelerated for small holders during the Porfiriato[72] as well as indigenous communities.[73] Small holders were further disadvantaged in that they could not get bank loans for their enterprises since the amounts were not worth the expense to the bank of assessing the property.[74] Molina Enríquez's work published just prior to the outbreak of the Mexican Revolution had a tremendous impact on the legal framework on land tenure that was codified in Article 27 of the Mexican Constitution of 1917. Peasant mobilization during the Revolution brought about land reform, but the intellectual and legal framework in how it was accomplished is extremely important.
...}
Land reform in Mexico - Wikipedia


----------



## ozro

Jitss617 said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The British also had laws that crippled are ability to fight back.. we will over come democrats some how some way
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we were british subjects, and fomenting a rebellion against our king.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow,, where is my coffee
Click to expand...


well if you had been advising King George, what would you tell him to do.


----------



## Cellblock2429

ozro said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump  should deputize 25,000 militia men in California, we can privately fund them.. I’d love to see the look on the faces of ms-13 who thought they were gangstas lol hahah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what would the point of this huge militia gang be?
> Have you ever heard of MS-13 causing any problems in the US?
> The worst I have heard of is selling drugs, and that should be legal anyway, if US citizens want to buy them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i remember something about a leader having his own militia....trying to remember the name of that group.......they wore lightning bolts on thier collar and a wolf patch on their hats.
> gee if i could only remember who that was
Click to expand...

/——/ Sounds like the KKK, the militant wing of the democRAT party


----------



## ozro

Cellblock2429 said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump  should deputize 25,000 militia men in California, we can privately fund them.. I’d love to see the look on the faces of ms-13 who thought they were gangstas lol hahah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what would the point of this huge militia gang be?
> Have you ever heard of MS-13 causing any problems in the US?
> The worst I have heard of is selling drugs, and that should be legal anyway, if US citizens want to buy them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i remember something about a leader having his own militia....trying to remember the name of that group.......they wore lightning bolts on thier collar and a wolf patch on their hats.
> gee if i could only remember who that was
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Sounds like the KKK, the militant wing of the democRAT party
Click to expand...


naw they were just copycats......


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The supreme court will always side with the law .. not the anti American democrat
> 
> 
> 
> If Trump was truly serious about getting a handle on the problem of illegal immigration and not just blowing smoke up the skirts of his base he would find a way to get the issue of sanctuary cities, counties and states before the Supreme Court.
> 
> There is absolutely zero doubt that ignoring the laws you don't like, as the Jim Crow era governors of the South did
> at one time, and applying the law in an ala carte way, is not legal or Constitutional.
> 
> So why is someone like Michelle Lujan Grisham getting away with coming down on militia members in her state (and I am not especially enamored with militias in general and don't even own a gun)?
> They are attempting to aid our Border Patrol in enforcing the law. She is demonizing them for it. Where is the justice?
Click to expand...


The issue of Sanctuary Cities HAS been decided by the United States Supreme Court.

In the case of the United States v. Printz local sheriffs had filed suit and said they would not enforce the Brady Bill.  The high Court ruled that:

" _The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional_."

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

When the issue of Sanctuary Cities was challenged, the Printz decision came into play.  One article states:

"_Sanctuary cities refuse to facilitate deportation both because city leaders believe it to be harmful and unjust, and because local law enforcement officials have concluded that it poisons community relations and undermines efforts to combat violent crime. They also recognize that mass deportation would have severe economic costs.

Under the Constitution, state and local governments have every right to refuse to help enforce federal law. In cases like Printz v. United States (1997) and New York v. United States (1992), the Supreme Court has ruled that the Tenth Amendment forbids federal “commandeering” of state governments to help enforce federal law. Most of the support for this anti-commandeering principle came from conservative justices such as the late Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Printz_."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-and-sanctuary-cities/?utm_term=.420625730d9f

Sorry guys, Trump was blocked by conservatives in the United States Supreme Court.  Trump has taken the initiative to cut off federal funding of places with Sanctuary Cities and he has vowed to turn the undocumented loose on those cities... both of which will pass constitutional muster.


----------



## Rigby5

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't stop it from being investigated. As I said.
> 
> 
> 
> You can investigate whether Donald Trump kidnapped the Lindbergh baby or not. That doesn't mean it's a good use of time or money. On it's face there was no "kidnapping" of illegals on American soil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now. Militias. They have one role. And only one role, And that is to be formed and called upon by the states in order to defend against federal usurpers.
> 
> There is no other constitutional support for militia other than that.
> 
> They had no business patrollingthe border. That;s the role of the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a conundrum caused by the illegal practice of sanctuary policy and of course if a sanctuary governor (Lujan-Grisham) doesn't want anyone stopping the flow of illegals in her sanctuary haven then it's her call to stop militias from attempting to assist in enforcement of US immigration law (even though she is tacitly aiding criminals in her state break the law),
> 
> There is no doubt she has the authority to do what she has done. There is also no doubt her authority is being misused and in a sane country she herself would be removed from office for being a complicit in the crime of illegal immigration.
> 
> But I suppose since George Wallace and Lester Maddox got away with defying US law there is little hope she will be paying for her ala carte enforcement of the law. Sanctuary politicians are the ideological step children of Jim Crow governors.
Click to expand...



Sanctuary policies are not illegal.
States are under no legal obligation to enforce federal laws, and in reality no one has the jurisdiction to be able to enforce federal law but federal agents.  
Militias do not have jurisdiction unless explicitly authorized to do so by the president.

Jim Crow laws violated individual rights, which was illegal under federal, state, local, and individual rights laws.
Sanctuary cities violate no laws at all.
And in fact, which immigration is under federal jurisdiction, states should have the major say as to who they want immigrating.  The only reason there has to be federal jurisdiction is if one state were acting as a gateway that resulted in harm to the desires of other states.


----------



## Natural Citizen

Porter Rockwell said:


> The issue of Sanctuary Cities HAS been decided by the United States Supreme Court.



I'd still like to know where we can find judicial review in Article III.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Rigby5 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.....a lot of philosophers in here!! Nobody cares. When you're being invaded, philosophers always end up the biggest losers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militias have no legal authority to act unless directed by the governor of a state.  If a state says they are not being invaded, it is illegal for any select militia to act on its own.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not really true.
> Originally there were no police at all, so militia is what refers to when you protect your own home, when the municipality organizes a posse to catch bank robbers, when the state organizes a defense from a native attack, or when the state fulfills a federal request for a division of troops.  Those are ALL called militia, even though they are all under very different jurisdictions and supervision.  The state and federal levels usually are capitalized because they are organized and issued identifying uniforms.  But if someone comes onto your property to steal something, and you arrest them, you are acting as a militia capacity and it is perfectly legal because you have jurisdiction on your property.  You just can't try to enforce federal immigration law unless you have been called up by the president.  Even the governor can not legally enforce federal law.
Click to expand...


I don't know what law school you went to, but I'd suggest looking that up in the United States Code.  

Most people here are sensible enough to realize that state and local governments can enforce federal laws by virtue of power (you might have a point if we're discussing the Constitution and* authority* as opposed to the *power *of government.

Under the USC, defining the militia, no support can be found for what you're saying.


----------



## ozro

I remember its the Sturmabteilung! woohoo theres at least two snopsis' happened just then.



ozro said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump  should deputize 25,000 militia men in California, we can privately fund them.. I’d love to see the look on the faces of ms-13 who thought they were gangstas lol hahah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what would the point of this huge militia gang be?
> Have you ever heard of MS-13 causing any problems in the US?
> The worst I have heard of is selling drugs, and that should be legal anyway, if US citizens want to buy them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i remember something about a leader having his own militia....trying to remember the name of that group.......they wore lightning bolts on thier collar and a wolf patch on their hats.
> gee if i could only remember who that was
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Sounds like the KKK, the militant wing of the democRAT party
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> naw they were just copycats......
Click to expand...


----------



## Natural Citizen

Anyway. Happy Resurrection Day, all, as my better half is fond of saying. I'm gonna get off of here.


----------



## Rigby5

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If what you are saying is that low cost immigrant labor is almost like free energy and wealth for everyone else, then I would agree. It think low cost immigrant labor is a boon to the whole economy, not just those that profit from their labor directly, but also those who profit from selling them food, housing, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah....illegal immigrants are all benefit with no downside. Illegal Immigration: The True Cost to The American Taxpayer
> That's certainly the view of uninformed imbeciles, anyway.
Click to expand...


Read the link, and it is wrong.
Most immigrants do not have children, but when they do, they more than pay for their education.
Why do you think we provide education for free in the US?
It is because it more than pays for itself.
And other than ER care or children born in the US, immigrants get no welfare.
Immigrants also have a lower crime rate, so are not costing us in that kind of overhead either.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Rigby5 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one said anything about shooting anyone except for invaders
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mexicans are not invaders.
> When the US bought AZ, NM, CO, CA, UT, NV, TX, etc., we agreed to the conditions of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ensured free passage through the border to these lands full of Spanish land grants.
> It is illegal to block them without voiding the treaty and having to give all these states back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry we did block them and we will continue to do so
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We did not block then for the first 50 years or so, and blocking them is likely a violation of the original treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if that is really relevant.
> 
> In the 1950s, the United States began a program called _Operation Wetback_.   It was put into place in 1953 and in 1954 the government rounded up every Hispanic they could find and deported them.
> 
> In less than five years, our unemployment rate *DOUBLED!*  Adding insult to injury, America's unemployment rate would not be at those 1950s level again until now.  The wallists are arguing economics and history testifies *against *them.
> 
> Furthermore, the federal government, under the Constitution has little de jure / constitutional authority on this issue.  So, we would need to study the Rule of Law in order figure out what it would take for those drunk on the liberals Kool Aid to listen to a legitimate method of addressing the issue.  This is clearly a question of jurisdiction and the wallists are abusing the Hell out of it AND being put on notice that the blade will cut both ways.  One day the Democrats will come back to power and the precedents being set by the wallists will be fodder for their own genocide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If what you are saying is that low cost immigrant labor is almost like free energy and wealth for everyone else, then I would agree.  It think low cost immigrant labor is a boon to the whole economy, not just those that profit from their labor directly, but also those who profit from selling them food, housing, etc.
Click to expand...


That is exactly what I mean.  The right cannot win this issue on the question of economics.  That, however, does not mean there is no problem.

Trump proved that when he offered to let all the foreigners in that Sanctuary Cities wanted.  Their problem is the left thinks we should *force* every state to invite foreigners in. Americans play the pivotal role as to why the status quo exists and need to own their part in it.  We also should be focusing on the effects of adding a million new citizens to our census figures along with how flooding this country with foreigners is impacting our culture.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Cellblock2429 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mexicans are not invaders.
> When the US bought AZ, NM, CO, CA, UT, NV, TX, etc., we agreed to the conditions of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ensured free passage through the border to these lands full of Spanish land grants.
> It is illegal to block them without voiding the treaty and having to give all these states back.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry we did block them and we will continue to do so
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We did not block then for the first 50 years or so, and blocking them is likely a violation of the original treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if that is really relevant.
> 
> In the 1950s, the United States began a program called _Operation Wetback_.   It was put into place in 1953 and in 1954 the government rounded up every Hispanic they could find and deported them.
> 
> In less than five years, our unemployment rate *DOUBLED!*  Adding insult to injury, America's unemployment rate would not be at those 1950s level again until now.  The wallists are arguing economics and history testifies *against *them.
> 
> Furthermore, the federal government, under the Constitution has little de jure / constitutional authority on this issue.  So, we would need to study the Rule of Law in order figure out what it would take for those drunk on the liberals Kool Aid to listen to a legitimate method of addressing the issue.  This is clearly a question of jurisdiction and the wallists are abusing the Hell out of it AND being put on notice that the blade will cut both ways.  One day the Democrats will come back to power and the precedents being set by the wallists will be fodder for their own genocide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If what you are saying is that low cost immigrant labor is almost like free energy and wealth for everyone else, then I would agree.  It think low cost immigrant labor is a boon to the whole economy, not just those that profit from their labor directly, but also those who profit from selling them food, housing, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Let them in legally to work with green cards then go back to Mexico
Click to expand...


Orwell much?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


> Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
> 
> When the issue of Sanctuary Cities was challenged, the Printz decision came into play. One article states:
> 
> "_Sanctuary cities refuse to facilitate deportation both because city leaders believe it to be harmful and unjust, and because local law enforcement officials have concluded that it poisons community relations and undermines efforts to combat violent crime. They also recognize that mass deportation would have severe economic costs.
> 
> Under the Constitution, state and local governments have every right to refuse to help enforce federal law. In cases like Printz v. United States (1997) and New York v. United States (1992), the Supreme Court has ruled that the Tenth Amendment forbids federal “commandeering” of state governments to help enforce federal law. Most of the support for this anti-commandeering principle came from conservative justices such as the late Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Printz_."
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-and-sanctuary-cities/?utm_term=.420625730d9f
> 
> Sorry guys, Trump was blocked by conservatives in the United States Supreme Court. Trump has taken the initiative to cut off federal funding of places with Sanctuary Cities and he has vowed to turn the undocumented loose on those cities... both of which will pass constitutional muster.


Sorry but I don't accept what the disingenuous Washington Post has to say about the Printz decision deciding the issue of sanctuary cities.
It's a self serving claim and it doesn't take into account local state and city entities that not only are not helping
or assisting the federal government in enforcing the law but they are proactively and ardently *aiding* illegal immigrants in breaking the law (like Oakland mayor Libby Schiff, for example, who actually announced an intended ICE raid in her city and thwarted the law the same way a look out who alerts fellow criminals to the police takes part in a criminal scheme).

I'm not buying the rationalized hype.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Natural Citizen said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue of Sanctuary Cities HAS been decided by the United States Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd still like to know where we can find judicial review in Article III.
Click to expand...



You would have to elaborate on that for me to understand what you're asking.


----------



## Jitss617

ozro said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The British also had laws that crippled are ability to fight back.. we will over come democrats some how some way
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we were british subjects, and fomenting a rebellion against our king.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow,, where is my coffee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well if you had been advising King George, what would you tell him to do.
Click to expand...

Wtf are you talking about


----------



## Rigby5

ozro said:


> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump  should deputize 25,000 militia men in California, we can privately fund them.. I’d love to see the look on the faces of ms-13 who thought they were gangstas lol hahah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what would the point of this huge militia gang be?
> Have you ever heard of MS-13 causing any problems in the US?
> The worst I have heard of is selling drugs, and that should be legal anyway, if US citizens want to buy them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i remember something about a leader having his own militia....trying to remember the name of that group.......they wore lightning bolts on thier collar and a wolf patch on their hats.
> gee if i could only remember who that was
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Sounds like the KKK, the militant wing of the democRAT party
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> naw they were just copycats......
Click to expand...


There used to be hundreds, but these seem to be the current militia groups:


United States militia groups
*Militia group name* *State, county or locale*
3 Percenters[22] nationwide
Arizona Border Recon[23] Arizona, Sasabe
Hutaree[24] Michigan, southern
Idaho Light Foot Militia[25] Idaho, statewide
American Militia Alliance[26] Nationwide
Michigan Militia[27] Michigan, Redford
Militia of Montana[28] Montana, Noxon
Missouri Citizens Militia[29] Missouri, statewide
Missouri Militia[30] Missouri, Kansas City
New York Light Foot Militia[31] New York, statewide
Oath Keepers[32] nationwide
Ohio Defense Force[33] Ohio, statewide
Pennsylvania Military Reserve[34] Pennsylvania
Texas Light Foot Militia[35] Texas, statewide

Militia organizations in the United States - Wikipedia


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
> 
> When the issue of Sanctuary Cities was challenged, the Printz decision came into play. One article states:
> 
> "_Sanctuary cities refuse to facilitate deportation both because city leaders believe it to be harmful and unjust, and because local law enforcement officials have concluded that it poisons community relations and undermines efforts to combat violent crime. They also recognize that mass deportation would have severe economic costs.
> 
> Under the Constitution, state and local governments have every right to refuse to help enforce federal law. In cases like Printz v. United States (1997) and New York v. United States (1992), the Supreme Court has ruled that the Tenth Amendment forbids federal “commandeering” of state governments to help enforce federal law. Most of the support for this anti-commandeering principle came from conservative justices such as the late Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Printz_."
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-and-sanctuary-cities/?utm_term=.420625730d9f
> 
> Sorry guys, Trump was blocked by conservatives in the United States Supreme Court. Trump has taken the initiative to cut off federal funding of places with Sanctuary Cities and he has vowed to turn the undocumented loose on those cities... both of which will pass constitutional muster.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but I don't accept what the disingenuous Washington Post has to say about the Printz decision deciding the issue of sanctuary cities.
> It's a self serving claim and it doesn't take into account local state and city entities that not only are not helping
> or assisting the federal government in enforcing the law but they are proactively and ardently *aiding* illegal immigrants in breaking the law (like Oakland mayor Libby Schiff, for example, who actually announced an intended ICE raid in her city and thwarted the law the same way a look out who alerts fellow criminals to the police aids in criminal acts).
> 
> I'm not buying the rationalized hype.
Click to expand...


What happens in courts is not rationalized hype.

Trump Suffers Another Defeat in Philadelphia Sanctuary City Case


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Rigby5 said:


> Sanctuary policies are not illegal.


Sanctuary policy aids and abets illegal immigrants by shielding them from the law. Sanctuary cities are accomplices in breaking federal law with impunity.

They are as guilty and complicit in crime as the guy living next to a crack house who refuses to 
cooperate with police though he easily could.


----------



## ozro

Jitss617 said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The British also had laws that crippled are ability to fight back.. we will over come democrats some how some way
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we were british subjects, and fomenting a rebellion against our king.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow,, where is my coffee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well if you had been advising King George, what would you tell him to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wtf are you talking about
Click to expand...


under the law we lived under, we were an illegal rebellion.

ben franklin meant it we he said we all hang together or we shall hang seperately.


----------



## ozro

Rigby5 said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump  should deputize 25,000 militia men in California, we can privately fund them.. I’d love to see the look on the faces of ms-13 who thought they were gangstas lol hahah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what would the point of this huge militia gang be?
> Have you ever heard of MS-13 causing any problems in the US?
> The worst I have heard of is selling drugs, and that should be legal anyway, if US citizens want to buy them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i remember something about a leader having his own militia....trying to remember the name of that group.......they wore lightning bolts on thier collar and a wolf patch on their hats.
> gee if i could only remember who that was
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Sounds like the KKK, the militant wing of the democRAT party
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> naw they were just copycats......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There used to be hundreds, but these seem to be the current militia groups:
> 
> 
> United States militia groups
> *Militia group name* *State, county or locale*
> 3 Percenters[22] nationwide
> Arizona Border Recon[23] Arizona, Sasabe
> Hutaree[24] Michigan, southern
> Idaho Light Foot Militia[25] Idaho, statewide
> American Militia Alliance[26] Nationwide
> Michigan Militia[27] Michigan, Redford
> Militia of Montana[28] Montana, Noxon
> Missouri Citizens Militia[29] Missouri, statewide
> Missouri Militia[30] Missouri, Kansas City
> New York Light Foot Militia[31] New York, statewide
> Oath Keepers[32] nationwide
> Ohio Defense Force[33] Ohio, statewide
> Pennsylvania Military Reserve[34] Pennsylvania
> Texas Light Foot Militia[35] Texas, statewide
> 
> Militia organizations in the United States - Wikipedia
Click to expand...


clicked a few, recognized units. mine is there


----------



## Rigby5

Porter Rockwell said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The supreme court will always side with the law .. not the anti American democrat
> 
> 
> 
> If Trump was truly serious about getting a handle on the problem of illegal immigration and not just blowing smoke up the skirts of his base he would find a way to get the issue of sanctuary cities, counties and states before the Supreme Court.
> 
> There is absolutely zero doubt that ignoring the laws you don't like, as the Jim Crow era governors of the South did
> at one time, and applying the law in an ala carte way, is not legal or Constitutional.
> 
> So why is someone like Michelle Lujan Grisham getting away with coming down on militia members in her state (and I am not especially enamored with militias in general and don't even own a gun)?
> They are attempting to aid our Border Patrol in enforcing the law. She is demonizing them for it. Where is the justice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue of Sanctuary Cities HAS been decided by the United States Supreme Court.
> 
> In the case of the United States v. Printz local sheriffs had filed suit and said they would not enforce the Brady Bill.  The high Court ruled that:
> 
> " _The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional_."
> 
> Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
> 
> When the issue of Sanctuary Cities was challenged, the Printz decision came into play.  One article states:
> 
> "_Sanctuary cities refuse to facilitate deportation both because city leaders believe it to be harmful and unjust, and because local law enforcement officials have concluded that it poisons community relations and undermines efforts to combat violent crime. They also recognize that mass deportation would have severe economic costs.
> 
> Under the Constitution, state and local governments have every right to refuse to help enforce federal law. In cases like Printz v. United States (1997) and New York v. United States (1992), the Supreme Court has ruled that the Tenth Amendment forbids federal “commandeering” of state governments to help enforce federal law. Most of the support for this anti-commandeering principle came from conservative justices such as the late Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Printz_."
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-and-sanctuary-cities/?utm_term=.420625730d9f
> 
> Sorry guys, Trump was blocked by conservatives in the United States Supreme Court.  Trump has taken the initiative to cut off federal funding of places with Sanctuary Cities and he has vowed to turn the undocumented loose on those cities... both of which will pass constitutional muster.
Click to expand...


Agreed with everything until the last sentence.
Cutting federal funding and turning loose undocumented to those cities will NOT pass constitutional muster.
Funding has to be established by legislative principles and blind justice.
It is illegal for a president to restrict funding for personal agendas.
States specifically do have complete jurisdiction as to what sort of registration they want for state residents.
This already came up when the US brought in all those Vietnamese refugees.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Rigby5 said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump  should deputize 25,000 militia men in California, we can privately fund them.. I’d love to see the look on the faces of ms-13 who thought they were gangstas lol hahah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what would the point of this huge militia gang be?
> Have you ever heard of MS-13 causing any problems in the US?
> The worst I have heard of is selling drugs, and that should be legal anyway, if US citizens want to buy them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i remember something about a leader having his own militia....trying to remember the name of that group.......they wore lightning bolts on thier collar and a wolf patch on their hats.
> gee if i could only remember who that was
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Sounds like the KKK, the militant wing of the democRAT party
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> naw they were just copycats......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There used to be hundreds, but these seem to be the current militia groups:
> 
> 
> United States militia groups
> *Militia group name* *State, county or locale*
> 3 Percenters[22] nationwide
> Arizona Border Recon[23] Arizona, Sasabe
> Hutaree[24] Michigan, southern
> Idaho Light Foot Militia[25] Idaho, statewide
> American Militia Alliance[26] Nationwide
> Michigan Militia[27] Michigan, Redford
> Militia of Montana[28] Montana, Noxon
> Missouri Citizens Militia[29] Missouri, statewide
> Missouri Militia[30] Missouri, Kansas City
> New York Light Foot Militia[31] New York, statewide
> Oath Keepers[32] nationwide
> Ohio Defense Force[33] Ohio, statewide
> Pennsylvania Military Reserve[34] Pennsylvania
> Texas Light Foot Militia[35] Texas, statewide
> 
> Militia organizations in the United States - Wikipedia
Click to expand...


One cannot help but laugh at the fact that Wikipedia doesn't know that this country's oldest and most continuous militia is still in existence.  I would give you a few links, but one poster already complained that leaving a link to a defunct militia board violates some rule here.  

It was not the left, liberals, the Democrats or even the NEW WORLD ORDER that brought down those hundreds of militia groups.  It was the build the wall, deport 'em all wallists that invaded the militia, discredited many of them and conned civilian militias into supporting National Socialism and getting involved in illegal activity that brought down the civilian militias of the 1980s though early 2000s.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Rigby5 said:


> Read the link, and it is wrong.
> Most immigrants do not have children, but when they do, they more than pay for their education.
> Why do you think we provide education for free in the US?
> It is because it more than pays for itself.
> And other than ER care or children born in the US, immigrants get no welfare.
> Immigrants also have a lower crime rate, so are not costing us in that kind of overhead either.


Your fallacies and blind assurances do nothing to invalidate the link. I can give you the same information from any number of sources. You are simply insisting in what is not so.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctuary policies are not illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctuary policy aids and abets illegal immigrants by shielding them from the law. Sanctuary cities are accomplices in breaking federal law with impunity.
> 
> They are as guilty and complicit in crime as the guy living next to a crack house who refuses to
> cooperate with police though he easily could.
Click to expand...


Can you direct me to the part of the Constitution giving the federal government jurisdiction over who a state may invite within their confines as a guest?


----------



## Vandalshandle

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctuary policies are not illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctuary policy aids and abets illegal immigrants by shielding them from the law. Sanctuary cities are accomplices in breaking federal law with impunity.
> 
> They are as guilty and complicit in crime as the guy living next to a crack house who refuses to
> cooperate with police though he easily could.
Click to expand...


...and yet, there is not a single case in this country in which a city official has been prosecuted for declaring a city a "sanctuary city". I wonder why the feds have not done that. After all, there are over 250 of such cities...  It must be a massive CONSPIRACY!


----------



## ozro

Porter Rockwell said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what would the point of this huge militia gang be?
> Have you ever heard of MS-13 causing any problems in the US?
> The worst I have heard of is selling drugs, and that should be legal anyway, if US citizens want to buy them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i remember something about a leader having his own militia....trying to remember the name of that group.......they wore lightning bolts on thier collar and a wolf patch on their hats.
> gee if i could only remember who that was
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Sounds like the KKK, the militant wing of the democRAT party
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> naw they were just copycats......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There used to be hundreds, but these seem to be the current militia groups:
> 
> 
> United States militia groups
> *Militia group name* *State, county or locale*
> 3 Percenters[22] nationwide
> Arizona Border Recon[23] Arizona, Sasabe
> Hutaree[24] Michigan, southern
> Idaho Light Foot Militia[25] Idaho, statewide
> American Militia Alliance[26] Nationwide
> Michigan Militia[27] Michigan, Redford
> Militia of Montana[28] Montana, Noxon
> Missouri Citizens Militia[29] Missouri, statewide
> Missouri Militia[30] Missouri, Kansas City
> New York Light Foot Militia[31] New York, statewide
> Oath Keepers[32] nationwide
> Ohio Defense Force[33] Ohio, statewide
> Pennsylvania Military Reserve[34] Pennsylvania
> Texas Light Foot Militia[35] Texas, statewide
> 
> Militia organizations in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One cannot help but laugh at the fact that Wikipedia doesn't know that this country's oldest and most continuous militia is still in existence.  I would give you a few links, but one poster already complained that leaving a link to a defunct militia board violates some rule here.
> 
> It was not the left, liberals, the Democrats or even the NEW WORLD ORDER that brought down those hundreds of militia groups.  It was the build the wall, deport 'em all wallists that invaded the militia, discredited many of them and conned civilian militias into supporting National Socialism and getting involved in illegal activity that brought down the civilian militias of the 1980s though early 2000s.
Click to expand...


as i said before, my duties as az citizens militia have been mundane on the border. volunteer and at my expense. unarmed by order. 
here at home, search and rescue is our purpose. i add, we all hope it stays that way. 
not that i want people to get lost, hope they dont.. if they do we help whether legal or nnot btw


----------



## ozro

Porter Rockwell said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctuary policies are not illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctuary policy aids and abets illegal immigrants by shielding them from the law. Sanctuary cities are accomplices in breaking federal law with impunity.
> 
> They are as guilty and complicit in crime as the guy living next to a crack house who refuses to
> cooperate with police though he easily could.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you direct me to the part of the Constitution giving the federal government jurisdiction over who a state may invite within their confines as a guest?
Click to expand...


there is that part about if it isnt there, then it reverts to the state


----------



## busybee01

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no invasion. It is lawful for them to come to the US to declare asylum. Kill them and there is something called murder.
> 
> 
> 
> There is a legal and transparent process for applying for asylum and it doesn't involve sneaking across the border and
> making your way secretly to the interior of the country where you blend in with all the other illegals who have done the same.
> 
> This militia whether you approve of them or not was not holding asylum seekers. Got it? NOT holding asylum seekers.
> 
> Got that subtle difference? The asylum process is a legal one that requires people seeking asylum to engage in an application process. That process, once again, does NOT involve illegally crossing the border and sneaking away like thieves in the night.
Click to expand...


It requires you to be in the United States.

To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status.

Obtaining Asylum in the United States


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


> Can you direct me to the part of the Constitution giving the federal government jurisdiction over who a state may invite within their confines as a guest?


The federal government has the inherent and basic duty and right to protect the nation from all invasion and threats.


If California or New Mexico or any state wants to open it's doors wide open to tens of millions of illegals from all over the world (Mexico, Iran, China, etc.) it would not be allowed to do so unless it could guarantee somehow those people they gave free entry to would not disperse throughout the nation (like a virus entering the body and invading vital organs all throughout
the body itself) which it could not possibly ever do so. It's an absolute absurdity.

Just like your post premise.


----------



## busybee01

Correll said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they will be spending a lot of time in jail. They are not allowed to enforce border security.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no law that grants them that power. These people are completely unregulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are not allowed to call cops to arrest criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not allowed to detain people. That is called kidnapping and is a federal crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe an exception needs to be made in the case of foreign invaders.
Click to expand...


Maybe a exception needs to be made for American invaders such as yourself.


----------



## busybee01

Jitss617 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with repelling an invading horde of diseased criminals from our country?  If killing a few thousand stops the migration, that would be a good thing...Those that die in the desert are far worse, so show those who are willing to make the arduous trek, that it isnt worth it, and save even more lives, by killing a few...The needs of the many out way the needs of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no invasion. It is lawful for them to come to the US to declare asylum. Kill them and there is something called murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they refuse to claim asylum, so they have invaded
Click to expand...


They can't do it at gunpoint.


----------



## Rigby5

ozro said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The British also had laws that crippled are ability to fight back.. we will over come democrats some how some way
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we were british subjects, and fomenting a rebellion against our king.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow,, where is my coffee
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well if you had been advising King George, what would you tell him to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wtf are you talking about
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> under the law we lived under, we were an illegal rebellion.
> 
> ben franklin meant it we he said we all hang together or we shall hang seperately.
Click to expand...



The American Revolution violated British law, but was legal under the larger abstraction as to what law is.
Which is that the original and only really valid source of law comes from the inherent rights of each individual.
Laws can not be just the arbitrary edicts of legislators, but what is required by the defense of these inherent individual rights.
The whole point of the Declaration of Independence is this principle of legal authority coming from what is inherent to individuals, not sovereigns.
To sum it up, you have 3 choices for law:

Might makes right.
Divine right.
Inherent individual rights

I pick door number 3.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Rigby5 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If what you are saying is that low cost immigrant labor is almost like free energy and wealth for everyone else, then I would agree. It think low cost immigrant labor is a boon to the whole economy, not just those that profit from their labor directly, but also those who profit from selling them food, housing, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah....illegal immigrants are all benefit with no downside. Illegal Immigration: The True Cost to The American Taxpayer
> That's certainly the view of uninformed imbeciles, anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the link, and it is wrong.
> Most immigrants do not have children, but when they do, they more than pay for their education.
> Why do you think we provide education for free in the US?
> It is because it more than pays for itself.
> And other than ER care or children born in the US, immigrants get no welfare.
> Immigrants also have a lower crime rate, so are not costing us in that kind of overhead either.
Click to expand...


You are right on all counts.  Additionally, you forgot:

Undocumented foreigners contribute $12 BILLION DOLLARS per year into Socialist Security and can never draw one thin dime out in retirement.  

Insofar as hospital costs are concerned, the government does NOT have a program to reimburse hospitals for indigent care - whether the person is an American or a foreigner.  Many foreigners use the hospital for their primary care and make payments for their routine visits.

Insurance companies negotiate fixed prices for services and patients who pay cash are, in some cases, paying NINE times what an insured patient pays.  Actually, cash customers offset high costs for those with insurance.  Foreigners, not wanting to have unnecessary contact with the local LEOs pay for their services in installments.  Many Americans understand the system and NEVER pay for their care.

It's ironic, however.  Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall.  Now he's looking to take the money from the military and those poor / elderly  Americans on Medicare and Medicaid.  And, if he's successful, he will take that *$12 BILLION DOLLARS per year* the foreigners pay into Socialist Security.    Now you know why so many elderly people join socialist organizations like AARP.


----------



## Correll

busybee01 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no law that grants them that power. These people are completely unregulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are not allowed to call cops to arrest criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not allowed to detain people. That is called kidnapping and is a federal crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe an exception needs to be made in the case of foreign invaders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe a exception needs to be made for American invaders such as yourself.
Click to expand...



I've not invaded anyone, moron, so what the fuck are you talking about?

ANd for the love of God, try to actually make your fucking point, if you have the brain power to do so, moron.


----------



## Jitss617

ozro said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> i remember something about a leader having his own militia....trying to remember the name of that group.......they wore lightning bolts on thier collar and a wolf patch on their hats.
> gee if i could only remember who that was
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ Sounds like the KKK, the militant wing of the democRAT party
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> naw they were just copycats......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There used to be hundreds, but these seem to be the current militia groups:
> 
> 
> United States militia groups
> *Militia group name* *State, county or locale*
> 3 Percenters[22] nationwide
> Arizona Border Recon[23] Arizona, Sasabe
> Hutaree[24] Michigan, southern
> Idaho Light Foot Militia[25] Idaho, statewide
> American Militia Alliance[26] Nationwide
> Michigan Militia[27] Michigan, Redford
> Militia of Montana[28] Montana, Noxon
> Missouri Citizens Militia[29] Missouri, statewide
> Missouri Militia[30] Missouri, Kansas City
> New York Light Foot Militia[31] New York, statewide
> Oath Keepers[32] nationwide
> Ohio Defense Force[33] Ohio, statewide
> Pennsylvania Military Reserve[34] Pennsylvania
> Texas Light Foot Militia[35] Texas, statewide
> 
> Militia organizations in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One cannot help but laugh at the fact that Wikipedia doesn't know that this country's oldest and most continuous militia is still in existence.  I would give you a few links, but one poster already complained that leaving a link to a defunct militia board violates some rule here.
> 
> It was not the left, liberals, the Democrats or even the NEW WORLD ORDER that brought down those hundreds of militia groups.  It was the build the wall, deport 'em all wallists that invaded the militia, discredited many of them and conned civilian militias into supporting National Socialism and getting involved in illegal activity that brought down the civilian militias of the 1980s though early 2000s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> as i said before, my duties as az citizens militia have been mundane on the border. volunteer and at my expense. unarmed by order.
> here at home, search and rescue is our purpose. i add, we all hope it stays that way.
> not that i want people to get lost, hope they dont.. if they do we help whether legal or nnot btw
Click to expand...

Wow


----------



## busybee01

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not allowed to detain people. That is called kidnapping and is a federal crime.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't detain a bank robber, rapist, arsonist if I am able to for the police to take custody? When was that law passed?
> Please cite this law.
> 
> You should find out what kidnapping really is. Here: I'll give you a hand since you are so stupid and such a simpleton.
> 
> "Generally, kidnapping occurs when a person, without lawful authority, physically asports (i.e., moves) another person without that other person's consent, with the intent to use the abduction in connection with some other nefarious objective. Under the Model Penal Code (a set of exemplary criminal rules fashioned by the American Law Institute), kidnapping occurs when any person is unlawfully and non-consensually asported and held for certain purposes. These purposes include gaining a ransom or reward; facilitating the commission of a felony or a flight after the commission of a felony; terrorizing or inflicting bodily injury on the victim or a third person; and interfering with a governmental or political function (Model Penal Code § 212.1)." kidnapping
> 
> You tell me how holding law breakers for the Border Patrol is a "nefarious objective". I mean, it probably is in your opinion
> and that of other shitbag leftists because it thwarts people who are entering the country illegally. But is enforcing US federal law a "nefarious" criminal objective?
> I doubt even you are that stupid that you can't figure that one out.
Click to expand...


They are not tasked with enforcing the law. That makes detaining anyone kidnapping.


----------



## bodecea

Correll said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no law that grants them that power. These people are completely unregulated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are not allowed to call cops to arrest criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not allowed to detain people. That is called kidnapping and is a federal crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe an exception needs to be made in the case of foreign invaders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe a exception needs to be made for American invaders such as yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've not invaded anyone, moron, so what the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> ANd for the love of God, try to actually make your fucking point, if you have the brain power to do so, moron.
Click to expand...


----------



## Jitss617

busybee01 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with repelling an invading horde of diseased criminals from our country?  If killing a few thousand stops the migration, that would be a good thing...Those that die in the desert are far worse, so show those who are willing to make the arduous trek, that it isnt worth it, and save even more lives, by killing a few...The needs of the many out way the needs of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no invasion. It is lawful for them to come to the US to declare asylum. Kill them and there is something called murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they refuse to claim asylum, so they have invaded
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can't do it at gunpoint.
Click to expand...

We use to shot them off our lands years ago.. gtfo of you now want to put us in jail for pointing a gun at them.. embarrassing


----------



## busybee01

Jitss617 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then they will be spending a lot of time in jail. They are not allowed to enforce border security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no law that grants them that power. These people are completely unregulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think is going to happen to you democrats disrespecting America we just gonna take it.. you will be seeing a lot more of us
Click to expand...


You talk big and you think you can threaten people. Jail is the place for thugs like you.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

busybee01 said:


> It requires you to be in the United States.
> 
> To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status.
> 
> Obtaining Asylum in the United States


It does not require you to be wandering through the back country of New Mexico. You will find no Border Patrol agents there.
Application is made at an entry point into the US. Not inside the US making your way north.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ozro said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> i remember something about a leader having his own militia....trying to remember the name of that group.......they wore lightning bolts on thier collar and a wolf patch on their hats.
> gee if i could only remember who that was
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ Sounds like the KKK, the militant wing of the democRAT party
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> naw they were just copycats......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There used to be hundreds, but these seem to be the current militia groups:
> 
> 
> United States militia groups
> *Militia group name* *State, county or locale*
> 3 Percenters[22] nationwide
> Arizona Border Recon[23] Arizona, Sasabe
> Hutaree[24] Michigan, southern
> Idaho Light Foot Militia[25] Idaho, statewide
> American Militia Alliance[26] Nationwide
> Michigan Militia[27] Michigan, Redford
> Militia of Montana[28] Montana, Noxon
> Missouri Citizens Militia[29] Missouri, statewide
> Missouri Militia[30] Missouri, Kansas City
> New York Light Foot Militia[31] New York, statewide
> Oath Keepers[32] nationwide
> Ohio Defense Force[33] Ohio, statewide
> Pennsylvania Military Reserve[34] Pennsylvania
> Texas Light Foot Militia[35] Texas, statewide
> 
> Militia organizations in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One cannot help but laugh at the fact that Wikipedia doesn't know that this country's oldest and most continuous militia is still in existence.  I would give you a few links, but one poster already complained that leaving a link to a defunct militia board violates some rule here.
> 
> It was not the left, liberals, the Democrats or even the NEW WORLD ORDER that brought down those hundreds of militia groups.  It was the build the wall, deport 'em all wallists that invaded the militia, discredited many of them and conned civilian militias into supporting National Socialism and getting involved in illegal activity that brought down the civilian militias of the 1980s though early 2000s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> as i said before, my duties as az citizens militia have been mundane on the border. volunteer and at my expense. unarmed by order.
> here at home, search and rescue is our purpose. i add, we all hope it stays that way.
> not that i want people to get lost, hope they dont.. if they do we help whether legal or nnot btw
Click to expand...


Can you cite that section of the Constitution which gives the federal government jurisdiction over who the states can and cannot invite into their respective state?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you direct me to the part of the Constitution giving the federal government jurisdiction over who a state may invite within their confines as a guest?
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government has the inherent and basic duty and right to protect the nation from all invasion and threats.
> 
> 
> If California or New Mexico or any state wants to open it's doors wide open to tens of millions of illegals from all over the world (Mexico, Iran, China, etc.) it would not be allowed to do so unless it could guarantee somehow those people they gave free entry to would not disperse throughout the nation (like a virus entering the body and invading vital organs all throughout
> the body itself) which it could not possibly ever do so. It's an absolute absurdity.
> 
> Just like your post premise.
Click to expand...


Still, you have failed to find any legal citation for your beliefs.  When Americans are WILLINGLY hiring these foreigners, it does _not_ and I mean factually *not* meet the definition of an invasion.


----------



## Jitss617

busybee01 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then they will be spending a lot of time in jail. They are not allowed to enforce border security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no law that grants them that power. These people are completely unregulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you think is going to happen to you democrats disrespecting America we just gonna take it.. you will be seeing a lot more of us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You talk big and you think you can threaten people. Jail is the place for thugs like you.
Click to expand...

I didn’t threaten anyone


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

busybee01 said:


> They are not tasked with enforcing the law. That makes detaining anyone kidnapping.


I highlighted the pertinent parts of what makes kidnapping itself kidnapping.

If you are too damned stupid to educate yourself then you deserve no civility or discussion.


----------



## ozro

Porter Rockwell said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ Sounds like the KKK, the militant wing of the democRAT party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> naw they were just copycats......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There used to be hundreds, but these seem to be the current militia groups:
> 
> 
> United States militia groups
> *Militia group name* *State, county or locale*
> 3 Percenters[22] nationwide
> Arizona Border Recon[23] Arizona, Sasabe
> Hutaree[24] Michigan, southern
> Idaho Light Foot Militia[25] Idaho, statewide
> American Militia Alliance[26] Nationwide
> Michigan Militia[27] Michigan, Redford
> Militia of Montana[28] Montana, Noxon
> Missouri Citizens Militia[29] Missouri, statewide
> Missouri Militia[30] Missouri, Kansas City
> New York Light Foot Militia[31] New York, statewide
> Oath Keepers[32] nationwide
> Ohio Defense Force[33] Ohio, statewide
> Pennsylvania Military Reserve[34] Pennsylvania
> Texas Light Foot Militia[35] Texas, statewide
> 
> Militia organizations in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One cannot help but laugh at the fact that Wikipedia doesn't know that this country's oldest and most continuous militia is still in existence.  I would give you a few links, but one poster already complained that leaving a link to a defunct militia board violates some rule here.
> 
> It was not the left, liberals, the Democrats or even the NEW WORLD ORDER that brought down those hundreds of militia groups.  It was the build the wall, deport 'em all wallists that invaded the militia, discredited many of them and conned civilian militias into supporting National Socialism and getting involved in illegal activity that brought down the civilian militias of the 1980s though early 2000s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> as i said before, my duties as az citizens militia have been mundane on the border. volunteer and at my expense. unarmed by order.
> here at home, search and rescue is our purpose. i add, we all hope it stays that way.
> not that i want people to get lost, hope they dont.. if they do we help whether legal or nnot btw
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you cite that section of the Constitution which gives the federal government jurisdiction over who the states can and cannot invite into their respective state?
Click to expand...


my point exactly.


----------



## Jitss617

Porter Rockwell said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you direct me to the part of the Constitution giving the federal government jurisdiction over who a state may invite within their confines as a guest?
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government has the inherent and basic duty and right to protect the nation from all invasion and threats.
> 
> 
> If California or New Mexico or any state wants to open it's doors wide open to tens of millions of illegals from all over the world (Mexico, Iran, China, etc.) it would not be allowed to do so unless it could guarantee somehow those people they gave free entry to would not disperse throughout the nation (like a virus entering the body and invading vital organs all throughout
> the body itself) which it could not possibly ever do so. It's an absolute absurdity.
> 
> Just like your post premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still, you have failed to find any legal citation for your beliefs.  When Americans are WILLINGLY hiring these foreigners, it does _not_ and I mean factually *not* meet the definition of an invasion.
Click to expand...

You are wrong ,, millions crossing our border with our permission is a invasion


----------



## Correll

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are not allowed to call cops to arrest criminals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not allowed to detain people. That is called kidnapping and is a federal crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe an exception needs to be made in the case of foreign invaders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe a exception needs to be made for American invaders such as yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've not invaded anyone, moron, so what the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> ANd for the love of God, try to actually make your fucking point, if you have the brain power to do so, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 257172
Click to expand...



I knew what he is trying to imply, and I know that he will not actually say it, because on some levels, even liberals realize that if they say that point, clearly, 


it clearly undermines their position.


So, they dance around it, spouting meaningless hints, as though they are making an actual point.


And they are generally completely smug assholes about it. LIke you always are.


So, yes, that does make me mad.


And only an asshole would pretend that that is not a reasonable response.


So, fuck you very much, fucktard.


----------



## badger2

In this fast-moving thread, we've no time to sort through messages to see if this has already been posted:

FBI Arrests Leader of Armed Group Stopping Migrants in New Mexico
FBI arrests leader of armed group stopping migrants in New Mexico


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ozro said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what would the point of this huge militia gang be?
> Have you ever heard of MS-13 causing any problems in the US?
> The worst I have heard of is selling drugs, and that should be legal anyway, if US citizens want to buy them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i remember something about a leader having his own militia....trying to remember the name of that group.......they wore lightning bolts on thier collar and a wolf patch on their hats.
> gee if i could only remember who that was
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> /——/ Sounds like the KKK, the militant wing of the democRAT party
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> naw they were just copycats......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There used to be hundreds, but these seem to be the current militia groups:
> 
> 
> United States militia groups
> *Militia group name* *State, county or locale*
> 3 Percenters[22] nationwide
> Arizona Border Recon[23] Arizona, Sasabe
> Hutaree[24] Michigan, southern
> Idaho Light Foot Militia[25] Idaho, statewide
> American Militia Alliance[26] Nationwide
> Michigan Militia[27] Michigan, Redford
> Militia of Montana[28] Montana, Noxon
> Missouri Citizens Militia[29] Missouri, statewide
> Missouri Militia[30] Missouri, Kansas City
> New York Light Foot Militia[31] New York, statewide
> Oath Keepers[32] nationwide
> Ohio Defense Force[33] Ohio, statewide
> Pennsylvania Military Reserve[34] Pennsylvania
> Texas Light Foot Militia[35] Texas, statewide
> 
> Militia organizations in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> clicked a few, recognized units. mine is there
Click to expand...



I'm lucky.  I've never needed anyone's recognition or validation to exist.


----------



## ozro

Porter Rockwell said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> i remember something about a leader having his own militia....trying to remember the name of that group.......they wore lightning bolts on thier collar and a wolf patch on their hats.
> gee if i could only remember who that was
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ Sounds like the KKK, the militant wing of the democRAT party
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> naw they were just copycats......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There used to be hundreds, but these seem to be the current militia groups:
> 
> 
> United States militia groups
> *Militia group name* *State, county or locale*
> 3 Percenters[22] nationwide
> Arizona Border Recon[23] Arizona, Sasabe
> Hutaree[24] Michigan, southern
> Idaho Light Foot Militia[25] Idaho, statewide
> American Militia Alliance[26] Nationwide
> Michigan Militia[27] Michigan, Redford
> Militia of Montana[28] Montana, Noxon
> Missouri Citizens Militia[29] Missouri, statewide
> Missouri Militia[30] Missouri, Kansas City
> New York Light Foot Militia[31] New York, statewide
> Oath Keepers[32] nationwide
> Ohio Defense Force[33] Ohio, statewide
> Pennsylvania Military Reserve[34] Pennsylvania
> Texas Light Foot Militia[35] Texas, statewide
> 
> Militia organizations in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> clicked a few, recognized units. mine is there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm lucky.  I've never needed anyone's recognition or validation to exist.
Click to expand...


based on your screen name i think i am safe in assuming that is one way you demonstrate that attitude.

im not making judgement, just an observation


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Jitss617 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you direct me to the part of the Constitution giving the federal government jurisdiction over who a state may invite within their confines as a guest?
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government has the inherent and basic duty and right to protect the nation from all invasion and threats.
> 
> 
> If California or New Mexico or any state wants to open it's doors wide open to tens of millions of illegals from all over the world (Mexico, Iran, China, etc.) it would not be allowed to do so unless it could guarantee somehow those people they gave free entry to would not disperse throughout the nation (like a virus entering the body and invading vital organs all throughout
> the body itself) which it could not possibly ever do so. It's an absolute absurdity.
> 
> Just like your post premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still, you have failed to find any legal citation for your beliefs.  When Americans are WILLINGLY hiring these foreigners, it does _not_ and I mean factually *not* meet the definition of an invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are wrong ,, millions crossing our border with our permission is a invasion
Click to expand...



"_Our_" permission... or *YOUR* permission?  You just identified where the disconnect is.

Under the Constitution the federal government has but one area of jurisdiction here: naturalization.  Naturalization = citizenship.  Who the state invites is their business.

Liberal states, like California, deliberately abuse the right.  So, the better option is to allow them to create their own Hell and let the federal government protect other states from paying for it. 

California has Sanctuary Cities.  It's of no concern to me.  Maybe when states start resisting federal Red Flag Laws, you might understand the principle.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


> Still, you have failed to find any legal citation for your beliefs. When Americans are WILLINGLY hiring these foreigners, it does _not_ and I mean factually *not* meet the definition of an invasion.


It's in the Constitution. Defense of the nation itself is one of the prime duties of the federal government.
Is this something you disagree with? Is this not a fact? Are you contesting this simple well known truth?

And Porter baby, if you think Americans are offering jobs for every one of the tens of thousands of  people who have
made the long trip from Central America to the Southern border and all they have to do is walk on over and claim these
jobs as landscapers, janitors, bus boys, etc. then you are fooling yourself, but no one else.

Whether Americans are willingly seeking illegals who will work for next to nothing is immaterial.
You still need legal permission to reside or work here. Period! Now buzz off with your nonsense.


----------



## badger2

Nowhere in the (apparent) Fox News video is there shown 200 people.


----------



## busybee01

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The supreme court will always side with the law .. not the anti American democrat
> 
> 
> 
> If Trump was truly serious about getting a handle on the problem of illegal immigration and not just blowing smoke up the skirts of his base he would find a way to get the issue of sanctuary cities, counties and states before the Supreme Court.
> 
> There is absolutely zero doubt that ignoring the laws you don't like, as the Jim Crow era governors of the South did
> at one time, and applying the law in an ala carte way, is not legal or Constitutional.
> 
> So why is someone like Michelle Lujan Grisham getting away with coming down on militia members in her state (and I am not especially enamored with militias in general and don't even own a gun)?
> They are attempting to aid our Border Patrol in enforcing the law. She is demonizing them for it. Where is the justice?
Click to expand...


Militias need to be destroyed. Militia members blew up the federal building in OKC. Militias are a threat to this country. 

Militias have been given no authority to enforce laws so detaining people is kidnapping. Even the Border Patrol says people should call rather than taking the law into their own hands.


----------



## busybee01

Jitss617 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with repelling an invading horde of diseased criminals from our country?  If killing a few thousand stops the migration, that would be a good thing...Those that die in the desert are far worse, so show those who are willing to make the arduous trek, that it isnt worth it, and save even more lives, by killing a few...The needs of the many out way the needs of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no invasion. It is lawful for them to come to the US to declare asylum. Kill them and there is something called murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they refuse to claim asylum, so they have invaded
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can't do it at gunpoint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We use to shot them off our lands years ago.. gtfo of you now want to put us in jail for pointing a gun at them.. embarrassing
Click to expand...


You are a embarrassing thug.


----------



## Jitss617

Porter Rockwell said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you direct me to the part of the Constitution giving the federal government jurisdiction over who a state may invite within their confines as a guest?
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government has the inherent and basic duty and right to protect the nation from all invasion and threats.
> 
> 
> If California or New Mexico or any state wants to open it's doors wide open to tens of millions of illegals from all over the world (Mexico, Iran, China, etc.) it would not be allowed to do so unless it could guarantee somehow those people they gave free entry to would not disperse throughout the nation (like a virus entering the body and invading vital organs all throughout
> the body itself) which it could not possibly ever do so. It's an absolute absurdity.
> 
> Just like your post premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still, you have failed to find any legal citation for your beliefs.  When Americans are WILLINGLY hiring these foreigners, it does _not_ and I mean factually *not* meet the definition of an invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are wrong ,, millions crossing our border with our permission is a invasion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "_Our_" permission... or *YOUR* permission?  You just identified where the disconnect is.
> 
> Under the Constitution the federal government has but one area of jurisdiction here: naturalization.  Naturalization = citizenship.  Who the state invites is their business.
> 
> Liberal states, like California, deliberately abuse the right.  So, the better option is to allow them to create their own Hell and let the protect other states from paying for it.
> 
> California has Sanctuary Cities.  It's of no concern to me.  Maybe when states start resisting federal Red Flag Laws, you might understand the principle.
Click to expand...

Without out* our permission is an invasion.


And who cares who hires them ,,, it’s an invasion.. they should be put down


I work in a restaurant in Boston the entire back of the house is illegal.. with a high black unemployment rate.. the invasion is killing America


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ozro said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cellblock2429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> /——/ Sounds like the KKK, the militant wing of the democRAT party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> naw they were just copycats......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There used to be hundreds, but these seem to be the current militia groups:
> 
> 
> United States militia groups
> *Militia group name* *State, county or locale*
> 3 Percenters[22] nationwide
> Arizona Border Recon[23] Arizona, Sasabe
> Hutaree[24] Michigan, southern
> Idaho Light Foot Militia[25] Idaho, statewide
> American Militia Alliance[26] Nationwide
> Michigan Militia[27] Michigan, Redford
> Militia of Montana[28] Montana, Noxon
> Missouri Citizens Militia[29] Missouri, statewide
> Missouri Militia[30] Missouri, Kansas City
> New York Light Foot Militia[31] New York, statewide
> Oath Keepers[32] nationwide
> Ohio Defense Force[33] Ohio, statewide
> Pennsylvania Military Reserve[34] Pennsylvania
> Texas Light Foot Militia[35] Texas, statewide
> 
> Militia organizations in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> clicked a few, recognized units. mine is there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm lucky.  I've never needed anyone's recognition or validation to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> based on your screen name i think i am safe in assuming that is one way you demonstrate that attitude.
> 
> im not making judgement, just an observation
Click to expand...



Don't know if that was a compliment or an insult.  Though not a Mormon myself, I always liked the way Rockwell helped train the Danites to protect their group.  He was controversial, but he was also effective.


----------



## busybee01

Correll said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no law that grants them that power. These people are completely unregulated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are not allowed to call cops to arrest criminals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not allowed to detain people. That is called kidnapping and is a federal crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe an exception needs to be made in the case of foreign invaders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe a exception needs to be made for American invaders such as yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've not invaded anyone, moron, so what the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> ANd for the love of God, try to actually make your fucking point, if you have the brain power to do so, moron.
Click to expand...


We have been invaded by with supremacists and neo-nazis who have taken over the Republican Party.

If your kind left the country, the national IQ would double.


----------



## Jitss617

busybee01 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The supreme court will always side with the law .. not the anti American democrat
> 
> 
> 
> If Trump was truly serious about getting a handle on the problem of illegal immigration and not just blowing smoke up the skirts of his base he would find a way to get the issue of sanctuary cities, counties and states before the Supreme Court.
> 
> There is absolutely zero doubt that ignoring the laws you don't like, as the Jim Crow era governors of the South did
> at one time, and applying the law in an ala carte way, is not legal or Constitutional.
> 
> So why is someone like Michelle Lujan Grisham getting away with coming down on militia members in her state (and I am not especially enamored with militias in general and don't even own a gun)?
> They are attempting to aid our Border Patrol in enforcing the law. She is demonizing them for it. Where is the justice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militias need to be destroyed. Militia members blew up the federal building in OKC. Militias are a threat to this country.
> 
> Militias have been given no authority to enforce laws so detaining people is kidnapping. Even the Border Patrol says people should call rather than taking the law into their own hands.
Click to expand...

Ya and democrats call BP  kidnappers.. 

At the end of the day we will be taking our country back.


----------



## Jitss617

busybee01 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with repelling an invading horde of diseased criminals from our country?  If killing a few thousand stops the migration, that would be a good thing...Those that die in the desert are far worse, so show those who are willing to make the arduous trek, that it isnt worth it, and save even more lives, by killing a few...The needs of the many out way the needs of the few.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no invasion. It is lawful for them to come to the US to declare asylum. Kill them and there is something called murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they refuse to claim asylum, so they have invaded
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can't do it at gunpoint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We use to shot them off our lands years ago.. gtfo of you now want to put us in jail for pointing a gun at them.. embarrassing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a embarrassing thug.
Click to expand...

No I talk like we used to talk!


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Jitss617 said:


> Without out* our permission is an invasion.
> 
> 
> And who cares who hires them ,,, it’s an invasion.. they should be put down
> 
> 
> I work in a restaurant in Boston the entire back of the house is illegal.. with a high black unemployment rate.. the invasion is killing America


I saw the entire building and construction business in Northern California pass from the hands of native citizens to entirely illegals in the matter of a mere decade.


----------



## ozro

busybee01 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The supreme court will always side with the law .. not the anti American democrat
> 
> 
> 
> If Trump was truly serious about getting a handle on the problem of illegal immigration and not just blowing smoke up the skirts of his base he would find a way to get the issue of sanctuary cities, counties and states before the Supreme Court.
> 
> There is absolutely zero doubt that ignoring the laws you don't like, as the Jim Crow era governors of the South did
> at one time, and applying the law in an ala carte way, is not legal or Constitutional.
> 
> So why is someone like Michelle Lujan Grisham getting away with coming down on militia members in her state (and I am not especially enamored with militias in general and don't even own a gun)?
> They are attempting to aid our Border Patrol in enforcing the law. She is demonizing them for it. Where is the justice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militias need to be destroyed. Militia members blew up the federal building in OKC. Militias are a threat to this country.
> 
> Militias have been given no authority to enforce laws so detaining people is kidnapping. Even the Border Patrol says people should call rather than taking the law into their own hands.
Click to expand...


az citizens militia is authorized by the governor as an adjunct to the sherrif. 
our missions on the border are unarmed and in support of bp.


----------



## busybee01

Pilot1 said:


> The Militia member have adamantly DENIED that they pointed guns at anyone.  They may have been carrying firearms, but it seems the MEDIA yet again invented the issue of being held at "gun point".



When someone is waving a gun at you then what else can you call it.


----------



## Correll

busybee01 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are not allowed to call cops to arrest criminals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not allowed to detain people. That is called kidnapping and is a federal crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe an exception needs to be made in the case of foreign invaders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe a exception needs to be made for American invaders such as yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've not invaded anyone, moron, so what the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> ANd for the love of God, try to actually make your fucking point, if you have the brain power to do so, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have been invaded by with supremacists and neo-nazis who have taken over the Republican Party.
> 
> If your kind left the country, the national IQ would double.
Click to expand...


Wow. Stupider than I thought.


"With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.


To be clear, you are the lying asshole I was talking about.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

busybee01 said:


> Militias need to be destroyed. Militia members blew up the federal building in OKC. Militias are a threat to this country.
> 
> Militias have been given no authority to enforce laws* so detaining people is kidnapping*. Even the Border Patrol says people should call rather than taking the law into their own hands.


No it isn't you fucking dolt!
You don't get to invent new meanings for words. Get that through your sick putrid skull.


----------



## ozro

Porter Rockwell said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> naw they were just copycats......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There used to be hundreds, but these seem to be the current militia groups:
> 
> 
> United States militia groups
> *Militia group name* *State, county or locale*
> 3 Percenters[22] nationwide
> Arizona Border Recon[23] Arizona, Sasabe
> Hutaree[24] Michigan, southern
> Idaho Light Foot Militia[25] Idaho, statewide
> American Militia Alliance[26] Nationwide
> Michigan Militia[27] Michigan, Redford
> Militia of Montana[28] Montana, Noxon
> Missouri Citizens Militia[29] Missouri, statewide
> Missouri Militia[30] Missouri, Kansas City
> New York Light Foot Militia[31] New York, statewide
> Oath Keepers[32] nationwide
> Ohio Defense Force[33] Ohio, statewide
> Pennsylvania Military Reserve[34] Pennsylvania
> Texas Light Foot Militia[35] Texas, statewide
> 
> Militia organizations in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> clicked a few, recognized units. mine is there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm lucky.  I've never needed anyone's recognition or validation to exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> based on your screen name i think i am safe in assuming that is one way you demonstrate that attitude.
> 
> im not making judgement, just an observation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know if that was a compliment or an insult.  Though not a Mormon myself, I always liked the way Rockwell helped train the Danites to protect their group.  He was controversial, but he was also effective.
Click to expand...


it was niether compliment or insult. just nnoting how controversal he still is today


----------



## Jitss617

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without out* our permission is an invasion.
> 
> 
> And who cares who hires them ,,, it’s an invasion.. they should be put down
> 
> 
> I work in a restaurant in Boston the entire back of the house is illegal.. with a high black unemployment rate.. the invasion is killing America
> 
> 
> 
> I saw the entire building and construction business in Northern California pass from the hands of native citizens to entirely illegals in the matter of a mere decade.
Click to expand...

I seen that in Boston to.. but it’s because forced  desegregation that whites moved out of urban areas in the 70-80’s . These jobs belonged to Americans, black white spanish.

Now we give them to illegals that would do the job for 12 an hour.. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY of our law makers to protect us! They are not.. that means we have to protect America and remove the corrupt lawmakers.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still, you have failed to find any legal citation for your beliefs. When Americans are WILLINGLY hiring these foreigners, it does _not_ and I mean factually *not* meet the definition of an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> It's in the Constitution. Defense of the nation itself is one of the prime duties of the federal government.
> Is this something you disagree with? Is this not a fact? Are you contesting this simple well known truth?
> 
> And Porter baby, if you think Americans are offering jobs for every one of the tens of thousands of  people who have
> made the long trip from Central America to the Southern border and all they have to do is walk on over and claim these
> jobs as landscapers, janitors, bus boys, etc. then you are fooling yourself, but no one else.
> 
> Whether Americans are willingly seeking illegals who will work for next to nothing is immaterial.
> You still need legal permission to reside or work here. Period! Now buzz off with your nonsense.
Click to expand...


You're making a claim you cannot substantiate.  If the governor of a state says no state of emergency exists, like it or not, it does not exist and no invasion is taking place.

I'm not making any claim about jobs one way or another; it is the wallists who want to throw a lot of skeet on the wall (no pun intended) and see what sticks.  One of their socialist solutions is to punish employers who hire the employee of their choice.

The problem you have with this permission argument is that you cannot find any constitutional authority for it.  Would you like me explain the illegal manner the feds ended up claiming they could pass unconstitutional laws relative to this issue?  

Sorry dude, but unless the foreigner is seeking to become a citizen, you're pretty much S.O.L.  The United States Supreme Court has already ruled.  It is not a crime for a deportable alien to remain in the United States.  It does not stand to reason that an American should be punished for doing business with them... AND if you're honest, the feds have NO constitutional jurisdiction over any foreigner a state gives sanctuary state to.  Don't draw conclusions about how I may or may not feel for sharing the reality of the situation with you.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Jitss617 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you direct me to the part of the Constitution giving the federal government jurisdiction over who a state may invite within their confines as a guest?
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government has the inherent and basic duty and right to protect the nation from all invasion and threats.
> 
> 
> If California or New Mexico or any state wants to open it's doors wide open to tens of millions of illegals from all over the world (Mexico, Iran, China, etc.) it would not be allowed to do so unless it could guarantee somehow those people they gave free entry to would not disperse throughout the nation (like a virus entering the body and invading vital organs all throughout
> the body itself) which it could not possibly ever do so. It's an absolute absurdity.
> 
> Just like your post premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still, you have failed to find any legal citation for your beliefs.  When Americans are WILLINGLY hiring these foreigners, it does _not_ and I mean factually *not* meet the definition of an invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are wrong ,, millions crossing our border with our permission is a invasion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "_Our_" permission... or *YOUR* permission?  You just identified where the disconnect is.
> 
> Under the Constitution the federal government has but one area of jurisdiction here: naturalization.  Naturalization = citizenship.  Who the state invites is their business.
> 
> Liberal states, like California, deliberately abuse the right.  So, the better option is to allow them to create their own Hell and let the protect other states from paying for it.
> 
> California has Sanctuary Cities.  It's of no concern to me.  Maybe when states start resisting federal Red Flag Laws, you might understand the principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without out* our permission is an invasion.
> 
> 
> And who cares who hires them ,,, it’s an invasion.. they should be put down
> 
> 
> I work in a restaurant in Boston the entire back of the house is illegal.. with a high black unemployment rate.. the invasion is killing America
Click to expand...


According to Donald Trump, we are at a statistical zero unemployment rate.  That would be anything under 4  percent.  If someone hired the foreigner, someone rented to them, and businesses do business with them, they must have *THEIR* permission.  If the states are telling the feds to butt out, the foreigners must have permission.

We might not like it, but that's reality.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still, you have failed to find any legal citation for your beliefs. When Americans are WILLINGLY hiring these foreigners, it does _not_ and I mean factually *not* meet the definition of an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> It's in the Constitution. Defense of the nation itself is one of the prime duties of the federal government.
> Is this something you disagree with? Is this not a fact? Are you contesting this simple well known truth?
> 
> And Porter baby, if you think Americans are offering jobs for every one of the tens of thousands of  people who have
> made the long trip from Central America to the Southern border and all they have to do is walk on over and claim these
> jobs as landscapers, janitors, bus boys, etc. then you are fooling yourself, but no one else.
> 
> Whether Americans are willingly seeking illegals who will work for next to nothing is immaterial.
> You still need legal permission to reside or work here. Period! Now buzz off with your nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making a claim you cannot substantiate.  If the governor of a state says no state of emergency exists, like it or not, it does not exist and no invasion is taking place.
> 
> I'm not making any claim about jobs one way or another; it is the wallists who want to throw a lot of skeet on the wall (no pun intended) and see what sticks.  One of their socialist solutions is to punish employers who hire the employee of their choice.
> 
> The problem you have with this permission argument is that you cannot find any constitutional authority for it.  Would you like me explain the illegal manner the feds ended up claiming they could pass unconstitutional laws relative to this issue?
> 
> Sorry dude, but unless the foreigner is seeking to become a citizen, you're pretty much S.O.L.  The United States Supreme Court has already ruled.  It is not a crime for a deportable alien to remain in the United States.  It does not stand to reason that an American should be punished for doing business with them... AND if you're honest, the feds have NO constitutional jurisdiction over any foreigner a state gives sanctuary state to.  Don't draw conclusions about how I may or may not feel for sharing the reality of the situation with you.
Click to expand...



1. If anyone says that this issue is not a crisis, they are either fools or liars.

2. If an illegal alien is here is violation of a law, then it is a crime for the illegal alien go be here. If being here is a violation of a law, or numerous laws, than the breaking of those laws are CRIMES.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government has the inherent and basic duty and right to protect the nation from all invasion and threats.
> 
> 
> If California or New Mexico or any state wants to open it's doors wide open to tens of millions of illegals from all over the world (Mexico, Iran, China, etc.) it would not be allowed to do so unless it could guarantee somehow those people they gave free entry to would not disperse throughout the nation (like a virus entering the body and invading vital organs all throughout
> the body itself) which it could not possibly ever do so. It's an absolute absurdity.
> 
> Just like your post premise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still, you have failed to find any legal citation for your beliefs.  When Americans are WILLINGLY hiring these foreigners, it does _not_ and I mean factually *not* meet the definition of an invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are wrong ,, millions crossing our border with our permission is a invasion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "_Our_" permission... or *YOUR* permission?  You just identified where the disconnect is.
> 
> Under the Constitution the federal government has but one area of jurisdiction here: naturalization.  Naturalization = citizenship.  Who the state invites is their business.
> 
> Liberal states, like California, deliberately abuse the right.  So, the better option is to allow them to create their own Hell and let the protect other states from paying for it.
> 
> California has Sanctuary Cities.  It's of no concern to me.  Maybe when states start resisting federal Red Flag Laws, you might understand the principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without out* our permission is an invasion.
> 
> 
> And who cares who hires them ,,, it’s an invasion.. they should be put down
> 
> 
> I work in a restaurant in Boston the entire back of the house is illegal.. with a high black unemployment rate.. the invasion is killing America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Donald Trump, we are at a statistical zero unemployment rate.  That would be anything under 4  percent.  If someone hired the foreigner, someone rented to them, and businesses do business with them, they must have *THEIR* permission.  If the states are telling the feds to butt out, the foreigners must have permission.
> 
> We might not like it, but that's reality.
Click to expand...


Who is "they" in your post?


----------



## Jitss617

Porter Rockwell said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government has the inherent and basic duty and right to protect the nation from all invasion and threats.
> 
> 
> If California or New Mexico or any state wants to open it's doors wide open to tens of millions of illegals from all over the world (Mexico, Iran, China, etc.) it would not be allowed to do so unless it could guarantee somehow those people they gave free entry to would not disperse throughout the nation (like a virus entering the body and invading vital organs all throughout
> the body itself) which it could not possibly ever do so. It's an absolute absurdity.
> 
> Just like your post premise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still, you have failed to find any legal citation for your beliefs.  When Americans are WILLINGLY hiring these foreigners, it does _not_ and I mean factually *not* meet the definition of an invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are wrong ,, millions crossing our border with our permission is a invasion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "_Our_" permission... or *YOUR* permission?  You just identified where the disconnect is.
> 
> Under the Constitution the federal government has but one area of jurisdiction here: naturalization.  Naturalization = citizenship.  Who the state invites is their business.
> 
> Liberal states, like California, deliberately abuse the right.  So, the better option is to allow them to create their own Hell and let the protect other states from paying for it.
> 
> California has Sanctuary Cities.  It's of no concern to me.  Maybe when states start resisting federal Red Flag Laws, you might understand the principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without out* our permission is an invasion.
> 
> 
> And who cares who hires them ,,, it’s an invasion.. they should be put down
> 
> 
> I work in a restaurant in Boston the entire back of the house is illegal.. with a high black unemployment rate.. the invasion is killing America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Donald Trump, we are at a statistical zero unemployment rate.  That would be anything under 4  percent.  If someone hired the foreigner, someone rented to them, and businesses do business with them, they must have *THEIR* permission.  If the states are telling the feds to butt out, the foreigners must have permission.
> 
> We might not like it, but that's reality.
Click to expand...

That’s a whole nother argument,, but we have 30 millions invaders here and they need to go and yes America will stuggle and yes libs will be forced to do jobs that they don’t want to do.. but to bad


----------



## JimBowie1958

Isnt it funny how the libs said immigration was the sole responsibility of the Federal government back when Obama was letting them in by the thousands, but now that Trump is trying to stop the flood, the libs argue that it is a matter of states rights?

And they still claim that they are not letting these illegals vote?

roflmao


----------



## Rigby5

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still, you have failed to find any legal citation for your beliefs. When Americans are WILLINGLY hiring these foreigners, it does _not_ and I mean factually *not* meet the definition of an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> It's in the Constitution. Defense of the nation itself is one of the prime duties of the federal government.
> Is this something you disagree with? Is this not a fact? Are you contesting this simple well known truth?
> 
> And Porter baby, if you think Americans are offering jobs for every one of the tens of thousands of  people who have
> made the long trip from Central America to the Southern border and all they have to do is walk on over and claim these
> jobs as landscapers, janitors, bus boys, etc. then you are fooling yourself, but no one else.
> 
> Whether Americans are willingly seeking illegals who will work for next to nothing is immaterial.
> You still need legal permission to reside or work here. Period! Now buzz off with your nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making a claim you cannot substantiate.  If the governor of a state says no state of emergency exists, like it or not, it does not exist and no invasion is taking place.
> 
> I'm not making any claim about jobs one way or another; it is the wallists who want to throw a lot of skeet on the wall (no pun intended) and see what sticks.  One of their socialist solutions is to punish employers who hire the employee of their choice.
> 
> The problem you have with this permission argument is that you cannot find any constitutional authority for it.  Would you like me explain the illegal manner the feds ended up claiming they could pass unconstitutional laws relative to this issue?
> 
> Sorry dude, but unless the foreigner is seeking to become a citizen, you're pretty much S.O.L.  The United States Supreme Court has already ruled.  It is not a crime for a deportable alien to remain in the United States.  It does not stand to reason that an American should be punished for doing business with them... AND if you're honest, the feds have NO constitutional jurisdiction over any foreigner a state gives sanctuary state to.  Don't draw conclusions about how I may or may not feel for sharing the reality of the situation with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If anyone says that this issue is not a crisis, they are either fools or liars.
> 
> 2. If an illegal alien is here is violation of a law, then it is a crime for the illegal alien go be here. If being here is a violation of a law, or numerous laws, than the breaking of those laws are CRIMES.
Click to expand...


But previous treaties have superior jurisdiction, and it is not clear the US can legally then prevent things like migrant agricultural worker from Mexico to states that were once part of Mexico.


----------



## Jitss617

We have millions of Europeans that would come here and do this farm work. Maybe not for the wage Mexicans do it for but they will assimilate. And add value to our country.. 
Latinos are to subservient, they never protest democrats, most are doing something illegal, and they don’t invest in America most use us and move back home


----------



## ozro

Jitss617 said:


> We have millions of Europeans that would come here and do this farm work. Maybe not for the wage Mexicans do it for but they will assimilate. And add value to our country..
> Latinos are to subservient, they never protest democrats, most are doing something illegal, and they don’t invest in America most use us and move back home



sounds as if you think everyone south of our border is the same. they aren't
hispanic people have played important roles in the growth and creation of our country. 
but the mexican people are not the same as the people from honduras for example


----------



## Jitss617

ozro said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have millions of Europeans that would come here and do this farm work. Maybe not for the wage Mexicans do it for but they will assimilate. And add value to our country..
> Latinos are to subservient, they never protest democrats, most are doing something illegal, and they don’t invest in America most use us and move back home
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sounds as if you think everyone south of our border is the same. they aren't
> hispanic people have played important roles in the growth and creation of our country.
> but the mexican people are not the same as the people from honduras for example
Click to expand...

Yes they have destroyed every neighborhood they moved in to.. that was once white..gtfo with your garbage


----------



## danielpalos

Natural Citizen said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I simply understand the concepts.  Congress has power over the land and naval forces; there is no such Thing as "well regulated militia of Individuals, in our Republic", you are either well regulated or unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay. But if you're not a legitimate militia, then what? How is anything you pasted from the Constitution relevant here, daniel?
> 
> That's a discussion that could be had by itself, it's just not relevant here.
Click to expand...

only illegals don't care about the law.


----------



## danielpalos

Jitss617 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. But why? What's it have to do with the thread. I'd like to expand on it if you'd forward the courtesy of supporting your paste in some coherent sort of context. That's how functional debat works, daniel. So, again, explain, please. Thanks!
> 
> It's probably gonna be your last chance, btw. If you keep screwing around I'm gonna put you back on ignore and start new threads myself, that way I know it'll be discussed right. It's a win/win for me, daniel. Ya know? So quit fukin around and support yourself in a way that's relative to some point, any point, I don't even care, daniel. Just pick one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I simply understand the concepts.  Congress has power over the land and naval forces; there is no such Thing as "well regulated militia of Individuals, in our Republic", you are either well regulated or unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When we are knocking on your door don’t worry we don’t exist lol
Click to expand...

Don't make me Have to muster and get to know my heavy weapons section.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. But why? What's it have to do with the thread. I'd like to expand on it if you'd forward the courtesy of supporting your paste in some coherent sort of context. That's how functional debat works, daniel. So, again, explain, please. Thanks!
> 
> It's probably gonna be your last chance, btw. If you keep screwing around I'm gonna put you back on ignore and start new threads myself, that way I know it'll be discussed right. It's a win/win for me, daniel. Ya know? So quit fukin around and support yourself in a way that's relative to some point, any point, I don't even care, daniel. Just pick one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I simply understand the concepts.  Congress has power over the land and naval forces; there is no such Thing as "well regulated militia of Individuals, in our Republic", you are either well regulated or unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> The term "well regulated" means well practiced, familiar with weapons, and not in need of weapons training.
> The word regular means timely and well functioning, like a regulator clock or regular bowels.
> All militia is both well regulated AND unorganized initially.
> It is ONLY when the unorganized militia is called up for emergencies by the federal government, that is becomes the organized Militia.
> The whole point of the 2nd amendment is to ensure everyone is armed and practiced, so therefore is well regulated in arms.
> So everyone is well regulated as long as the 2nd amendment is followed.
Click to expand...

That is a simple appeal to ignorance.  I really am a federalist.  There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals of the People in our Republic under our federal doctrine. 



> To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;


----------



## Jitss617

danielpalos said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. But why? What's it have to do with the thread. I'd like to expand on it if you'd forward the courtesy of supporting your paste in some coherent sort of context. That's how functional debat works, daniel. So, again, explain, please. Thanks!
> 
> It's probably gonna be your last chance, btw. If you keep screwing around I'm gonna put you back on ignore and start new threads myself, that way I know it'll be discussed right. It's a win/win for me, daniel. Ya know? So quit fukin around and support yourself in a way that's relative to some point, any point, I don't even care, daniel. Just pick one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I simply understand the concepts.  Congress has power over the land and naval forces; there is no such Thing as "well regulated militia of Individuals, in our Republic", you are either well regulated or unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When we are knocking on your door don’t worry we don’t exist lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't make me Have to muster and get to know my heavy weapons section.
Click to expand...

Knock knock


----------



## danielpalos

Jitss617 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. But why? What's it have to do with the thread. I'd like to expand on it if you'd forward the courtesy of supporting your paste in some coherent sort of context. That's how functional debat works, daniel. So, again, explain, please. Thanks!
> 
> It's probably gonna be your last chance, btw. If you keep screwing around I'm gonna put you back on ignore and start new threads myself, that way I know it'll be discussed right. It's a win/win for me, daniel. Ya know? So quit fukin around and support yourself in a way that's relative to some point, any point, I don't even care, daniel. Just pick one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I simply understand the concepts.  Congress has power over the land and naval forces; there is no such Thing as "well regulated militia of Individuals, in our Republic", you are either well regulated or unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When we are knocking on your door don’t worry we don’t exist lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't make me Have to muster and get to know my heavy weapons section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Knock knock
Click to expand...

Who's there?


----------



## Pilot1

busybee01 said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Militia member have adamantly DENIED that they pointed guns at anyone.  They may have been carrying firearms, but it seems the MEDIA yet again invented the issue of being held at "gun point".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When someone is waving a gun at you then what else can you call it.
Click to expand...


So you were there?  You're an "Undocumented Migrant"?


----------



## ozro

Jitss617 said:


> We have millions of Europeans that would come here and do this farm work. Maybe not for the wage Mexicans do it for but they will assimilate. And add value to our country..
> Latinos are to subservient, they never protest democrats, most are doing something illegal, and they don’t invest in America most use us and move back home





Jitss617 said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have millions of Europeans that would come here and do this farm work. Maybe not for the wage Mexicans do it for but they will assimilate. And add value to our country..
> Latinos are to subservient, they never protest democrats, most are doing something illegal, and they don’t invest in America most use us and move back home
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sounds as if you think everyone south of our border is the same. they aren't
> hispanic people have played important roles in the growth and creation of our country.
> but the mexican people are not the same as the people from honduras for example
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they have destroyed every neighborhood they moved in to.. that was once white..gtfo with your garbage
Click to expand...


one could argue whites ruined santa fe and san fransico too. 

how is this border thing racist to someone so far from the border, yet here close to the border its a legal issue?

the miltia issue that started this thread is just an unintended consequence of a bigger problem

the actual problem requires the cooperation of both houses of congress and the president. for decades our so called leaders have used this as a political issue and refused to cooperate with each other to solve the problem.


----------



## Jitss617

danielpalos said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. But why? What's it have to do with the thread. I'd like to expand on it if you'd forward the courtesy of supporting your paste in some coherent sort of context. That's how functional debat works, daniel. So, again, explain, please. Thanks!
> 
> It's probably gonna be your last chance, btw. If you keep screwing around I'm gonna put you back on ignore and start new threads myself, that way I know it'll be discussed right. It's a win/win for me, daniel. Ya know? So quit fukin around and support yourself in a way that's relative to some point, any point, I don't even care, daniel. Just pick one.
> 
> 
> 
> I simply understand the concepts.  Congress has power over the land and naval forces; there is no such Thing as "well regulated militia of Individuals, in our Republic", you are either well regulated or unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When we are knocking on your door don’t worry we don’t exist lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't make me Have to muster and get to know my heavy weapons section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Knock knock
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who's there?
Click to expand...

Patriots


----------



## Pilot1

ozro said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quantrill's Raiders were a group that called themselves a militia. When the civil war was in it's early stages, "bloody" bill Anderson was comissioned by the confederate government.
> After the raid on Lawerence ks, the confederate government withdrew that commision and the authority to operate as a militia.
> Under Usa AND CSA law, these men became outlaws to both sides.
> After the war was ended, confederate soldiars were granted amnesty and granted citizenship in the usa.
> Quantrill's Raiders, and groups like them were not granted anything and were hunted outlaws.
> The law remains the same now as it was then.(Partisan Ranger Act)
> These guys acted illegally. They are not heros and likely will face charges.
> 
> 
> 
> LO fucking L!! How are these people in New Mexico _anything _remotely like Quantrell's Raiders?
> 
> You can't deny you are trying to make some sort of analogy here.
> 
> That is hyperbolic bullshit completely devoid of facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no sir, it is a valid comparison.
Click to expand...


Please show me where the militia in New Mexico, murdered, plundered, and pillaged like Quantrill did.


----------



## Rigby5

Jitss617 said:


> We have millions of Europeans that would come here and do this farm work. Maybe not for the wage Mexicans do it for but they will assimilate. And add value to our country..
> Latinos are to subservient, they never protest democrats, most are doing something illegal, and they don’t invest in America most use us and move back home



Actually no.  There quota for Europeans is never filled.
They just do not want to come here.
They consider the US to be rude, noisy, crass, without taste, no sense of history, family, or values, and way to expensive and unjust.
Can't say I disagree with them either.
We don't even have public health care or mass transit, so we really are barbarians in most ways.
We still even have executions.


----------



## Likkmee

200 loose, one gringo locked up. More FreeDumb.


----------



## ozro

of they did not.
it is an example of an unauthorized militia.


----------



## ozro

Pilot1 said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quantrill's Raiders were a group that called themselves a militia. When the civil war was in it's early stages, "bloody" bill Anderson was comissioned by the confederate government.
> After the raid on Lawerence ks, the confederate government withdrew that commision and the authority to operate as a militia.
> Under Usa AND CSA law, these men became outlaws to both sides.
> After the war was ended, confederate soldiars were granted amnesty and granted citizenship in the usa.
> Quantrill's Raiders, and groups like them were not granted anything and were hunted outlaws.
> The law remains the same now as it was then.(Partisan Ranger Act)
> These guys acted illegally. They are not heros and likely will face charges.
> 
> 
> 
> LO fucking L!! How are these people in New Mexico _anything _remotely like Quantrell's Raiders?
> 
> You can't deny you are trying to make some sort of analogy here.
> 
> That is hyperbolic bullshit completely devoid of facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no sir, it is a valid comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please show me where the militia in New Mexico, murdered, plundered, and pillaged like Quantrill did.
Click to expand...


of course they did not.
it is an example of an unauhorized militia


----------



## Jitss617

Rigby5 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have millions of Europeans that would come here and do this farm work. Maybe not for the wage Mexicans do it for but they will assimilate. And add value to our country..
> Latinos are to subservient, they never protest democrats, most are doing something illegal, and they don’t invest in America most use us and move back home
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually no.  There quota for Europeans is never filled.
> They just do not want to come here.
> They consider the US to be rude, noisy, crass, without taste, no sense of history, family, or values, and way to expensive and unjust.
> Can't say I disagree with them either.
> We don't even have public health care or mass transit, so we really are barbarians in most ways.
> We still even have executions.
Click to expand...

That’s funny I know dozens of illegal Bulgarians trying desperately to remain in America... you are wrong.


----------



## Pilot1

Rigby5 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have millions of Europeans that would come here and do this farm work. Maybe not for the wage Mexicans do it for but they will assimilate. And add value to our country..
> Latinos are to subservient, they never protest democrats, most are doing something illegal, and they don’t invest in America most use us and move back home
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually no.  There quota for Europeans is never filled.
> They just do not want to come here.
> They consider the US to be rude, noisy, crass, without taste, no sense of history, family, or values, and way to expensive and unjust.
> Can't say I disagree with them either.
> We don't even have public health care or mass transit, so we really are barbarians in most ways.
> We still even have executions.
Click to expand...


I work with European Nationals here and abroad.  Our Standard of Living is better in the U.S. and our cost of living is lower.  They are amazed at how much house I have near a major city, what I pay for cars, and gasoline.  Also energy (electricity, oil, natural gas) in general is much lower in cost as are of course are taxes. They come here and just shake their head in disbelief, then they want to go my gun club to shoot guns as they can't have them there.


----------



## pismoe

Rigby5 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have millions of Europeans that would come here and do this farm work. Maybe not for the wage Mexicans do it for but they will assimilate. And add value to our country..
> Latinos are to subservient, they never protest democrats, most are doing something illegal, and they don’t invest in America most use us and move back home
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually no.  There quota for Europeans is never filled.
> They just do not want to come here.
> They consider the US to be rude, noisy, crass, without taste, no sense of history, family, or values, and way to expensive and unjust.
> Can't say I disagree with them either.
> We don't even have public health care or mass transit, so we really are barbarians in most ways.
> We still even have executions.
Click to expand...

--------------------------------   don't want 'pacifist and subjectlike euro types' they are gun controllers and that alone makes them unsuitable for the USA the same as '  ALL ' Others   Rigby .


----------



## Rigby5

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still, you have failed to find any legal citation for your beliefs. When Americans are WILLINGLY hiring these foreigners, it does _not_ and I mean factually *not* meet the definition of an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> It's in the Constitution. Defense of the nation itself is one of the prime duties of the federal government.
> Is this something you disagree with? Is this not a fact? Are you contesting this simple well known truth?
> 
> And Porter baby, if you think Americans are offering jobs for every one of the tens of thousands of  people who have
> made the long trip from Central America to the Southern border and all they have to do is walk on over and claim these
> jobs as landscapers, janitors, bus boys, etc. then you are fooling yourself, but no one else.
> 
> Whether Americans are willingly seeking illegals who will work for next to nothing is immaterial.
> You still need legal permission to reside or work here. Period! Now buzz off with your nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making a claim you cannot substantiate.  If the governor of a state says no state of emergency exists, like it or not, it does not exist and no invasion is taking place.
> 
> I'm not making any claim about jobs one way or another; it is the wallists who want to throw a lot of skeet on the wall (no pun intended) and see what sticks.  One of their socialist solutions is to punish employers who hire the employee of their choice.
> 
> The problem you have with this permission argument is that you cannot find any constitutional authority for it.  Would you like me explain the illegal manner the feds ended up claiming they could pass unconstitutional laws relative to this issue?
> 
> Sorry dude, but unless the foreigner is seeking to become a citizen, you're pretty much S.O.L.  The United States Supreme Court has already ruled.  It is not a crime for a deportable alien to remain in the United States.  It does not stand to reason that an American should be punished for doing business with them... AND if you're honest, the feds have NO constitutional jurisdiction over any foreigner a state gives sanctuary state to.  Don't draw conclusions about how I may or may not feel for sharing the reality of the situation with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If anyone says that this issue is not a crisis, they are either fools or liars.
> 
> 2. If an illegal alien is here is violation of a law, then it is a crime for the illegal alien go be here. If being here is a violation of a law, or numerous laws, than the breaking of those laws are CRIMES.
Click to expand...



You fail to understand the distinction between regulatory infraction and crime.
A crime is a violation of someone's personal rights, and is so inherently wrong that everyone should know this without having to be told or reading some statue. An example is rape.
But a regulatory infraction is not necessarily a violation of anyone's rights, and is just legislation that has been arbitrarily passed.  And example is a parking ticket.
Violations of immigration laws are regulatory infractions, not crimes, because they are not based on defense of inherent rights and are not obvious.
You can commit a crime in order to immigrate illegally, such as forgery, etc., but that is a separate act.


----------



## Lucy Hamilton

deanrd said:


> It's sad to see Republicans so terrified of women and babies.



*"It's sad to see Republicans so terrified of women and babies."*

The MSM Propaganda ONLY show women and babies, they do this rderp because of Leftists like you who operate on Muh Feelings and are DEVOID of LOGIC. The situation is that only a tiny percentage are women and babies and the MAJORITY are adult men and teenage boys and many of that crowd are full of disease and therefore are to be considered Walking Biological Weapons.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still, you have failed to find any legal citation for your beliefs. When Americans are WILLINGLY hiring these foreigners, it does _not_ and I mean factually *not* meet the definition of an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> It's in the Constitution. Defense of the nation itself is one of the prime duties of the federal government.
> Is this something you disagree with? Is this not a fact? Are you contesting this simple well known truth?
> 
> And Porter baby, if you think Americans are offering jobs for every one of the tens of thousands of  people who have
> made the long trip from Central America to the Southern border and all they have to do is walk on over and claim these
> jobs as landscapers, janitors, bus boys, etc. then you are fooling yourself, but no one else.
> 
> Whether Americans are willingly seeking illegals who will work for next to nothing is immaterial.
> You still need legal permission to reside or work here. Period! Now buzz off with your nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making a claim you cannot substantiate.  If the governor of a state says no state of emergency exists, like it or not, it does not exist and no invasion is taking place.
> 
> I'm not making any claim about jobs one way or another; it is the wallists who want to throw a lot of skeet on the wall (no pun intended) and see what sticks.  One of their socialist solutions is to punish employers who hire the employee of their choice.
> 
> The problem you have with this permission argument is that you cannot find any constitutional authority for it.  Would you like me explain the illegal manner the feds ended up claiming they could pass unconstitutional laws relative to this issue?
> 
> Sorry dude, but unless the foreigner is seeking to become a citizen, you're pretty much S.O.L.  The United States Supreme Court has already ruled.  It is not a crime for a deportable alien to remain in the United States.  It does not stand to reason that an American should be punished for doing business with them... AND if you're honest, the feds have NO constitutional jurisdiction over any foreigner a state gives sanctuary state to.  Don't draw conclusions about how I may or may not feel for sharing the reality of the situation with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If anyone says that this issue is not a crisis, they are either fools or liars.
> 
> 2. If an illegal alien is here is violation of a law, then it is a crime for the illegal alien go be here. If being here is a violation of a law, or numerous laws, than the breaking of those laws are CRIMES.
Click to expand...



1)  Where is the crisis?  We have statistical zero unemployment and a nation that does not revere its culture?  I'd fight to the death to protect your Right to believe anything you like; however, if the highest elected official in a state disagrees with you, I have to concede you are wrong in your opinion since perception is reality and that governor's perception is reality until he or she leaves office

2)  Ruling by the United States Supreme Court:

"_§1227. Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all._
_
 ...it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States."   _Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) 

You are arguing with the United States Supreme Court, not me.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still, you have failed to find any legal citation for your beliefs.  When Americans are WILLINGLY hiring these foreigners, it does _not_ and I mean factually *not* meet the definition of an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong ,, millions crossing our border with our permission is a invasion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "_Our_" permission... or *YOUR* permission?  You just identified where the disconnect is.
> 
> Under the Constitution the federal government has but one area of jurisdiction here: naturalization.  Naturalization = citizenship.  Who the state invites is their business.
> 
> Liberal states, like California, deliberately abuse the right.  So, the better option is to allow them to create their own Hell and let the protect other states from paying for it.
> 
> California has Sanctuary Cities.  It's of no concern to me.  Maybe when states start resisting federal Red Flag Laws, you might understand the principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without out* our permission is an invasion.
> 
> 
> And who cares who hires them ,,, it’s an invasion.. they should be put down
> 
> 
> I work in a restaurant in Boston the entire back of the house is illegal.. with a high black unemployment rate.. the invasion is killing America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Donald Trump, we are at a statistical zero unemployment rate.  That would be anything under 4  percent.  If someone hired the foreigner, someone rented to them, and businesses do business with them, they must have *THEIR* permission.  If the states are telling the feds to butt out, the foreigners must have permission.
> 
> We might not like it, but that's reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is "they" in your post?
Click to expand...


The word "_they_" isn't in the post.  What is it you have a concern with?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Jitss617 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still, you have failed to find any legal citation for your beliefs.  When Americans are WILLINGLY hiring these foreigners, it does _not_ and I mean factually *not* meet the definition of an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong ,, millions crossing our border with our permission is a invasion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "_Our_" permission... or *YOUR* permission?  You just identified where the disconnect is.
> 
> Under the Constitution the federal government has but one area of jurisdiction here: naturalization.  Naturalization = citizenship.  Who the state invites is their business.
> 
> Liberal states, like California, deliberately abuse the right.  So, the better option is to allow them to create their own Hell and let the protect other states from paying for it.
> 
> California has Sanctuary Cities.  It's of no concern to me.  Maybe when states start resisting federal Red Flag Laws, you might understand the principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without out* our permission is an invasion.
> 
> 
> And who cares who hires them ,,, it’s an invasion.. they should be put down
> 
> 
> I work in a restaurant in Boston the entire back of the house is illegal.. with a high black unemployment rate.. the invasion is killing America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Donald Trump, we are at a statistical zero unemployment rate.  That would be anything under 4  percent.  If someone hired the foreigner, someone rented to them, and businesses do business with them, they must have *THEIR* permission.  If the states are telling the feds to butt out, the foreigners must have permission.
> 
> We might not like it, but that's reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s a whole nother argument,, but we have 30 millions invaders here and they need to go and yes America will stuggle and yes libs will be forced to do jobs that they don’t want to do.. but to bad
Click to expand...


Nobody is "_invading_" your country, but the million new citizens you want so badly are going to turn against you at the polls in the near future, making this discussion moot.


----------



## Jitss617

Porter Rockwell said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong ,, millions crossing our border with our permission is a invasion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "_Our_" permission... or *YOUR* permission?  You just identified where the disconnect is.
> 
> Under the Constitution the federal government has but one area of jurisdiction here: naturalization.  Naturalization = citizenship.  Who the state invites is their business.
> 
> Liberal states, like California, deliberately abuse the right.  So, the better option is to allow them to create their own Hell and let the protect other states from paying for it.
> 
> California has Sanctuary Cities.  It's of no concern to me.  Maybe when states start resisting federal Red Flag Laws, you might understand the principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without out* our permission is an invasion.
> 
> 
> And who cares who hires them ,,, it’s an invasion.. they should be put down
> 
> 
> I work in a restaurant in Boston the entire back of the house is illegal.. with a high black unemployment rate.. the invasion is killing America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Donald Trump, we are at a statistical zero unemployment rate.  That would be anything under 4  percent.  If someone hired the foreigner, someone rented to them, and businesses do business with them, they must have *THEIR* permission.  If the states are telling the feds to butt out, the foreigners must have permission.
> 
> We might not like it, but that's reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s a whole nother argument,, but we have 30 millions invaders here and they need to go and yes America will stuggle and yes libs will be forced to do jobs that they don’t want to do.. but to bad
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is "_invading_" your country, but the million new citizens you want so badly are going to turn against you at the polls in the near future, making this discussion moot.
Click to expand...

Illegals can’t vote,, if they weren’t illegal they would be voting lol 

And you are  pathetically wrong


----------



## Correll

Rigby5 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still, you have failed to find any legal citation for your beliefs. When Americans are WILLINGLY hiring these foreigners, it does _not_ and I mean factually *not* meet the definition of an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> It's in the Constitution. Defense of the nation itself is one of the prime duties of the federal government.
> Is this something you disagree with? Is this not a fact? Are you contesting this simple well known truth?
> 
> And Porter baby, if you think Americans are offering jobs for every one of the tens of thousands of  people who have
> made the long trip from Central America to the Southern border and all they have to do is walk on over and claim these
> jobs as landscapers, janitors, bus boys, etc. then you are fooling yourself, but no one else.
> 
> Whether Americans are willingly seeking illegals who will work for next to nothing is immaterial.
> You still need legal permission to reside or work here. Period! Now buzz off with your nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making a claim you cannot substantiate.  If the governor of a state says no state of emergency exists, like it or not, it does not exist and no invasion is taking place.
> 
> I'm not making any claim about jobs one way or another; it is the wallists who want to throw a lot of skeet on the wall (no pun intended) and see what sticks.  One of their socialist solutions is to punish employers who hire the employee of their choice.
> 
> The problem you have with this permission argument is that you cannot find any constitutional authority for it.  Would you like me explain the illegal manner the feds ended up claiming they could pass unconstitutional laws relative to this issue?
> 
> Sorry dude, but unless the foreigner is seeking to become a citizen, you're pretty much S.O.L.  The United States Supreme Court has already ruled.  It is not a crime for a deportable alien to remain in the United States.  It does not stand to reason that an American should be punished for doing business with them... AND if you're honest, the feds have NO constitutional jurisdiction over any foreigner a state gives sanctuary state to.  Don't draw conclusions about how I may or may not feel for sharing the reality of the situation with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If anyone says that this issue is not a crisis, they are either fools or liars.
> 
> 2. If an illegal alien is here is violation of a law, then it is a crime for the illegal alien go be here. If being here is a violation of a law, or numerous laws, than the breaking of those laws are CRIMES.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But previous treaties have superior jurisdiction, and it is not clear the US can legally then prevent things like migrant agricultural worker from Mexico to states that were once part of Mexico.
Click to expand...



It is clear that areas that were once part of Mexico, are no longer part of Mexico.

Claims to the contrary are at best sophist nonsense, and at worse racist revanchism.


----------



## Correll

Rigby5 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still, you have failed to find any legal citation for your beliefs. When Americans are WILLINGLY hiring these foreigners, it does _not_ and I mean factually *not* meet the definition of an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> It's in the Constitution. Defense of the nation itself is one of the prime duties of the federal government.
> Is this something you disagree with? Is this not a fact? Are you contesting this simple well known truth?
> 
> And Porter baby, if you think Americans are offering jobs for every one of the tens of thousands of  people who have
> made the long trip from Central America to the Southern border and all they have to do is walk on over and claim these
> jobs as landscapers, janitors, bus boys, etc. then you are fooling yourself, but no one else.
> 
> Whether Americans are willingly seeking illegals who will work for next to nothing is immaterial.
> You still need legal permission to reside or work here. Period! Now buzz off with your nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making a claim you cannot substantiate.  If the governor of a state says no state of emergency exists, like it or not, it does not exist and no invasion is taking place.
> 
> I'm not making any claim about jobs one way or another; it is the wallists who want to throw a lot of skeet on the wall (no pun intended) and see what sticks.  One of their socialist solutions is to punish employers who hire the employee of their choice.
> 
> The problem you have with this permission argument is that you cannot find any constitutional authority for it.  Would you like me explain the illegal manner the feds ended up claiming they could pass unconstitutional laws relative to this issue?
> 
> Sorry dude, but unless the foreigner is seeking to become a citizen, you're pretty much S.O.L.  The United States Supreme Court has already ruled.  It is not a crime for a deportable alien to remain in the United States.  It does not stand to reason that an American should be punished for doing business with them... AND if you're honest, the feds have NO constitutional jurisdiction over any foreigner a state gives sanctuary state to.  Don't draw conclusions about how I may or may not feel for sharing the reality of the situation with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If anyone says that this issue is not a crisis, they are either fools or liars.
> 
> 2. If an illegal alien is here is violation of a law, then it is a crime for the illegal alien go be here. If being here is a violation of a law, or numerous laws, than the breaking of those laws are CRIMES.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You fail to understand the distinction between regulatory infraction and crime.
> A crime is a violation of someone's personal rights, and is so inherently wrong that everyone should know this without having to be told or reading some statue. An example is rape.
> But a regulatory infraction is not necessarily a violation of anyone's rights, and is just legislation that has been arbitrarily passed.  And example is a parking ticket.
> Violations of immigration laws are regulatory infractions, not crimes, because they are not based on defense of inherent rights and are not obvious.
> You can commit a crime in order to immigrate illegally, such as forgery, etc., but that is a separate act.
Click to expand...



Illegal immigration is a violation of the Right of Self Determination of the American Citizens. 

ie, to be more clear, part of the right of Self Determination is for the citizens of a sovereign state to decide who they wish to invite to become part of their community and thus impact their right to define their community at they see fit.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still, you have failed to find any legal citation for your beliefs. When Americans are WILLINGLY hiring these foreigners, it does _not_ and I mean factually *not* meet the definition of an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> It's in the Constitution. Defense of the nation itself is one of the prime duties of the federal government.
> Is this something you disagree with? Is this not a fact? Are you contesting this simple well known truth?
> 
> And Porter baby, if you think Americans are offering jobs for every one of the tens of thousands of  people who have
> made the long trip from Central America to the Southern border and all they have to do is walk on over and claim these
> jobs as landscapers, janitors, bus boys, etc. then you are fooling yourself, but no one else.
> 
> Whether Americans are willingly seeking illegals who will work for next to nothing is immaterial.
> You still need legal permission to reside or work here. Period! Now buzz off with your nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making a claim you cannot substantiate.  If the governor of a state says no state of emergency exists, like it or not, it does not exist and no invasion is taking place.
> 
> I'm not making any claim about jobs one way or another; it is the wallists who want to throw a lot of skeet on the wall (no pun intended) and see what sticks.  One of their socialist solutions is to punish employers who hire the employee of their choice.
> 
> The problem you have with this permission argument is that you cannot find any constitutional authority for it.  Would you like me explain the illegal manner the feds ended up claiming they could pass unconstitutional laws relative to this issue?
> 
> Sorry dude, but unless the foreigner is seeking to become a citizen, you're pretty much S.O.L.  The United States Supreme Court has already ruled.  It is not a crime for a deportable alien to remain in the United States.  It does not stand to reason that an American should be punished for doing business with them... AND if you're honest, the feds have NO constitutional jurisdiction over any foreigner a state gives sanctuary state to.  Don't draw conclusions about how I may or may not feel for sharing the reality of the situation with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If anyone says that this issue is not a crisis, they are either fools or liars.
> 
> 2. If an illegal alien is here is violation of a law, then it is a crime for the illegal alien go be here. If being here is a violation of a law, or numerous laws, than the breaking of those laws are CRIMES.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Where is the crisis?  We have statistical zero unemployment and a nation that does not revere its culture?  I'd fight to the death to protect your Right to believe anything you like; however, if the highest elected official in a state disagrees with you, I have to concede you are wrong in your opinion since perception is reality and that governor's perception is reality until he or she leaves office
> 
> 2)  Ruling by the United States Supreme Court:
> 
> "_§1227. Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all.
> 
> ...it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States."   _Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)
> 
> You are arguing with the United States Supreme Court, not me.
Click to expand...




1. Perception is not reality, and that governor is at best a fool and at worst a traitor.

2. The Supreme Court has been wrong before, and it is wrong again. DEPORT THE FUCKING ILLEGALS. How hard is that to understand?


----------



## cwise76

Correll said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still, you have failed to find any legal citation for your beliefs. When Americans are WILLINGLY hiring these foreigners, it does _not_ and I mean factually *not* meet the definition of an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> It's in the Constitution. Defense of the nation itself is one of the prime duties of the federal government.
> Is this something you disagree with? Is this not a fact? Are you contesting this simple well known truth?
> 
> And Porter baby, if you think Americans are offering jobs for every one of the tens of thousands of  people who have
> made the long trip from Central America to the Southern border and all they have to do is walk on over and claim these
> jobs as landscapers, janitors, bus boys, etc. then you are fooling yourself, but no one else.
> 
> Whether Americans are willingly seeking illegals who will work for next to nothing is immaterial.
> You still need legal permission to reside or work here. Period! Now buzz off with your nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making a claim you cannot substantiate.  If the governor of a state says no state of emergency exists, like it or not, it does not exist and no invasion is taking place.
> 
> I'm not making any claim about jobs one way or another; it is the wallists who want to throw a lot of skeet on the wall (no pun intended) and see what sticks.  One of their socialist solutions is to punish employers who hire the employee of their choice.
> 
> The problem you have with this permission argument is that you cannot find any constitutional authority for it.  Would you like me explain the illegal manner the feds ended up claiming they could pass unconstitutional laws relative to this issue?
> 
> Sorry dude, but unless the foreigner is seeking to become a citizen, you're pretty much S.O.L.  The United States Supreme Court has already ruled.  It is not a crime for a deportable alien to remain in the United States.  It does not stand to reason that an American should be punished for doing business with them... AND if you're honest, the feds have NO constitutional jurisdiction over any foreigner a state gives sanctuary state to.  Don't draw conclusions about how I may or may not feel for sharing the reality of the situation with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If anyone says that this issue is not a crisis, they are either fools or liars.
> 
> 2. If an illegal alien is here is violation of a law, then it is a crime for the illegal alien go be here. If being here is a violation of a law, or numerous laws, than the breaking of those laws are CRIMES.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You fail to understand the distinction between regulatory infraction and crime.
> A crime is a violation of someone's personal rights, and is so inherently wrong that everyone should know this without having to be told or reading some statue. An example is rape.
> But a regulatory infraction is not necessarily a violation of anyone's rights, and is just legislation that has been arbitrarily passed.  And example is a parking ticket.
> Violations of immigration laws are regulatory infractions, not crimes, because they are not based on defense of inherent rights and are not obvious.
> You can commit a crime in order to immigrate illegally, such as forgery, etc., but that is a separate act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal immigration is a violation of the Right of Self Determination of the American Citizens.
> 
> ie, to be more clear, part of the right of Self Determination is for the citizens of a sovereign state to decide who they wish to invite to become part of their community and thus impact their right to define their community at they see fit.
Click to expand...

Enjoy prison dipshit


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong ,, millions crossing our border with our permission is a invasion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "_Our_" permission... or *YOUR* permission?  You just identified where the disconnect is.
> 
> Under the Constitution the federal government has but one area of jurisdiction here: naturalization.  Naturalization = citizenship.  Who the state invites is their business.
> 
> Liberal states, like California, deliberately abuse the right.  So, the better option is to allow them to create their own Hell and let the protect other states from paying for it.
> 
> California has Sanctuary Cities.  It's of no concern to me.  Maybe when states start resisting federal Red Flag Laws, you might understand the principle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without out* our permission is an invasion.
> 
> 
> And who cares who hires them ,,, it’s an invasion.. they should be put down
> 
> 
> I work in a restaurant in Boston the entire back of the house is illegal.. with a high black unemployment rate.. the invasion is killing America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Donald Trump, we are at a statistical zero unemployment rate.  That would be anything under 4  percent.  If someone hired the foreigner, someone rented to them, and businesses do business with them, they must have *THEIR* permission.  If the states are telling the feds to butt out, the foreigners must have permission.
> 
> We might not like it, but that's reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is "they" in your post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word "_they_" isn't in the post.  What is it you have a concern with?
Click to expand...



Are you really so stupid, that you can't make a connection between your use of "their" and my use of "they"?


Or are you just playing really stupid games?


----------



## Correll

cwise76 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's in the Constitution. Defense of the nation itself is one of the prime duties of the federal government.
> Is this something you disagree with? Is this not a fact? Are you contesting this simple well known truth?
> 
> And Porter baby, if you think Americans are offering jobs for every one of the tens of thousands of  people who have
> made the long trip from Central America to the Southern border and all they have to do is walk on over and claim these
> jobs as landscapers, janitors, bus boys, etc. then you are fooling yourself, but no one else.
> 
> Whether Americans are willingly seeking illegals who will work for next to nothing is immaterial.
> You still need legal permission to reside or work here. Period! Now buzz off with your nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're making a claim you cannot substantiate.  If the governor of a state says no state of emergency exists, like it or not, it does not exist and no invasion is taking place.
> 
> I'm not making any claim about jobs one way or another; it is the wallists who want to throw a lot of skeet on the wall (no pun intended) and see what sticks.  One of their socialist solutions is to punish employers who hire the employee of their choice.
> 
> The problem you have with this permission argument is that you cannot find any constitutional authority for it.  Would you like me explain the illegal manner the feds ended up claiming they could pass unconstitutional laws relative to this issue?
> 
> Sorry dude, but unless the foreigner is seeking to become a citizen, you're pretty much S.O.L.  The United States Supreme Court has already ruled.  It is not a crime for a deportable alien to remain in the United States.  It does not stand to reason that an American should be punished for doing business with them... AND if you're honest, the feds have NO constitutional jurisdiction over any foreigner a state gives sanctuary state to.  Don't draw conclusions about how I may or may not feel for sharing the reality of the situation with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If anyone says that this issue is not a crisis, they are either fools or liars.
> 
> 2. If an illegal alien is here is violation of a law, then it is a crime for the illegal alien go be here. If being here is a violation of a law, or numerous laws, than the breaking of those laws are CRIMES.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You fail to understand the distinction between regulatory infraction and crime.
> A crime is a violation of someone's personal rights, and is so inherently wrong that everyone should know this without having to be told or reading some statue. An example is rape.
> But a regulatory infraction is not necessarily a violation of anyone's rights, and is just legislation that has been arbitrarily passed.  And example is a parking ticket.
> Violations of immigration laws are regulatory infractions, not crimes, because they are not based on defense of inherent rights and are not obvious.
> You can commit a crime in order to immigrate illegally, such as forgery, etc., but that is a separate act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal immigration is a violation of the Right of Self Determination of the American Citizens.
> 
> ie, to be more clear, part of the right of Self Determination is for the citizens of a sovereign state to decide who they wish to invite to become part of their community and thus impact their right to define their community at they see fit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enjoy prison dipshit
Click to expand...



Your inability to argue your position, is clear to EVERYONE.

That was you losing.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Jitss617 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> "_Our_" permission... or *YOUR* permission?  You just identified where the disconnect is.
> 
> Under the Constitution the federal government has but one area of jurisdiction here: naturalization.  Naturalization = citizenship.  Who the state invites is their business.
> 
> Liberal states, like California, deliberately abuse the right.  So, the better option is to allow them to create their own Hell and let the protect other states from paying for it.
> 
> California has Sanctuary Cities.  It's of no concern to me.  Maybe when states start resisting federal Red Flag Laws, you might understand the principle.
> 
> 
> 
> Without out* our permission is an invasion.
> 
> 
> And who cares who hires them ,,, it’s an invasion.. they should be put down
> 
> 
> I work in a restaurant in Boston the entire back of the house is illegal.. with a high black unemployment rate.. the invasion is killing America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Donald Trump, we are at a statistical zero unemployment rate.  That would be anything under 4  percent.  If someone hired the foreigner, someone rented to them, and businesses do business with them, they must have *THEIR* permission.  If the states are telling the feds to butt out, the foreigners must have permission.
> 
> We might not like it, but that's reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s a whole nother argument,, but we have 30 millions invaders here and they need to go and yes America will stuggle and yes libs will be forced to do jobs that they don’t want to do.. but to bad
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody is "_invading_" your country, but the million new citizens you want so badly are going to turn against you at the polls in the near future, making this discussion moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illegals can’t vote,, if they weren’t illegal they would be voting lol
> 
> And you are  pathetically wrong
Click to expand...


Hate to tell you, but there is no right to vote in a federal election.  It is a privilege and one I hate to say, but the liberals are changing the laws on.

The Missing Right: A Constitutional Right to Vote

The truth about illegal voting

What YOU believe is in error and what I'm telling you is correct.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> "_Our_" permission... or *YOUR* permission?  You just identified where the disconnect is.
> 
> Under the Constitution the federal government has but one area of jurisdiction here: naturalization.  Naturalization = citizenship.  Who the state invites is their business.
> 
> Liberal states, like California, deliberately abuse the right.  So, the better option is to allow them to create their own Hell and let the protect other states from paying for it.
> 
> California has Sanctuary Cities.  It's of no concern to me.  Maybe when states start resisting federal Red Flag Laws, you might understand the principle.
> 
> 
> 
> Without out* our permission is an invasion.
> 
> 
> And who cares who hires them ,,, it’s an invasion.. they should be put down
> 
> 
> I work in a restaurant in Boston the entire back of the house is illegal.. with a high black unemployment rate.. the invasion is killing America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Donald Trump, we are at a statistical zero unemployment rate.  That would be anything under 4  percent.  If someone hired the foreigner, someone rented to them, and businesses do business with them, they must have *THEIR* permission.  If the states are telling the feds to butt out, the foreigners must have permission.
> 
> We might not like it, but that's reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is "they" in your post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word "_they_" isn't in the post.  What is it you have a concern with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really so stupid, that you can't make a connection between your use of "their" and my use of "they"?
> 
> 
> Or are you just playing really stupid games?
Click to expand...


You are the one playing games.  I can't read your freaking mind.  Do you have a specific question?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Jitss617 said:


> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?



Are you claiming to be a member of the vigilante group noted in your link, above?

If so, and you pointed a firearm at any of the migrants you've committed a crime, to wit:

Universal Citation: NM Stat § 30-3-1 (2017)
30-3-1. Assault.

Assault consists of either:

A. an attempt to commit a battery upon the person of another;

B. any unlawful act, threat or menacing conduct which causes another person to reasonably believe that he is in danger of receiving an immediate battery; or

C. the use of insulting language toward another impugning his honor, delicacy or reputation.

Whoever commits assault is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.

History: 1953 Comp., 40A-3-1, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, 3-1.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still, you have failed to find any legal citation for your beliefs. When Americans are WILLINGLY hiring these foreigners, it does _not_ and I mean factually *not* meet the definition of an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> It's in the Constitution. Defense of the nation itself is one of the prime duties of the federal government.
> Is this something you disagree with? Is this not a fact? Are you contesting this simple well known truth?
> 
> And Porter baby, if you think Americans are offering jobs for every one of the tens of thousands of  people who have
> made the long trip from Central America to the Southern border and all they have to do is walk on over and claim these
> jobs as landscapers, janitors, bus boys, etc. then you are fooling yourself, but no one else.
> 
> Whether Americans are willingly seeking illegals who will work for next to nothing is immaterial.
> You still need legal permission to reside or work here. Period! Now buzz off with your nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making a claim you cannot substantiate.  If the governor of a state says no state of emergency exists, like it or not, it does not exist and no invasion is taking place.
> 
> I'm not making any claim about jobs one way or another; it is the wallists who want to throw a lot of skeet on the wall (no pun intended) and see what sticks.  One of their socialist solutions is to punish employers who hire the employee of their choice.
> 
> The problem you have with this permission argument is that you cannot find any constitutional authority for it.  Would you like me explain the illegal manner the feds ended up claiming they could pass unconstitutional laws relative to this issue?
> 
> Sorry dude, but unless the foreigner is seeking to become a citizen, you're pretty much S.O.L.  The United States Supreme Court has already ruled.  It is not a crime for a deportable alien to remain in the United States.  It does not stand to reason that an American should be punished for doing business with them... AND if you're honest, the feds have NO constitutional jurisdiction over any foreigner a state gives sanctuary state to.  Don't draw conclusions about how I may or may not feel for sharing the reality of the situation with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If anyone says that this issue is not a crisis, they are either fools or liars.
> 
> 2. If an illegal alien is here is violation of a law, then it is a crime for the illegal alien go be here. If being here is a violation of a law, or numerous laws, than the breaking of those laws are CRIMES.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Where is the crisis?  We have statistical zero unemployment and a nation that does not revere its culture?  I'd fight to the death to protect your Right to believe anything you like; however, if the highest elected official in a state disagrees with you, I have to concede you are wrong in your opinion since perception is reality and that governor's perception is reality until he or she leaves office
> 
> 2)  Ruling by the United States Supreme Court:
> 
> "_§1227. Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all.
> 
> ...it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States."   _Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)
> 
> You are arguing with the United States Supreme Court, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Perception is not reality, and that governor is at best a fool and at worst a traitor.
> 
> 2. The Supreme Court has been wrong before, and it is wrong again. DEPORT THE FUCKING ILLEGALS. How hard is that to understand?
Click to expand...



1)  Most psychologists would disagree with you:


2)  While I agree that the United States Supreme Court is wrong on a lot of issues, my perception as yours is NOT reality.  The fact that the high Court legislates from the bench IS reality.  It's not constitutional, but it is reality.  The United States Supreme Court says that undocumented foreigners being in the United States is *not *a crime.

Given that holding and working within the parameters of the law, the foreigner is in civil violation of the law, but an American that hires them is committing a criminal felony.  You want to uphold such B.S.?  Shame on you!

The employer owns the job he / she creates.  Under the Constitution, that employer has committed NO crime as the federal government has NO jurisdiction over who the state allows to stay within that state's respective border.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


> 1) Where is the crisis? We have statistical zero unemployment and a nation that does not revere its culture? I'd fight to the death to protect your Right to believe anything you like; however, if the highest elected official in a state disagrees with you, I have to concede you are wrong in your opinion since perception is reality and that governor's perception is reality until he or she leaves office


Oh...._really? _Some people would call that an autocracy.
The crisis comes in when a nation takes in millions of of people with no allegiance to a nation except the free stuff they can get from it.
And whoever gives them more free things gets their votes. The crisis comes when policies like sanctuary policy are promoted by people like you that ignore what's best for the country and pervert the law. And you just couldn't give a crap, could you.

If you truly believe the governor is the highest authority in the state so the rule of law is whatever she thinks it is then you must also believe that Lester Maddox and George Wallace were completely acting properly when they wanted to continue with their segregated society that had one society for whites and one lesser society for colored folks....because that's what they wanted. 

Michelle Lujan Grisham may wield her power inside her fiefdom as if she were the last word on the law but experience and common sense shows that doesn't make her rule proper or good for the nation.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Billyboom said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with repelling an invading horde of diseased criminals from our country?  If killing a few thousand stops the migration, that would be a good thing...Those that die in the desert are far worse, so show those who are willing to make the arduous trek, that it isnt worth it, and save even more lives, by killing a few...The needs of the many out way the needs of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do not have to condone murder. ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Murder isnt defending your borders from diseases that want to cross into our country and kill US.  Murder isnt defending yourself from criminals with the intent to rape our women and kill US.  Is it really that hard to see why we need to "Shoot" people who shouldn't belong here?  They are dying in the 10 of 1000s crossing into areas that will kill them anyway.  Why aren't we just euthanizing them out of their misery...Call it "Post Birth Abortions"..​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Thou shalt not kill.”
> -God
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yeah and you shouldn't own slaves either.  Fuck you dumbass, the original wording of the King James Edition before it got all PC'd was  "thou shalt not MURDER", because when you go look at the old testament, there was a whole lot of killing going on, because the Israelites needed to clear space so the new order could take over.  Not only did the Israelites kill men, but women, children and all animals in some places, but that was warfare.  Dont preach to me dick wad about the bible, mostly because you never read the thing, just site what your liberal media tells you. 

Bible List Of The Ten Commandments


> 6 “You shall not murder.


  Again, we are being invaded by scum of the earth from shithole countries.  You fagots on the left want to turn this Great country into a 3rd world shithole, then you can be right at home, while the liberal elites chew on fatty steaks and drink Brandy.  You just cant get more stupid than a damn liberal..


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Where is the crisis? We have statistical zero unemployment and a nation that does not revere its culture? I'd fight to the death to protect your Right to believe anything you like; however, if the highest elected official in a state disagrees with you, I have to concede you are wrong in your opinion since perception is reality and that governor's perception is reality until he or she leaves office
> 
> 
> 
> Oh....
> _really? _Some people call that an autocracy.
> 
> If you truly believe the governor is the highest authority in the state and the rule of law is whatever she thinks it is then you must also believe that Lester Maddox and George Wallace were completely acting properly when they wanted to continue with their segregated society that had one society for whites and one lesser society for colored folks.
> 
> Michelle Lujan Grisham may wield her power inside her fiefdom as if she were the last word on the law but experience and common sense shows that doesn't make her rule proper or good for the nation.
Click to expand...


If governors are acting in their official capacity, in accordance with their state Constitution, and not in violation of the Constitution then they have the power.

Virtually every wallist thinks that Donald Trump's word is the word of God.  If Trump declares a national emergency, then his proselytes say such an emergency exists.  If Trump unilaterally bans Muslims from entering the United States, his proselytes say it is lawful.  It doesn't make it so.

Trump is the head of the *Executive *branch of government at the federal level.  The governor of each state is head of *Executive* branch of government in that state.  Trump cannot simply over-rule a state because he is at the head of the federal executive branch of government since states have rights and the federal government is limited by the Constitution.  

As for the politicians you mentioned, I'd have to look at their actions on a case by case basis.  Personally, I believe that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified.  So, IF Lester Maddox and / or George Wallace thought they had a case, they should have challenged the legality of the 14th Amendment.  Did they?  I have no idea.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


> 2) Ruling by the United States Supreme Court:
> 
> "_§1227. Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all._


 Michelle Lujan Grisham or Gavin Newsom are not immigration officials. What is your point? 



> _...it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States." _Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)
> 
> You are arguing with the United States Supreme Court, not me.


That's an out of context cherry picked sentence which doesn't address illegal aliens, I noticed. It's meaningless in the bigger picture. 
How about if tens of millions of removable aliens are simply left to dwell in America as a festering parasitic boil on the backs of citizens?


----------



## Godboy

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwing fear, hate, and bigotry.
Click to expand...

It worked didnt it? Youre welcome.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Porter Rockwell said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Where is the crisis? We have statistical zero unemployment and a nation that does not revere its culture? I'd fight to the death to protect your Right to believe anything you like; however, if the highest elected official in a state disagrees with you, I have to concede you are wrong in your opinion since perception is reality and that governor's perception is reality until he or she leaves office
> 
> 
> 
> Oh....
> _really? _Some people call that an autocracy.
> 
> If you truly believe the governor is the highest authority in the state and the rule of law is whatever she thinks it is then you must also believe that Lester Maddox and George Wallace were completely acting properly when they wanted to continue with their segregated society that had one society for whites and one lesser society for colored folks.
> 
> Michelle Lujan Grisham may wield her power inside her fiefdom as if she were the last word on the law but experience and common sense shows that doesn't make her rule proper or good for the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If governors are acting in their official capacity, in accordance with their state Constitution, and not in violation of the Constitution then they have the power.
> 
> Virtually every wallist thinks that Donald Trump's word is the word of God.  If Trump declares a national emergency, then his proselytes say such an emergency exists.  If Trump unilaterally bans Muslims from entering the United States, his proselytes say it is lawful.  It doesn't make it so.
> 
> Trump is the head of the *Executive *branch of government at the federal level.  The governor of each state is head of *Executive* branch of government in that state.  Trump cannot simply over-rule a state because he is at the head of the federal executive branch of government since states have rights and the federal government is limited by the Constitution.
> 
> As for the politicians you mentioned, I'd have to look at their actions on a case by case basis.  Personally, I believe that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified.  So, IF Lester Maddox and / or George Wallace thought they had a case, they should have challenged the legality of the 14th Amendment.  Did they?  I have no idea.
Click to expand...

So what Obama did to the state of Arizona was against the law?  
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/06/AR2010070601928.html?noredirect=on


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


> If governors are acting in their official capacity, in accordance with their state Constitution, and not in violation of the Constitution then they have the power.
> 
> Virtually every wallist thinks that Donald Trump's word is the word of God. If Trump declares a national emergency, then his proselytes say such an emergency exists. If Trump unilaterally bans Muslims from entering the United States, his proselytes say it is lawful. It doesn't make it so.


Trump did unilaterally temporarily ban some Muslims from entry to this nation and it was upheld by the Supreme Court you seem to venerate (but not always, it looks like). So yes...it was lawful.



> Trump is the head of the *Executive *branch of government at the federal level. The governor of each state is head of *Executive* branch of government in that state. Trump cannot simply over-rule a state because he is at the head of the federal executive branch of government since states have rights and the federal government is limited by the Constitution.
> 
> As for the politicians you mentioned, I'd have to look at their actions on a case by case basis. Personally, I believe that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified. So, IF Lester Maddox and / or George Wallace thought they had a case, they should have challenged the legality of the 14th Amendment. Did they? I have no idea.


This is not a contest between Donald Trump and the governor of New Mexico, or any other state. The chaos crime and confusion is indeed an emergency and even Jeh Johnson has admitted as much.

The Southern border is a gateway for drugs, gangs, human trafficking and illegal immigration. If none of that matters to you just say so and we can immediately dismiss anything you say on the matter (which I do for the most part anyway as blather).


----------



## Jitss617

Wry Catcher said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming to be a member of the vigilante group noted in your link, above?
> 
> If so, and you pointed a firearm at any of the migrants you've committed a crime, to wit:
> 
> Universal Citation: NM Stat § 30-3-1 (2017)
> 30-3-1. Assault.
> 
> Assault consists of either:
> 
> A. an attempt to commit a battery upon the person of another;
> 
> B. any unlawful act, threat or menacing conduct which causes another person to reasonably believe that he is in danger of receiving an immediate battery; or
> 
> C. the use of insulting language toward another impugning his honor, delicacy or reputation.
> 
> Whoever commits assault is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
> 
> History: 1953 Comp., 40A-3-1, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, 3-1.
Click to expand...

So now you want to  prosecute Americans for pointing a pistol at people invading this country you are a sick disgusting anti-american ..  I wish you luck hiding


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Rigby5 said:


> Actually no. There quota for Europeans is never filled.
> They just do not want to come here.
> They consider the US to be rude, noisy, crass, without taste, no sense of history, family, or values, and way to expensive and unjust.
> Can't say I disagree with them either.
> We don't even have public health care or mass transit, so we really are barbarians in most ways.
> We still even have executions.


That's bullshit. Tons of Eastern Europeans (Poles, Ukrainians, Czechs, etc.) would kill to get here along with Irish,
Romanians and Austrians. You are the worst sort of liar passing off your biased b.s. as if it were fact. Feel free to leave the country if it displeases you.


----------



## Pilot1

Jitss617 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming to be a member of the vigilante group noted in your link, above?
> 
> If so, and you pointed a firearm at any of the migrants you've committed a crime, to wit:
> 
> Universal Citation: NM Stat § 30-3-1 (2017)
> 30-3-1. Assault.
> 
> Assault consists of either:
> 
> A. an attempt to commit a battery upon the person of another;
> 
> B. any unlawful act, threat or menacing conduct which causes another person to reasonably believe that he is in danger of receiving an immediate battery; or
> 
> C. the use of insulting language toward another impugning his honor, delicacy or reputation.
> 
> Whoever commits assault is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
> 
> History: 1953 Comp., 40A-3-1, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, 3-1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you want to  prosecute Americans for pointing a pistol at people invading this country you are a sick disgusting anti-american ..  I wish you luck hiding
Click to expand...


The militia didn't even point their guns at the Illegal Invaders.  The media invented that.


----------



## Jitss617

Pilot1 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming to be a member of the vigilante group noted in your link, above?
> 
> If so, and you pointed a firearm at any of the migrants you've committed a crime, to wit:
> 
> Universal Citation: NM Stat § 30-3-1 (2017)
> 30-3-1. Assault.
> 
> Assault consists of either:
> 
> A. an attempt to commit a battery upon the person of another;
> 
> B. any unlawful act, threat or menacing conduct which causes another person to reasonably believe that he is in danger of receiving an immediate battery; or
> 
> C. the use of insulting language toward another impugning his honor, delicacy or reputation.
> 
> Whoever commits assault is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
> 
> History: 1953 Comp., 40A-3-1, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, 3-1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you want to  prosecute Americans for pointing a pistol at people invading this country you are a sick disgusting anti-american ..  I wish you luck hiding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The militia didn't even point their guns at the Illegal Invaders.  The media invented that.
Click to expand...

Who cares if we did.. are we now this divided we try to jail fellow Americans for trying to protect its borders..


----------



## Mr Natural

So sad that none of you militia assholes got to shoot any body.

Maybe next time.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Pilot1 said:


> The militia didn't even point their guns at the Illegal Invaders. The media invented that.


I'm sure some insufferable prick from Columbia or MIddlebury journalism school probably wrote up that "fact" from the vantage point at his desk at AP or Yahoo news.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Mr Clean said:


> So sad that none of you militia assholes got to shoot any body.
> 
> Maybe next time.


Yeah, maybe someone like you.


----------



## McRocket

*A member of an armed group detaining migrants at the border has been arrested by the FBI*

*A member of an armed group detaining migrants at the border has been arrested by the FBI - CNN*


----------



## Jitss617

Mr Clean said:


> So sad that none of you militia assholes got to shoot any body.
> 
> Maybe next time.


What you don’t know won’t hurt you lol


----------



## Wry Catcher

Jitss617 said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming to be a member of the vigilante group noted in your link, above?
> 
> If so, and you pointed a firearm at any of the migrants you've committed a crime, to wit:
> 
> Universal Citation: NM Stat § 30-3-1 (2017)
> 30-3-1. Assault.
> 
> Assault consists of either:
> 
> A. an attempt to commit a battery upon the person of another;
> 
> B. any unlawful act, threat or menacing conduct which causes another person to reasonably believe that he is in danger of receiving an immediate battery; or
> 
> C. the use of insulting language toward another impugning his honor, delicacy or reputation.
> 
> Whoever commits assault is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
> 
> History: 1953 Comp., 40A-3-1, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, 3-1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you want to  prosecute Americans for pointing a pistol at people invading this country you are a sick disgusting anti-american ..  I wish you luck hiding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The militia didn't even point their guns at the Illegal Invaders.  The media invented that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares if we did.. are we now this divided we try to jail fellow Americans for trying to protect its borders..
Click to expand...


In all due respect to you, you're nuts.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

andaronjim said:


> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with repelling an invading horde of diseased criminals from our country?  If killing a few thousand stops the migration, that would be a good thing...Those that die in the desert are far worse, so show those who are willing to make the arduous trek, that it isnt worth it, and save even more lives, by killing a few...The needs of the many out way the needs of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do not have to condone murder. ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Murder isnt defending your borders from diseases that want to cross into our country and kill US.  Murder isnt defending yourself from criminals with the intent to rape our women and kill US.  Is it really that hard to see why we need to "Shoot" people who shouldn't belong here?  They are dying in the 10 of 1000s crossing into areas that will kill them anyway.  Why aren't we just euthanizing them out of their misery...Call it "Post Birth Abortions"..​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Thou shalt not kill.”
> -God
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah and you shouldn't own slaves either.  Fuck you dumbass, the original wording of the King James Edition before it got all PC'd was  "thou shalt not MURDER", because when you go look at the old testament, there was a whole lot of killing going on, because the Israelites needed to clear space so the new order could take over.  Not only did the Israelites kill men, but women, children and all animals in some places, but that was warfare.  Dont preach to me dick wad about the bible, mostly because you never read the thing, just site what your liberal media tells you.
> 
> Bible List Of The Ten Commandments
> 
> 
> 
> 6 “You shall not murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, we are being invaded by scum of the earth from shithole countries.  You fagots on the left want to turn this Great country into a 3rd world shithole, then you can be right at home, while the liberal elites chew on fatty steaks and drink Brandy.  You just cant get more stupid than a damn liberal..
Click to expand...


I want you to take a deep breath.  Try to empty your mind of prejudices and past thinking.

I am not a liberal.  I do NOT want the third world to take over the United States.  I don't vote for Democrats.  That being said, the solutions you have been programmed to follow are counter-productive to what you claim to believe in.

An illegal government working out of Washington, District of Corruption where both sides owe their individual souls to power brokers are not motivated nor have any reason to give you what you're asking for.  You are in their back yard; they are making the rules; they can tell you what you want to hear and they can play you in a heartbeat.

Each year a million new citizens are sworn in.  The overwhelming majority are from countries with policies that you would find reprehensible.  But, you've been programmed to believe that the only way into the United States is via some "_legal"_ process that the federal government doesn't even have an *constitutional authority* to enforce.  Whether America changes by the power of mob rule in voting or foreigners flood the United States via the southern border, once Liberty is gone, it is gone.  It don't make a damn how much paper you create; what Rights you think are worth forfeiting; it don't matter how "_legal_" you think those people are -  they will be committed to getting rid of you.  And you're signing your own death warrant.

The only thing I want you to do is ask a question each time you think you've found an answer you like.  What is the cost?  Don't think in terms of dollars, but think of it in terms of personal Liberty, Rights, Freedoms, Right to Privacy and Personal Sovereignty over your person.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

McRocket said:


> *A member of an armed group detaining migrants at the border has been arrested by the FBI*
> 
> *A member of an armed group detaining migrants at the border has been arrested by the FBI - CNN*


Thanks for being the dozenth person to break this news here.


----------



## Vandalshandle

It is amusing watching the fascists on parade marching across this thread. They keep marching to the right, which means that they march in circles. On other threads, they tend to march in reverse, in hopes of going back in time, in a vain hope that it will resurrect Joe McCarthy. They call this, "Making America Great Again".


----------



## Jitss617

Wry Catcher said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming to be a member of the vigilante group noted in your link, above?
> 
> If so, and you pointed a firearm at any of the migrants you've committed a crime, to wit:
> 
> Universal Citation: NM Stat § 30-3-1 (2017)
> 30-3-1. Assault.
> 
> Assault consists of either:
> 
> A. an attempt to commit a battery upon the person of another;
> 
> B. any unlawful act, threat or menacing conduct which causes another person to reasonably believe that he is in danger of receiving an immediate battery; or
> 
> C. the use of insulting language toward another impugning his honor, delicacy or reputation.
> 
> Whoever commits assault is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
> 
> History: 1953 Comp., 40A-3-1, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, 3-1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you want to  prosecute Americans for pointing a pistol at people invading this country you are a sick disgusting anti-american ..  I wish you luck hiding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The militia didn't even point their guns at the Illegal Invaders.  The media invented that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares if we did.. are we now this divided we try to jail fellow Americans for trying to protect its borders..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all due respect to you, you're nuts.
Click to expand...

Call Americans crazy for wanting to protect its borders .. wow you libs are so out of touch with Americans


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Vandalshandle said:


> It is amusing watching the fascists on parade marching across this thread. They keep marching to the right, which means that they march in circles. On other threads, they tend to march in reverse, in hopes of going back in time, in a vain hope that it will resurrect Joe McCarthy. They call this, "Making America Great Again".


That's the sort of "insightful" trolling that makes many think of you, "Man, what a dick".


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If governors are acting in their official capacity, in accordance with their state Constitution, and not in violation of the Constitution then they have the power.
> 
> Virtually every wallist thinks that Donald Trump's word is the word of God. If Trump declares a national emergency, then his proselytes say such an emergency exists. If Trump unilaterally bans Muslims from entering the United States, his proselytes say it is lawful. It doesn't make it so.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump did unilaterally temporarily ban some Muslims from entry to this nation and it was upheld by the Supreme Court you seem to venerate (but not always, it looks like). So yes...it was lawful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is the head of the *Executive *branch of government at the federal level. The governor of each state is head of *Executive* branch of government in that state. Trump cannot simply over-rule a state because he is at the head of the federal executive branch of government since states have rights and the federal government is limited by the Constitution.
> 
> As for the politicians you mentioned, I'd have to look at their actions on a case by case basis. Personally, I believe that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified. So, IF Lester Maddox and / or George Wallace thought they had a case, they should have challenged the legality of the 14th Amendment. Did they? I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not a contest between Donald Trump and the governor of New Mexico, or any other state. The chaos crime and confusion is indeed an emergency and even Jeh Johnson has admitted as much.
> 
> The Southern border is a gateway for drugs, gangs, human trafficking and illegal immigration. If none of that matters to you just say so and we can immediately dismiss anything you say on the matter (which I do for the most part anyway as blather).
Click to expand...


You can't fix stupid.  I voted for Trump as the lesser of two evils.  I will *NOT* vote for him again.  Being honest and objective in no way venerates the man.  Your insult only demonstrates your bias and your ignorance.  When Trump does a good thing I will acknowledge it.  He will never earn my vote again, however, as he violated the Constitution three times with his bump stock ban - a precedent that will end private gun ownership with the next liberal administration.

What matters to me is the Constitution.  The border is *NOT*, repeat, *NOT *a gateway to drugs.  Drugs begin with idiotic parents who allow the school / government, doctors, and Big Pharma to *create* drug addicts.  First it's Adderall and Ritalin for nonexistent conditions.  Then it's legal opioids.  Then kids, having been taught a pill will fix everything go on to SSRIs, illegal opioids, etc., etc.  By the time they are in their teens, they are looking for all avenues to buy drugs from.  

By the time they are in their 20s, they are drug addicts with a criminal record, no education, no job skills, no initiative, a drug habit and not a damn clue as to how to become a productive citizen.  Foreign drug dealers then capitalize by feeding drugs to the addicts people like *YOU* create.  That is why Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply; we have more people in prisons than any country on the globe and NO plan for rehabilitating those people.  For every drug addict in a rehab program, more than TEN are in prison.  You aren't going to rehabilitate a drug addict in prison!

You don't want to own your part in the status quo.  What you want is some mindless idiot that will chant the mantra of wall worship and that the third world is totally responsible.  So, you would take the Rights of every American in your quest to wage war against foreigners without owning up to your own role.  I'm not a proselyte to stupidity and the inability to think.  If you don't like what I have to say, the ignore button will work wonderfully for you.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Jitss617 said:


> Call Americans crazy for wanting to protect its borders .. wow you libs are so out of touch with Americans


I've seen many leftists here defending sanctuary policy and trying to normalize and rationalize it. 
We would already be like Venezuela if they had their way.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If governors are acting in their official capacity, in accordance with their state Constitution, and not in violation of the Constitution then they have the power.
> 
> Virtually every wallist thinks that Donald Trump's word is the word of God. If Trump declares a national emergency, then his proselytes say such an emergency exists. If Trump unilaterally bans Muslims from entering the United States, his proselytes say it is lawful. It doesn't make it so.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump did unilaterally temporarily ban some Muslims from entry to this nation and it was upheld by the Supreme Court you seem to venerate (but not always, it looks like). So yes...it was lawful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is the head of the *Executive *branch of government at the federal level. The governor of each state is head of *Executive* branch of government in that state. Trump cannot simply over-rule a state because he is at the head of the federal executive branch of government since states have rights and the federal government is limited by the Constitution.
> 
> As for the politicians you mentioned, I'd have to look at their actions on a case by case basis. Personally, I believe that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified. So, IF Lester Maddox and / or George Wallace thought they had a case, they should have challenged the legality of the 14th Amendment. Did they? I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not a contest between Donald Trump and the governor of New Mexico, or any other state. The chaos crime and confusion is indeed an emergency and even Jeh Johnson has admitted as much.
> 
> The Southern border is a gateway for drugs, gangs, human trafficking and illegal immigration. If none of that matters to you just say so and we can immediately dismiss anything you say on the matter (which I do for the most part anyway as blather).
Click to expand...


You can't fix stupid.  I voted for Trump as the lesser of two evils.  I will *NOT* vote for him again.  Being honest and objective in no way venerates the man.  Your insult only demonstrates your bias and your ignorance.  When Trump does a good thing I will acknowledge it.  He will never earn my vote again, however, as he violated the Constitution three times with his bump stock ban - a precedent that will end private gun ownership with the next liberal administration.

What matters to me is the Constitution.  The border is *NOT*, repeat, *NOT *a gateway to drugs.  Drugs begin with idiotic parents who allow the school / government, doctors, and Big Pharma to *create* drug addicts.  First it's Adderall and Ritalin for nonexistent conditions.  Then it's legal opioids.  Then kids, having been taught a pill will fix everything go on to SSRIs, illegal opioids, etc., etc.  By the time they are in their teens, they are looking for all avenues to buy drugs from.  

By the time they are in their 20s, they are drug addicts with a criminal record, no education, no job skills, no initiative, a drug habit and not a damn clue as to how to become a productive citizen.  Foreign drug dealers then capitalize by feeding drugs to the addicts people like *YOU* create.  That is why Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply; we have more people in prisons than any country on the globe and NO plan for rehabilitating those people.  For every drug addict in a rehab program, more than TEN are in prison.  You aren't going to rehabilitate a drug addict in prison!

You don't want to own your part in the status quo.  What you want is some mindless idiot that will chant the mantra of wall worship and that the third world is totally responsible.  So, you would take the Rights of every American in your quest to wage war against foreigners without owning up to your own role.  I'm not a proselyte to stupidity and the inability to think.  If you don't like what I have to say, the ignore button will work wonderfully for you.



andaronjim said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Where is the crisis? We have statistical zero unemployment and a nation that does not revere its culture? I'd fight to the death to protect your Right to believe anything you like; however, if the highest elected official in a state disagrees with you, I have to concede you are wrong in your opinion since perception is reality and that governor's perception is reality until he or she leaves office
> 
> 
> 
> Oh....
> _really? _Some people call that an autocracy.
> 
> If you truly believe the governor is the highest authority in the state and the rule of law is whatever she thinks it is then you must also believe that Lester Maddox and George Wallace were completely acting properly when they wanted to continue with their segregated society that had one society for whites and one lesser society for colored folks.
> 
> Michelle Lujan Grisham may wield her power inside her fiefdom as if she were the last word on the law but experience and common sense shows that doesn't make her rule proper or good for the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If governors are acting in their official capacity, in accordance with their state Constitution, and not in violation of the Constitution then they have the power.
> 
> Virtually every wallist thinks that Donald Trump's word is the word of God.  If Trump declares a national emergency, then his proselytes say such an emergency exists.  If Trump unilaterally bans Muslims from entering the United States, his proselytes say it is lawful.  It doesn't make it so.
> 
> Trump is the head of the *Executive *branch of government at the federal level.  The governor of each state is head of *Executive* branch of government in that state.  Trump cannot simply over-rule a state because he is at the head of the federal executive branch of government since states have rights and the federal government is limited by the Constitution.
> 
> As for the politicians you mentioned, I'd have to look at their actions on a case by case basis.  Personally, I believe that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified.  So, IF Lester Maddox and / or George Wallace thought they had a case, they should have challenged the legality of the 14th Amendment.  Did they?  I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what Obama did to the state of Arizona was against the law?
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/06/AR2010070601928.html?noredirect=on
Click to expand...



I'm almost sorry I stumbled onto this thread.  What do you think Obama did that I should automatically know about?

READ my other posts so I don't have to repeat myself.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


> You can't fix stupid. I voted for Trump as the lesser of two evils. I will *NOT* vote for him again. Being honest and objective in no way venerates the man. Your insult only demonstrates your bias and your ignorance. When Trump does a good thing I will acknowledge it. He will never earn my vote again, however, as he violated the Constitution three times with his bump stock ban - a precedent that will end private gun ownership with the next liberal administration.


I sincerely doubt it.



> What matters to me is the Constitution. The border is *NOT*, repeat, *NOT *a gateway to drugs. Drugs begin with idiotic parents who allow the school / government, doctors, and Big Pharma to *create* drug addicts. First it's Adderall and Ritalin for nonexistent conditions. Then it's legal opioids. Then kids, having been taught a pill will fix everything go on to SSRIs, illegal opioids, etc., etc. By the time they are in their teens, they are looking for all avenues to buy drugs from.
> 
> By the time they are in their 20s, they are drug addicts with a criminal record, no education, no job skills, no initiative, a drug habit and not a damn clue as to how to become a productive citizen. Foreign drug dealers then capitalize by feeding drugs to the addicts people like *YOU* create. That is why Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply; we have more people in prisons than any country on the globe and NO plan for rehabilitating those people. For every drug addict in a rehab program, more than TEN are in prison. You aren't going to rehabilitate a drug addict in prison!


So the border is not the source of our deeper drug problem. So what? What have you solved by saying that?
Drugs still pour over our porous border like water over a dam.



> You don't want to own your part in the status quo. What you want is some mindless idiot that will chant the mantra of wall worship and that the third world is totally responsible. So, you would take the Rights of every American in your quest to wage war against foreigners without owning up to your own role. I'm not a proselyte to stupidity and the inability to think. If you don't like what I have to say, the ignore button will work wonderfully for you.


Your first sensible idea. Please don't waste your sermons and little harangues on me. You are much too bright to be blowing your gas out on "one of the problems".
Save your wisdom for a more appreciative crowd. I am definitely less appreciative of whatever you are trying to sell.

P.S. one of your lengthy posts is more drivel than most can stand. Please stop posting the same thing multiple times.


----------



## danielpalos

Jitss617 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I simply understand the concepts.  Congress has power over the land and naval forces; there is no such Thing as "well regulated militia of Individuals, in our Republic", you are either well regulated or unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> When we are knocking on your door don’t worry we don’t exist lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't make me Have to muster and get to know my heavy weapons section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Knock knock
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who's there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Patriots
Click to expand...

patriots, who?


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still, you have failed to find any legal citation for your beliefs. When Americans are WILLINGLY hiring these foreigners, it does _not_ and I mean factually *not* meet the definition of an invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> It's in the Constitution. Defense of the nation itself is one of the prime duties of the federal government.
> Is this something you disagree with? Is this not a fact? Are you contesting this simple well known truth?
> 
> And Porter baby, if you think Americans are offering jobs for every one of the tens of thousands of  people who have
> made the long trip from Central America to the Southern border and all they have to do is walk on over and claim these
> jobs as landscapers, janitors, bus boys, etc. then you are fooling yourself, but no one else.
> 
> Whether Americans are willingly seeking illegals who will work for next to nothing is immaterial.
> You still need legal permission to reside or work here. Period! Now buzz off with your nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making a claim you cannot substantiate.  If the governor of a state says no state of emergency exists, like it or not, it does not exist and no invasion is taking place.
> 
> I'm not making any claim about jobs one way or another; it is the wallists who want to throw a lot of skeet on the wall (no pun intended) and see what sticks.  One of their socialist solutions is to punish employers who hire the employee of their choice.
> 
> The problem you have with this permission argument is that you cannot find any constitutional authority for it.  Would you like me explain the illegal manner the feds ended up claiming they could pass unconstitutional laws relative to this issue?
> 
> Sorry dude, but unless the foreigner is seeking to become a citizen, you're pretty much S.O.L.  The United States Supreme Court has already ruled.  It is not a crime for a deportable alien to remain in the United States.  It does not stand to reason that an American should be punished for doing business with them... AND if you're honest, the feds have NO constitutional jurisdiction over any foreigner a state gives sanctuary state to.  Don't draw conclusions about how I may or may not feel for sharing the reality of the situation with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If anyone says that this issue is not a crisis, they are either fools or liars.
> 
> 2. If an illegal alien is here is violation of a law, then it is a crime for the illegal alien go be here. If being here is a violation of a law, or numerous laws, than the breaking of those laws are CRIMES.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You fail to understand the distinction between regulatory infraction and crime.
> A crime is a violation of someone's personal rights, and is so inherently wrong that everyone should know this without having to be told or reading some statue. An example is rape.
> But a regulatory infraction is not necessarily a violation of anyone's rights, and is just legislation that has been arbitrarily passed.  And example is a parking ticket.
> Violations of immigration laws are regulatory infractions, not crimes, because they are not based on defense of inherent rights and are not obvious.
> You can commit a crime in order to immigrate illegally, such as forgery, etc., but that is a separate act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal immigration is a violation of the Right of Self Determination of the American Citizens.
> 
> ie, to be more clear, part of the right of Self Determination is for the citizens of a sovereign state to decide who they wish to invite to become part of their community and thus impact their right to define their community at they see fit.
Click to expand...

I would agree with you, but we have no express immigration clause.


----------



## Jitss617

danielpalos said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When we are knocking on your door don’t worry we don’t exist lol
> 
> 
> 
> Don't make me Have to muster and get to know my heavy weapons section.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Knock knock
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who's there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Patriots
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> patriots, who?
Click to expand...

The ones that you don’t like lol


----------



## danielpalos

Jitss617 said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming to be a member of the vigilante group noted in your link, above?
> 
> If so, and you pointed a firearm at any of the migrants you've committed a crime, to wit:
> 
> Universal Citation: NM Stat § 30-3-1 (2017)
> 30-3-1. Assault.
> 
> Assault consists of either:
> 
> A. an attempt to commit a battery upon the person of another;
> 
> B. any unlawful act, threat or menacing conduct which causes another person to reasonably believe that he is in danger of receiving an immediate battery; or
> 
> C. the use of insulting language toward another impugning his honor, delicacy or reputation.
> 
> Whoever commits assault is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
> 
> History: 1953 Comp., 40A-3-1, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, 3-1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you want to  prosecute Americans for pointing a pistol at people invading this country you are a sick disgusting anti-american ..  I wish you luck hiding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The militia didn't even point their guns at the Illegal Invaders.  The media invented that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares if we did.. are we now this divided we try to jail fellow Americans for trying to protect its borders..
Click to expand...

Dallas County Texas is no longer prosecuting property theft less than seven hundred fifty dollars. Why not go save them some money, instead?  We have a Second Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

Jitss617 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't make me Have to muster and get to know my heavy weapons section.
> 
> 
> 
> Knock knock
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who's there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Patriots
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> patriots, who?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ones that you don’t like lol
Click to expand...

you mean like the _infidel_, _protestant_, or _renegade_ kind?


----------



## Jitss617

danielpalos said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Knock knock
> 
> 
> 
> Who's there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Patriots
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> patriots, who?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ones that you don’t like lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you mean like the _infidel_, _protestant_, or _renegade_ kind?
Click to expand...

The ones that restore limited government, freedom and liberty


----------



## danielpalos

Jitss617 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's there?
> 
> 
> 
> Patriots
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> patriots, who?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ones that you don’t like lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you mean like the _infidel_, _protestant_, or _renegade_ kind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ones that restore limited government, freedom and liberty
Click to expand...

Dallas County Texas, needs you!


----------



## Jitss617

danielpalos said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patriots
> 
> 
> 
> patriots, who?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ones that you don’t like lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you mean like the _infidel_, _protestant_, or _renegade_ kind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ones that restore limited government, freedom and liberty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dallas County Texas, needs you!
Click to expand...

We are every where.. currently holding illegals hostage


----------



## danielpalos

Jitss617 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> patriots, who?
> 
> 
> 
> The ones that you don’t like lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you mean like the _infidel_, _protestant_, or _renegade_ kind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ones that restore limited government, freedom and liberty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dallas County Texas, needs you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are every where.. currently holding illegals hostage
Click to expand...

American citizens need you more.


----------



## Jitss617

danielpalos said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ones that you don’t like lol
> 
> 
> 
> you mean like the _infidel_, _protestant_, or _renegade_ kind?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ones that restore limited government, freedom and liberty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dallas County Texas, needs you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are every where.. currently holding illegals hostage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> American citizens need you more.
Click to expand...

We are everywhere


----------



## Rigby5

Pilot1 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have millions of Europeans that would come here and do this farm work. Maybe not for the wage Mexicans do it for but they will assimilate. And add value to our country..
> Latinos are to subservient, they never protest democrats, most are doing something illegal, and they don’t invest in America most use us and move back home
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually no.  There quota for Europeans is never filled.
> They just do not want to come here.
> They consider the US to be rude, noisy, crass, without taste, no sense of history, family, or values, and way to expensive and unjust.
> Can't say I disagree with them either.
> We don't even have public health care or mass transit, so we really are barbarians in most ways.
> We still even have executions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I work with European Nationals here and abroad.  Our Standard of Living is better in the U.S. and our cost of living is lower.  They are amazed at how much house I have near a major city, what I pay for cars, and gasoline.  Also energy (electricity, oil, natural gas) in general is much lower in cost as are of course are taxes. They come here and just shake their head in disbelief, then they want to go my gun club to shoot guns as they can't have them there.
Click to expand...



Disagree.  Your standard of living is not at all better, as you don't get public health care and you lose coverage if you quit your job, you do not get good mass transit, and you do not get good air quality when there is no emission gasoline tax. 
The US cost of living is not lower, except that food is subsidized and some European areas are very crowded.
How much house you have is not good, but bad because it means urban sprawl.  You pay less for cars and gasoline because you are not being taxed for the road maintenance and emissions.  You let the poor people who don't have a car pay for the road maintenance.


----------



## Rigby5

Jitss617 said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have millions of Europeans that would come here and do this farm work. Maybe not for the wage Mexicans do it for but they will assimilate. And add value to our country..
> Latinos are to subservient, they never protest democrats, most are doing something illegal, and they don’t invest in America most use us and move back home
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sounds as if you think everyone south of our border is the same. they aren't
> hispanic people have played important roles in the growth and creation of our country.
> but the mexican people are not the same as the people from honduras for example
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they have destroyed every neighborhood they moved in to.. that was once white..gtfo with your garbage
Click to expand...


That is not true.
Most neighborhoods that turn Hispanic end up having lower crime, more friendly, and better restaurants.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Jitss617 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming to be a member of the vigilante group noted in your link, above?
> 
> If so, and you pointed a firearm at any of the migrants you've committed a crime, to wit:
> 
> Universal Citation: NM Stat § 30-3-1 (2017)
> 30-3-1. Assault.
> 
> Assault consists of either:
> 
> A. an attempt to commit a battery upon the person of another;
> 
> B. any unlawful act, threat or menacing conduct which causes another person to reasonably believe that he is in danger of receiving an immediate battery; or
> 
> C. the use of insulting language toward another impugning his honor, delicacy or reputation.
> 
> Whoever commits assault is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
> 
> History: 1953 Comp., 40A-3-1, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, 3-1.
> 
> 
> 
> So now you want to  prosecute Americans for pointing a pistol at people invading this country you are a sick disgusting anti-american ..  I wish you luck hiding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The militia didn't even point their guns at the Illegal Invaders.  The media invented that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares if we did.. are we now this divided we try to jail fellow Americans for trying to protect its borders..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all due respect to you, you're nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call Americans crazy for wanting to protect its borders .. wow you libs are so out of touch with Americans
Click to expand...


Clearly you are a wannabe cop, and seem to suffer from the Zimmerman Syndrome.  That said, here is a bit more reality for you to consider:

FBI arrests leader of armed group stopping migrants in New Mexico


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Rigby5 said:


> Disagree. Your standard of living is not at all better, as you don't get public health care and you lose coverage if you quit your job, you do not get good mass transit, and you do not get good air quality when there is no emission gasoline tax.
> The US cost of living is not lower, except that food is subsidized and some European areas are very crowded.
> How much house you have is not good, but bad because it means urban sprawl. You pay less for cars and gasoline because you are not being taxed for the road maintenance and emissions. You let the poor people who don't have a car pay for the road maintenance.


People without cars walk absolutely everywhere they go? Well I never knew that! Fascinating.


----------



## Rigby5

danielpalos said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. But why? What's it have to do with the thread. I'd like to expand on it if you'd forward the courtesy of supporting your paste in some coherent sort of context. That's how functional debat works, daniel. So, again, explain, please. Thanks!
> 
> It's probably gonna be your last chance, btw. If you keep screwing around I'm gonna put you back on ignore and start new threads myself, that way I know it'll be discussed right. It's a win/win for me, daniel. Ya know? So quit fukin around and support yourself in a way that's relative to some point, any point, I don't even care, daniel. Just pick one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I simply understand the concepts.  Congress has power over the land and naval forces; there is no such Thing as "well regulated militia of Individuals, in our Republic", you are either well regulated or unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> The term "well regulated" means well practiced, familiar with weapons, and not in need of weapons training.
> The word regular means timely and well functioning, like a regulator clock or regular bowels.
> All militia is both well regulated AND unorganized initially.
> It is ONLY when the unorganized militia is called up for emergencies by the federal government, that is becomes the organized Militia.
> The whole point of the 2nd amendment is to ensure everyone is armed and practiced, so therefore is well regulated in arms.
> So everyone is well regulated as long as the 2nd amendment is followed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a simple appeal to ignorance.  I really am a federalist.  There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals of the People in our Republic under our federal doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Then who is it you become when you stop a burglary in progress at your home?
You can't be the police, and there were police back in the Founder's days.
So the term militia must apply to anyone who upholds the law, and is not an official member of government.


----------



## Jitss617

Rigby5 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have millions of Europeans that would come here and do this farm work. Maybe not for the wage Mexicans do it for but they will assimilate. And add value to our country..
> Latinos are to subservient, they never protest democrats, most are doing something illegal, and they don’t invest in America most use us and move back home
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sounds as if you think everyone south of our border is the same. they aren't
> hispanic people have played important roles in the growth and creation of our country.
> but the mexican people are not the same as the people from honduras for example
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they have destroyed every neighborhood they moved in to.. that was once white..gtfo with your garbage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not true.
> Most neighborhoods that turn Hispanic end up having lower crime, more friendly, and better restaurants.
Click to expand...

Lol name one haha


----------



## Jitss617

Wry Catcher said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now you want to  prosecute Americans for pointing a pistol at people invading this country you are a sick disgusting anti-american ..  I wish you luck hiding
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The militia didn't even point their guns at the Illegal Invaders.  The media invented that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares if we did.. are we now this divided we try to jail fellow Americans for trying to protect its borders..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In all due respect to you, you're nuts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call Americans crazy for wanting to protect its borders .. wow you libs are so out of touch with Americans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you are a wannabe cop, and seem to suffer from the Zimmerman Syndrome.  That said, here is a bit more reality for you to consider:
> 
> FBI arrests leader of armed group stopping migrants in New Mexico
Click to expand...

I live in reality and I know I scare you


----------



## Rigby5

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree. Your standard of living is not at all better, as you don't get public health care and you lose coverage if you quit your job, you do not get good mass transit, and you do not get good air quality when there is no emission gasoline tax.
> The US cost of living is not lower, except that food is subsidized and some European areas are very crowded.
> How much house you have is not good, but bad because it means urban sprawl. You pay less for cars and gasoline because you are not being taxed for the road maintenance and emissions. You let the poor people who don't have a car pay for the road maintenance.
> 
> 
> 
> People without cars walk absolutely everywhere they go? Well I never knew that! Fascinating.
Click to expand...


First of all, I never said anything remotely like that.
What I said is that by not paying for road maintenance through higher fuel taxes, you get poor people who do not use roads, to help pay for them.  
Of course people without cars do not walk everywhere.
The take mass transit, like trains and trolleys.  But even buses do not cause significant road wear like cars do.  Mass transit also causes a tiny fraction of as much emissions, deaths, etc.


----------



## Jitss617

Rigby5 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree. Your standard of living is not at all better, as you don't get public health care and you lose coverage if you quit your job, you do not get good mass transit, and you do not get good air quality when there is no emission gasoline tax.
> The US cost of living is not lower, except that food is subsidized and some European areas are very crowded.
> How much house you have is not good, but bad because it means urban sprawl. You pay less for cars and gasoline because you are not being taxed for the road maintenance and emissions. You let the poor people who don't have a car pay for the road maintenance.
> 
> 
> 
> People without cars walk absolutely everywhere they go? Well I never knew that! Fascinating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, I never said anything remotely like that.
> What I said is that by not paying for road maintenance through higher fuel taxes, you get poor people who do not use roads, to help pay for them.
> Of course people without cars do not walk everywhere.
> The take mass transit, like trains and trolleys.  But even buses do not cause significant road wear like cars do.  Mass transit also causes a tiny fraction of as much emissions, deaths, etc.
Click to expand...

Poor people don’t use roads lol are you on crack?? Haha


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Uhh





Rigby5 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have millions of Europeans that would come here and do this farm work. Maybe not for the wage Mexicans do it for but they will assimilate. And add value to our country..
> Latinos are to subservient, they never protest democrats, most are doing something illegal, and they don’t invest in America most use us and move back home
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sounds as if you think everyone south of our border is the same. they aren't
> hispanic people have played important roles in the growth and creation of our country.
> but the mexican people are not the same as the people from honduras for example
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they have destroyed every neighborhood they moved in to.. that was once white..gtfo with your garbage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not true.
> Most neighborhoods that turn Hispanic end up having lower crime, more friendly, and better restaurants.
Click to expand...

That's a flat lie.   Crime map says the more hispanic the higher the crime.   I remember when Santa Ana was a kitchy little white art community.  Now you are more likely to get your throat slit than your purse stolen.

Santa Ana, California Crime


----------



## Jitss617

How about  Egleston Square in Boston ,, used to be white middle class then  Puerto Ricans move in and create a Latin Kings .. lol just murder, drugs, robbery


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Porter Rockwell said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If governors are acting in their official capacity, in accordance with their state Constitution, and not in violation of the Constitution then they have the power.
> 
> Virtually every wallist thinks that Donald Trump's word is the word of God. If Trump declares a national emergency, then his proselytes say such an emergency exists. If Trump unilaterally bans Muslims from entering the United States, his proselytes say it is lawful. It doesn't make it so.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump did unilaterally temporarily ban some Muslims from entry to this nation and it was upheld by the Supreme Court you seem to venerate (but not always, it looks like). So yes...it was lawful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is the head of the *Executive *branch of government at the federal level. The governor of each state is head of *Executive* branch of government in that state. Trump cannot simply over-rule a state because he is at the head of the federal executive branch of government since states have rights and the federal government is limited by the Constitution.
> 
> As for the politicians you mentioned, I'd have to look at their actions on a case by case basis. Personally, I believe that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified. So, IF Lester Maddox and / or George Wallace thought they had a case, they should have challenged the legality of the 14th Amendment. Did they? I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not a contest between Donald Trump and the governor of New Mexico, or any other state. The chaos crime and confusion is indeed an emergency and even Jeh Johnson has admitted as much.
> 
> The Southern border is a gateway for drugs, gangs, human trafficking and illegal immigration. If none of that matters to you just say so and we can immediately dismiss anything you say on the matter (which I do for the most part anyway as blather).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't fix stupid.  I voted for Trump as the lesser of two evils.  I will *NOT* vote for him again.  Being honest and objective in no way venerates the man.  Your insult only demonstrates your bias and your ignorance.  When Trump does a good thing I will acknowledge it.  He will never earn my vote again, however, as he violated the Constitution three times with his bump stock ban - a precedent that will end private gun ownership with the next liberal administration.
> 
> What matters to me is the Constitution.  The border is *NOT*, repeat, *NOT *a gateway to drugs.  Drugs begin with idiotic parents who allow the school / government, doctors, and Big Pharma to *create* drug addicts.  First it's Adderall and Ritalin for nonexistent conditions.  Then it's legal opioids.  Then kids, having been taught a pill will fix everything go on to SSRIs, illegal opioids, etc., etc.  By the time they are in their teens, they are looking for all avenues to buy drugs from.
> 
> By the time they are in their 20s, they are drug addicts with a criminal record, no education, no job skills, no initiative, a drug habit and not a damn clue as to how to become a productive citizen.  Foreign drug dealers then capitalize by feeding drugs to the addicts people like *YOU* create.  That is why Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply; we have more people in prisons than any country on the globe and NO plan for rehabilitating those people.  For every drug addict in a rehab program, more than TEN are in prison.  You aren't going to rehabilitate a drug addict in prison!
> 
> You don't want to own your part in the status quo.  What you want is some mindless idiot that will chant the mantra of wall worship and that the third world is totally responsible.  So, you would take the Rights of every American in your quest to wage war against foreigners without owning up to your own role.  I'm not a proselyte to stupidity and the inability to think.  If you don't like what I have to say, the ignore button will work wonderfully for you.
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Where is the crisis? We have statistical zero unemployment and a nation that does not revere its culture? I'd fight to the death to protect your Right to believe anything you like; however, if the highest elected official in a state disagrees with you, I have to concede you are wrong in your opinion since perception is reality and that governor's perception is reality until he or she leaves office
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh....
> _really? _Some people call that an autocracy.
> 
> If you truly believe the governor is the highest authority in the state and the rule of law is whatever she thinks it is then you must also believe that Lester Maddox and George Wallace were completely acting properly when they wanted to continue with their segregated society that had one society for whites and one lesser society for colored folks.
> 
> Michelle Lujan Grisham may wield her power inside her fiefdom as if she were the last word on the law but experience and common sense shows that doesn't make her rule proper or good for the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If governors are acting in their official capacity, in accordance with their state Constitution, and not in violation of the Constitution then they have the power.
> 
> Virtually every wallist thinks that Donald Trump's word is the word of God.  If Trump declares a national emergency, then his proselytes say such an emergency exists.  If Trump unilaterally bans Muslims from entering the United States, his proselytes say it is lawful.  It doesn't make it so.
> 
> Trump is the head of the *Executive *branch of government at the federal level.  The governor of each state is head of *Executive* branch of government in that state.  Trump cannot simply over-rule a state because he is at the head of the federal executive branch of government since states have rights and the federal government is limited by the Constitution.
> 
> As for the politicians you mentioned, I'd have to look at their actions on a case by case basis.  Personally, I believe that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified.  So, IF Lester Maddox and / or George Wallace thought they had a case, they should have challenged the legality of the 14th Amendment.  Did they?  I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what Obama did to the state of Arizona was against the law?
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/06/AR2010070601928.html?noredirect=on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm almost sorry I stumbled onto this thread.  What do you think Obama did that I should automatically know about?
> 
> READ my other posts so I don't have to repeat myself.
Click to expand...




> READ my other posts so I don't have to repeat myself.


 So if the idiot from California Congressething Swillwell. get the Dimwintocrap nomination, you will vote for that retard before you vote for the President again?  I see that you took the retarded pills again.  Also I provided a link about Obama, which I guess you must be color blind because it was in red right below my comment....


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Rigby5 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have millions of Europeans that would come here and do this farm work. Maybe not for the wage Mexicans do it for but they will assimilate. And add value to our country..
> Latinos are to subservient, they never protest democrats, most are doing something illegal, and they don’t invest in America most use us and move back home
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sounds as if you think everyone south of our border is the same. they aren't
> hispanic people have played important roles in the growth and creation of our country.
> but the mexican people are not the same as the people from honduras for example
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they have destroyed every neighborhood they moved in to.. that was once white..gtfo with your garbage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not true.
> Most neighborhoods that turn Hispanic end up having lower crime, more friendly, and better restaurants.
Click to expand...

In Manassas Virginia 2 years ago, 3 latino houses went up in flame because MS-13 didnt get their security money.  Maybe you will be lucky and have some MS-13 members show up at your dumbass door.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't fix stupid. I voted for Trump as the lesser of two evils. I will *NOT* vote for him again. Being honest and objective in no way venerates the man. Your insult only demonstrates your bias and your ignorance. When Trump does a good thing I will acknowledge it. He will never earn my vote again, however, as he violated the Constitution three times with his bump stock ban - a precedent that will end private gun ownership with the next liberal administration.
> 
> 
> 
> I sincerely doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What matters to me is the Constitution. The border is *NOT*, repeat, *NOT *a gateway to drugs. Drugs begin with idiotic parents who allow the school / government, doctors, and Big Pharma to *create* drug addicts. First it's Adderall and Ritalin for nonexistent conditions. Then it's legal opioids. Then kids, having been taught a pill will fix everything go on to SSRIs, illegal opioids, etc., etc. By the time they are in their teens, they are looking for all avenues to buy drugs from.
> 
> By the time they are in their 20s, they are drug addicts with a criminal record, no education, no job skills, no initiative, a drug habit and not a damn clue as to how to become a productive citizen. Foreign drug dealers then capitalize by feeding drugs to the addicts people like *YOU* create. That is why Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply; we have more people in prisons than any country on the globe and NO plan for rehabilitating those people. For every drug addict in a rehab program, more than TEN are in prison. You aren't going to rehabilitate a drug addict in prison!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the border is not the source of our deeper drug problem. So what? What have you solved by saying that?
> Drugs still pour over our porous border like water over a dam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't want to own your part in the status quo. What you want is some mindless idiot that will chant the mantra of wall worship and that the third world is totally responsible. So, you would take the Rights of every American in your quest to wage war against foreigners without owning up to your own role. I'm not a proselyte to stupidity and the inability to think. If you don't like what I have to say, the ignore button will work wonderfully for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your first sensible idea. Please don't waste your sermons and little harangues on me. You are much too bright to be blowing your gas out on "one of the problems".
> Save your wisdom for a more appreciative crowd. I am definitely less appreciative of whatever you are trying to sell.
> 
> P.S. one of your lengthy posts is more drivel than most can stand. Please stop posting the same thing multiple times.
Click to expand...


If you don't like the same post over and over, change the freaking question.  If it were drivel, not a swinging soul forced you to read it.

Man up.  Take responsibility and help take the lead in owning the Americans contribution to their own demise.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

andaronjim said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If governors are acting in their official capacity, in accordance with their state Constitution, and not in violation of the Constitution then they have the power.
> 
> Virtually every wallist thinks that Donald Trump's word is the word of God. If Trump declares a national emergency, then his proselytes say such an emergency exists. If Trump unilaterally bans Muslims from entering the United States, his proselytes say it is lawful. It doesn't make it so.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump did unilaterally temporarily ban some Muslims from entry to this nation and it was upheld by the Supreme Court you seem to venerate (but not always, it looks like). So yes...it was lawful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is the head of the *Executive *branch of government at the federal level. The governor of each state is head of *Executive* branch of government in that state. Trump cannot simply over-rule a state because he is at the head of the federal executive branch of government since states have rights and the federal government is limited by the Constitution.
> 
> As for the politicians you mentioned, I'd have to look at their actions on a case by case basis. Personally, I believe that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified. So, IF Lester Maddox and / or George Wallace thought they had a case, they should have challenged the legality of the 14th Amendment. Did they? I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not a contest between Donald Trump and the governor of New Mexico, or any other state. The chaos crime and confusion is indeed an emergency and even Jeh Johnson has admitted as much.
> 
> The Southern border is a gateway for drugs, gangs, human trafficking and illegal immigration. If none of that matters to you just say so and we can immediately dismiss anything you say on the matter (which I do for the most part anyway as blather).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't fix stupid.  I voted for Trump as the lesser of two evils.  I will *NOT* vote for him again.  Being honest and objective in no way venerates the man.  Your insult only demonstrates your bias and your ignorance.  When Trump does a good thing I will acknowledge it.  He will never earn my vote again, however, as he violated the Constitution three times with his bump stock ban - a precedent that will end private gun ownership with the next liberal administration.
> 
> What matters to me is the Constitution.  The border is *NOT*, repeat, *NOT *a gateway to drugs.  Drugs begin with idiotic parents who allow the school / government, doctors, and Big Pharma to *create* drug addicts.  First it's Adderall and Ritalin for nonexistent conditions.  Then it's legal opioids.  Then kids, having been taught a pill will fix everything go on to SSRIs, illegal opioids, etc., etc.  By the time they are in their teens, they are looking for all avenues to buy drugs from.
> 
> By the time they are in their 20s, they are drug addicts with a criminal record, no education, no job skills, no initiative, a drug habit and not a damn clue as to how to become a productive citizen.  Foreign drug dealers then capitalize by feeding drugs to the addicts people like *YOU* create.  That is why Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply; we have more people in prisons than any country on the globe and NO plan for rehabilitating those people.  For every drug addict in a rehab program, more than TEN are in prison.  You aren't going to rehabilitate a drug addict in prison!
> 
> You don't want to own your part in the status quo.  What you want is some mindless idiot that will chant the mantra of wall worship and that the third world is totally responsible.  So, you would take the Rights of every American in your quest to wage war against foreigners without owning up to your own role.  I'm not a proselyte to stupidity and the inability to think.  If you don't like what I have to say, the ignore button will work wonderfully for you.
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Where is the crisis? We have statistical zero unemployment and a nation that does not revere its culture? I'd fight to the death to protect your Right to believe anything you like; however, if the highest elected official in a state disagrees with you, I have to concede you are wrong in your opinion since perception is reality and that governor's perception is reality until he or she leaves office
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh....
> _really? _Some people call that an autocracy.
> 
> If you truly believe the governor is the highest authority in the state and the rule of law is whatever she thinks it is then you must also believe that Lester Maddox and George Wallace were completely acting properly when they wanted to continue with their segregated society that had one society for whites and one lesser society for colored folks.
> 
> Michelle Lujan Grisham may wield her power inside her fiefdom as if she were the last word on the law but experience and common sense shows that doesn't make her rule proper or good for the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If governors are acting in their official capacity, in accordance with their state Constitution, and not in violation of the Constitution then they have the power.
> 
> Virtually every wallist thinks that Donald Trump's word is the word of God.  If Trump declares a national emergency, then his proselytes say such an emergency exists.  If Trump unilaterally bans Muslims from entering the United States, his proselytes say it is lawful.  It doesn't make it so.
> 
> Trump is the head of the *Executive *branch of government at the federal level.  The governor of each state is head of *Executive* branch of government in that state.  Trump cannot simply over-rule a state because he is at the head of the federal executive branch of government since states have rights and the federal government is limited by the Constitution.
> 
> As for the politicians you mentioned, I'd have to look at their actions on a case by case basis.  Personally, I believe that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified.  So, IF Lester Maddox and / or George Wallace thought they had a case, they should have challenged the legality of the 14th Amendment.  Did they?  I have no idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what Obama did to the state of Arizona was against the law?
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/06/AR2010070601928.html?noredirect=on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm almost sorry I stumbled onto this thread.  What do you think Obama did that I should automatically know about?
> 
> READ my other posts so I don't have to repeat myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> READ my other posts so I don't have to repeat myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if the idiot from California Congressething Swillwell. get the Dimwintocrap nomination, you will vote for that retard before you vote for the President again?  I see that you took the retarded pills again.  Also I provided a link about Obama, which I guess you must be color blind because it was in red right below my comment....
Click to expand...


As a matter of fact, I AM colorblind.

I don't vote for Democrats.

If you're asking me to defend Obama, the truth is, the son of a bitch was not an American; did not believe in our values; he supported Muslims and I paid very little attention to what the POS did while playing Pretender in Chief.

With over 100 million Americans who are eligible to vote, but don't register and many simply don't vote, we can pray for a third party candidate.  If someone came along with the right plan, he or she might get enough traction so that a constitutional approach may be taken in regards to immigration.

This thread was not about immigration.  It was about civilian militias.  The National Socialists emptied out the civilian militias and those weighing in on this are hijacking this into another immigration thread.  THAT is how the civilian militias were neutralized.  The wallists religion demands strict adherence to the religious mantra.  In doing so they hid the fact that their strategies are anti-American, unconstitutional and the only thing they care about is a freaking wall.

Wallists are so deaf, dumb, blind and stupid that even when you agree there is a problem, they refuse to get to the root of it - even when their own Liberties, Freedoms, and Rights are at stake.  ALL they seem to care about is a freaking wall.  NOBODY wants to take a hard look at the Cost / Benefits analysis.  The trade offs of Liberty for a wall are not worth it.  But, the wallists continue to chant the mantra; they are trying cover up the real discussion.

Today, there are no real civilian militias with the clout they had prior to the wallist religion.  All you have are crackpots calling themselves militia and most are drunks, drug addicts, punk ass kids hiding out in mommy's basement, and National Socialists.  We definitely have a problem with foreigners and the take-over of our culture as well as our nation.  The problem is the wallists don't have a damn clue as to how to address the problem with a constitutional solution.  Furthermore, they are so busy scapegoating foreigners that they refuse to hold themselves accountable for their part in the problem.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Jitss617 said:


> How about  Egleston Square in Boston ,, used to be white middle class then  Puerto Ricans move in and create a Latin Kings .. lol just murder, drugs, robbery


The liberal mythos is that white neighborhoods are gang and crime ridden.  Hispanic neighborhoods are filled with happy families that genuflect on street corners.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is amusing watching the fascists on parade marching across this thread. They keep marching to the right, which means that they march in circles. On other threads, they tend to march in reverse, in hopes of going back in time, in a vain hope that it will resurrect Joe McCarthy. They call this, "Making America Great Again".
> 
> 
> 
> That's the sort of "insightful" trolling that makes many think of you, "Man, what a dick".
Click to expand...


Well, being called a "dick" by you, vs. being called "ignorant" as others have called you, I guess I can live with that. Nevertheless, I will just focus on the issue of the thread, which is the convicted felon who was just arrested by the FBI for illegally possessing a firearm, and his gang. All of whom having been disavowed by the Border Patrol, GoFundMe, and Paypal, and who everyone but the least educated among us recognizes is a fascist, vigilante gang of armed hoodlums, who need to get home and get friggin' jobs, instead of acting as wannabe Rambos, complete with judge and jury responsibilities, presuming to decide who is guilty, and who is not.


----------



## busybee01

Jitss617 said:


> Trump  should deputize 25,000 militia men in California, we can privately fund them.. I’d love to see the look on the faces of ms-13 who thought they were gangstas lol hahah



That would be a no go. He has to get Congressional authorization.


----------



## busybee01

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctuary policies are not illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctuary policy aids and abets illegal immigrants by shielding them from the law. Sanctuary cities are accomplices in breaking federal law with impunity.
> 
> They are as guilty and complicit in crime as the guy living next to a crack house who refuses to
> cooperate with police though he easily could.
Click to expand...


Cities are not required to enforce federal law. The federal government can deputize local law enforcement but only with the permission of local law enforcement. They are not breaking any laws.


----------



## busybee01

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It requires you to be in the United States.
> 
> To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status.
> 
> Obtaining Asylum in the United States
> 
> 
> 
> It does not require you to be wandering through the back country of New Mexico. You will find no Border Patrol agents there.
> Application is made at an entry point into the US. Not inside the US making your way north.
Click to expand...


Untrue. All it states is that the application has to be made in the US not a port of entry.  The law says nothing about ports of entry. Try learning to read.


----------



## busybee01

Jitss617 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no invasion. It is lawful for them to come to the US to declare asylum. Kill them and there is something called murder.
> 
> 
> 
> But they refuse to claim asylum, so they have invaded
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can't do it at gunpoint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We use to shot them off our lands years ago.. gtfo of you now want to put us in jail for pointing a gun at them.. embarrassing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a embarrassing thug.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I talk like we used to talk!
Click to expand...


Like a white supremacist.


----------



## busybee01

Jitss617 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The supreme court will always side with the law .. not the anti American democrat
> 
> 
> 
> If Trump was truly serious about getting a handle on the problem of illegal immigration and not just blowing smoke up the skirts of his base he would find a way to get the issue of sanctuary cities, counties and states before the Supreme Court.
> 
> There is absolutely zero doubt that ignoring the laws you don't like, as the Jim Crow era governors of the South did
> at one time, and applying the law in an ala carte way, is not legal or Constitutional.
> 
> So why is someone like Michelle Lujan Grisham getting away with coming down on militia members in her state (and I am not especially enamored with militias in general and don't even own a gun)?
> They are attempting to aid our Border Patrol in enforcing the law. She is demonizing them for it. Where is the justice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militias need to be destroyed. Militia members blew up the federal building in OKC. Militias are a threat to this country.
> 
> Militias have been given no authority to enforce laws so detaining people is kidnapping. Even the Border Patrol says people should call rather than taking the law into their own hands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya and democrats call BP  kidnappers..
> 
> At the end of the day we will be taking our country back.
Click to expand...




Correll said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not allowed to detain people. That is called kidnapping and is a federal crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe an exception needs to be made in the case of foreign invaders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe a exception needs to be made for American invaders such as yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've not invaded anyone, moron, so what the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> ANd for the love of God, try to actually make your fucking point, if you have the brain power to do so, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have been invaded by with supremacists and neo-nazis who have taken over the Republican Party.
> 
> If your kind left the country, the national IQ would double.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. Stupider than I thought.
> 
> 
> "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> To be clear, you are the lying asshole I was talking about.
Click to expand...


You are the lying little asshole., Filth like you is a national disgrace.


----------



## Jitss617

busybee01 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they refuse to claim asylum, so they have invaded
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't do it at gunpoint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We use to shot them off our lands years ago.. gtfo of you now want to put us in jail for pointing a gun at them.. embarrassing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a embarrassing thug.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I talk like we used to talk!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like a white supremacist.
Click to expand...

 What race doesn’t think it’s supreme ??


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without out* our permission is an invasion.
> 
> 
> And who cares who hires them ,,, it’s an invasion.. they should be put down
> 
> 
> I work in a restaurant in Boston the entire back of the house is illegal.. with a high black unemployment rate.. the invasion is killing America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to Donald Trump, we are at a statistical zero unemployment rate.  That would be anything under 4  percent.  If someone hired the foreigner, someone rented to them, and businesses do business with them, they must have *THEIR* permission.  If the states are telling the feds to butt out, the foreigners must have permission.
> 
> We might not like it, but that's reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is "they" in your post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word "_they_" isn't in the post.  What is it you have a concern with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really so stupid, that you can't make a connection between your use of "their" and my use of "they"?
> 
> 
> Or are you just playing really stupid games?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one playing games.  I can't read your freaking mind.  Do you have a specific question?
Click to expand...



You stated that "they must have their permission".

Who's permission are you talking about, that is more important than our democratically enacted laws?


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's in the Constitution. Defense of the nation itself is one of the prime duties of the federal government.
> Is this something you disagree with? Is this not a fact? Are you contesting this simple well known truth?
> 
> And Porter baby, if you think Americans are offering jobs for every one of the tens of thousands of  people who have
> made the long trip from Central America to the Southern border and all they have to do is walk on over and claim these
> jobs as landscapers, janitors, bus boys, etc. then you are fooling yourself, but no one else.
> 
> Whether Americans are willingly seeking illegals who will work for next to nothing is immaterial.
> You still need legal permission to reside or work here. Period! Now buzz off with your nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're making a claim you cannot substantiate.  If the governor of a state says no state of emergency exists, like it or not, it does not exist and no invasion is taking place.
> 
> I'm not making any claim about jobs one way or another; it is the wallists who want to throw a lot of skeet on the wall (no pun intended) and see what sticks.  One of their socialist solutions is to punish employers who hire the employee of their choice.
> 
> The problem you have with this permission argument is that you cannot find any constitutional authority for it.  Would you like me explain the illegal manner the feds ended up claiming they could pass unconstitutional laws relative to this issue?
> 
> Sorry dude, but unless the foreigner is seeking to become a citizen, you're pretty much S.O.L.  The United States Supreme Court has already ruled.  It is not a crime for a deportable alien to remain in the United States.  It does not stand to reason that an American should be punished for doing business with them... AND if you're honest, the feds have NO constitutional jurisdiction over any foreigner a state gives sanctuary state to.  Don't draw conclusions about how I may or may not feel for sharing the reality of the situation with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If anyone says that this issue is not a crisis, they are either fools or liars.
> 
> 2. If an illegal alien is here is violation of a law, then it is a crime for the illegal alien go be here. If being here is a violation of a law, or numerous laws, than the breaking of those laws are CRIMES.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Where is the crisis?  We have statistical zero unemployment and a nation that does not revere its culture?  I'd fight to the death to protect your Right to believe anything you like; however, if the highest elected official in a state disagrees with you, I have to concede you are wrong in your opinion since perception is reality and that governor's perception is reality until he or she leaves office
> 
> 2)  Ruling by the United States Supreme Court:
> 
> "_§1227. Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all.
> 
> ...it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States."   _Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)
> 
> You are arguing with the United States Supreme Court, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Perception is not reality, and that governor is at best a fool and at worst a traitor.
> 
> 2. The Supreme Court has been wrong before, and it is wrong again. DEPORT THE FUCKING ILLEGALS. How hard is that to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Most psychologists would disagree with you:
> 
> 
> 2)  While I agree that the United States Supreme Court is wrong on a lot of issues, my perception as yours is NOT reality.  The fact that the high Court legislates from the bench IS reality.  It's not constitutional, but it is reality.  The United States Supreme Court says that undocumented foreigners being in the United States is *not *a crime.
> 
> Given that holding and working within the parameters of the law, the foreigner is in civil violation of the law, but an American that hires them is committing a criminal felony.  You want to uphold such B.S.?  Shame on you!
> 
> The employer owns the job he / she creates.  Under the Constitution, that employer has committed NO crime as the federal government has NO jurisdiction over who the state allows to stay within that state's respective border.
Click to expand...





1. I once  perceived an old oven mitt as not having a hole in it. When I picked up the hot tray, objective reality trumped my perception.
 "most psychologists" can go f**k themselves.

2. I explained my reasoning, you cited an Authority. YOur claim that the state control their own immigration policy sounds insane.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's in the Constitution. Defense of the nation itself is one of the prime duties of the federal government.
> Is this something you disagree with? Is this not a fact? Are you contesting this simple well known truth?
> 
> And Porter baby, if you think Americans are offering jobs for every one of the tens of thousands of  people who have
> made the long trip from Central America to the Southern border and all they have to do is walk on over and claim these
> jobs as landscapers, janitors, bus boys, etc. then you are fooling yourself, but no one else.
> 
> Whether Americans are willingly seeking illegals who will work for next to nothing is immaterial.
> You still need legal permission to reside or work here. Period! Now buzz off with your nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're making a claim you cannot substantiate.  If the governor of a state says no state of emergency exists, like it or not, it does not exist and no invasion is taking place.
> 
> I'm not making any claim about jobs one way or another; it is the wallists who want to throw a lot of skeet on the wall (no pun intended) and see what sticks.  One of their socialist solutions is to punish employers who hire the employee of their choice.
> 
> The problem you have with this permission argument is that you cannot find any constitutional authority for it.  Would you like me explain the illegal manner the feds ended up claiming they could pass unconstitutional laws relative to this issue?
> 
> Sorry dude, but unless the foreigner is seeking to become a citizen, you're pretty much S.O.L.  The United States Supreme Court has already ruled.  It is not a crime for a deportable alien to remain in the United States.  It does not stand to reason that an American should be punished for doing business with them... AND if you're honest, the feds have NO constitutional jurisdiction over any foreigner a state gives sanctuary state to.  Don't draw conclusions about how I may or may not feel for sharing the reality of the situation with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If anyone says that this issue is not a crisis, they are either fools or liars.
> 
> 2. If an illegal alien is here is violation of a law, then it is a crime for the illegal alien go be here. If being here is a violation of a law, or numerous laws, than the breaking of those laws are CRIMES.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You fail to understand the distinction between regulatory infraction and crime.
> A crime is a violation of someone's personal rights, and is so inherently wrong that everyone should know this without having to be told or reading some statue. An example is rape.
> But a regulatory infraction is not necessarily a violation of anyone's rights, and is just legislation that has been arbitrarily passed.  And example is a parking ticket.
> Violations of immigration laws are regulatory infractions, not crimes, because they are not based on defense of inherent rights and are not obvious.
> You can commit a crime in order to immigrate illegally, such as forgery, etc., but that is a separate act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal immigration is a violation of the Right of Self Determination of the American Citizens.
> 
> ie, to be more clear, part of the right of Self Determination is for the citizens of a sovereign state to decide who they wish to invite to become part of their community and thus impact their right to define their community at they see fit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would agree with you, but we have no express immigration clause.
Click to expand...



Haven't seen you for a while. Did you go sane for a bit?


----------



## Correll

busybee01 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The supreme court will always side with the law .. not the anti American democrat
> 
> 
> 
> If Trump was truly serious about getting a handle on the problem of illegal immigration and not just blowing smoke up the skirts of his base he would find a way to get the issue of sanctuary cities, counties and states before the Supreme Court.
> 
> There is absolutely zero doubt that ignoring the laws you don't like, as the Jim Crow era governors of the South did
> at one time, and applying the law in an ala carte way, is not legal or Constitutional.
> 
> So why is someone like Michelle Lujan Grisham getting away with coming down on militia members in her state (and I am not especially enamored with militias in general and don't even own a gun)?
> They are attempting to aid our Border Patrol in enforcing the law. She is demonizing them for it. Where is the justice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militias need to be destroyed. Militia members blew up the federal building in OKC. Militias are a threat to this country.
> 
> Militias have been given no authority to enforce laws so detaining people is kidnapping. Even the Border Patrol says people should call rather than taking the law into their own hands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya and democrats call BP  kidnappers..
> 
> At the end of the day we will be taking our country back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe an exception needs to be made in the case of foreign invaders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe a exception needs to be made for American invaders such as yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've not invaded anyone, moron, so what the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> ANd for the love of God, try to actually make your fucking point, if you have the brain power to do so, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have been invaded by with supremacists and neo-nazis who have taken over the Republican Party.
> 
> If your kind left the country, the national IQ would double.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. Stupider than I thought.
> 
> 
> "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> To be clear, you are the lying asshole I was talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the lying little asshole., Filth like you is a national disgrace.
Click to expand...




You know what would have made that post really powerful?


If you had backed up your claim that I was lying, with a link proving that my claim,

ie, that  "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.



to some study or something that proved that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America.



Funny you didn't do that....


Almost as though you know that you CAN'T.


To be clear, for the slower among us,


I challenge you to back up your shit claim, that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America..



I look forward to seeing whether you do the norm lib response, and dodge or deflect, or whether you are stupid enough to even TRY to back up this shit, and if so, what incredible shit you post to try to do so.


FUn times.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're making a claim you cannot substantiate.  If the governor of a state says no state of emergency exists, like it or not, it does not exist and no invasion is taking place.
> 
> I'm not making any claim about jobs one way or another; it is the wallists who want to throw a lot of skeet on the wall (no pun intended) and see what sticks.  One of their socialist solutions is to punish employers who hire the employee of their choice.
> 
> The problem you have with this permission argument is that you cannot find any constitutional authority for it.  Would you like me explain the illegal manner the feds ended up claiming they could pass unconstitutional laws relative to this issue?
> 
> Sorry dude, but unless the foreigner is seeking to become a citizen, you're pretty much S.O.L.  The United States Supreme Court has already ruled.  It is not a crime for a deportable alien to remain in the United States.  It does not stand to reason that an American should be punished for doing business with them... AND if you're honest, the feds have NO constitutional jurisdiction over any foreigner a state gives sanctuary state to.  Don't draw conclusions about how I may or may not feel for sharing the reality of the situation with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If anyone says that this issue is not a crisis, they are either fools or liars.
> 
> 2. If an illegal alien is here is violation of a law, then it is a crime for the illegal alien go be here. If being here is a violation of a law, or numerous laws, than the breaking of those laws are CRIMES.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Where is the crisis?  We have statistical zero unemployment and a nation that does not revere its culture?  I'd fight to the death to protect your Right to believe anything you like; however, if the highest elected official in a state disagrees with you, I have to concede you are wrong in your opinion since perception is reality and that governor's perception is reality until he or she leaves office
> 
> 2)  Ruling by the United States Supreme Court:
> 
> "_§1227. Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all.
> 
> ...it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States."   _Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)
> 
> You are arguing with the United States Supreme Court, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Perception is not reality, and that governor is at best a fool and at worst a traitor.
> 
> 2. The Supreme Court has been wrong before, and it is wrong again. DEPORT THE FUCKING ILLEGALS. How hard is that to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Most psychologists would disagree with you:
> 
> 
> 2)  While I agree that the United States Supreme Court is wrong on a lot of issues, my perception as yours is NOT reality.  The fact that the high Court legislates from the bench IS reality.  It's not constitutional, but it is reality.  The United States Supreme Court says that undocumented foreigners being in the United States is *not *a crime.
> 
> Given that holding and working within the parameters of the law, the foreigner is in civil violation of the law, but an American that hires them is committing a criminal felony.  You want to uphold such B.S.?  Shame on you!
> 
> The employer owns the job he / she creates.  Under the Constitution, that employer has committed NO crime as the federal government has NO jurisdiction over who the state allows to stay within that state's respective border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I once  perceived an old oven mitt as not having a hole in it. When I picked up the hot tray, objective reality trumped my perception.
> "most psychologists" can go f**k themselves.
> 
> 2. I explained my reasoning, you cited an Authority. YOur claim that the state control their own immigration policy sounds insane.
Click to expand...


Correll, you are not very intelligent.  Let's face it.  Let's talk reality.  

From 1789 to 1875 the states DID determine who was welcome in their state and who was not.  First, however, let us answer a question.

What is immigration?  Immigration is defined as:

_The entrance into a country of foreigners for purposes of* permanent residence*. The correlative term _emigration _denotes the act of such persons in leaving their former country._
_
immigration_

So, if a person leaves a foreign country to become a *permanent resident*, they would be required to file papers with the federal government and become a citizen.  But, what happens when a person *does not *want to become a permanent resident?  The bottom line is that person *does not* fall under the purview of the Constitution.  So, how did Congress end up exercising control over all foreigners in all circumstances?

In 1875, in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman, The United States Supreme Court granted_ plenary powers_ to Congress over all aspects of immigration when the Commissioner of Immigration failed to even mount a defense to a case in San Francisco.  Here is something that was quite telling about that case:

"_The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case.[2]

...The court was also critical of the lack of due process governing the immigration commissioner's decisions to mark particular immigrants as lewd and debauched

...Most recently, in Arizona v. United States (2012), the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional some sections of Arizona's SB 1070, a law that would lead states to devote law enforcement resources to enforce some aspects of federal immigration law. The ruling cited Chy Lung v. Freeman as a precedent._.."

Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia

Do I have to explain the irony of this case to you?  Or had you rather focus on the constitutionality of the real issue?  You see, you cannot show me any section of the Constitution where it gives the United States Supreme Court the* authority* to bestow upon any branch of government *any powers*.  That was unconstitutional legislating from the bench whether you benefited or not.  So, are you for screwing the Constitution if you benefit off the act?  See also:

Plenary power - Wikipedia

Whatcha gonna do when it's YOUR Rights that are given to some government agency and then YOUR Rights are gone?  You will have done it to yourself.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If anyone says that this issue is not a crisis, they are either fools or liars.
> 
> 2. If an illegal alien is here is violation of a law, then it is a crime for the illegal alien go be here. If being here is a violation of a law, or numerous laws, than the breaking of those laws are CRIMES.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Where is the crisis?  We have statistical zero unemployment and a nation that does not revere its culture?  I'd fight to the death to protect your Right to believe anything you like; however, if the highest elected official in a state disagrees with you, I have to concede you are wrong in your opinion since perception is reality and that governor's perception is reality until he or she leaves office
> 
> 2)  Ruling by the United States Supreme Court:
> 
> "_§1227. Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all.
> 
> ...it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States."   _Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)
> 
> You are arguing with the United States Supreme Court, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Perception is not reality, and that governor is at best a fool and at worst a traitor.
> 
> 2. The Supreme Court has been wrong before, and it is wrong again. DEPORT THE FUCKING ILLEGALS. How hard is that to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Most psychologists would disagree with you:
> 
> 
> 2)  While I agree that the United States Supreme Court is wrong on a lot of issues, my perception as yours is NOT reality.  The fact that the high Court legislates from the bench IS reality.  It's not constitutional, but it is reality.  The United States Supreme Court says that undocumented foreigners being in the United States is *not *a crime.
> 
> Given that holding and working within the parameters of the law, the foreigner is in civil violation of the law, but an American that hires them is committing a criminal felony.  You want to uphold such B.S.?  Shame on you!
> 
> The employer owns the job he / she creates.  Under the Constitution, that employer has committed NO crime as the federal government has NO jurisdiction over who the state allows to stay within that state's respective border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I once  perceived an old oven mitt as not having a hole in it. When I picked up the hot tray, objective reality trumped my perception.
> "most psychologists" can go f**k themselves.
> 
> 2. I explained my reasoning, you cited an Authority. YOur claim that the state control their own immigration policy sounds insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll, you are not very intelligent.  Let's face it.  Let's talk reality.
> 
> From 1789 to 1875 the states DID determine who was welcome in their state and who was not.  First, however, let us answer a question.
> 
> What is immigration?  Immigration is defined as:
> 
> _The entrance into a country of foreigners for purposes of* permanent residence*. The correlative term _emigration _denotes the act of such persons in leaving their former country.
> 
> immigration_
> 
> So, if a person leaves a foreign country to become a *permanent resident*, they would be required to file papers with the federal government and become a citizen.  But, what happens when a person *does not *want to become a permanent resident?  The bottom line is that person *does not* fall under the purview of the Constitution.  So, how did Congress end up exercising control over all foreigners in all circumstances?
> 
> In 1875, in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman, The United States Supreme Court granted_ plenary powers_ to Congress over all aspects of immigration when the Commissioner of Immigration failed to even mount a defense to a case in San Francisco.  Here is something that was quite telling about that case:
> 
> "_The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case.[2]
> 
> ...The court was also critical of the lack of due process governing the immigration commissioner's decisions to mark particular immigrants as lewd and debauched
> 
> ...Most recently, in Arizona v. United States (2012), the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional some sections of Arizona's SB 1070, a law that would lead states to devote law enforcement resources to enforce some aspects of federal immigration law. The ruling cited Chy Lung v. Freeman as a precedent._.."
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia
> 
> Do I have to explain the irony of this case to you?  Or had you rather focus on the constitutionality of the real issue?  You see, you cannot show me any section of the Constitution where it gives the United States Supreme Court the* authority* to bestow upon any branch of government *any powers*.  That was unconstitutional legislating from the bench whether you benefited or not.  So, are you for screwing the Constitution if you benefit off the act?  See also:
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> Whatcha gonna do when it's YOUR Rights that are given to some government agency and then YOUR Rights are gone?  You will have done it to yourself.
Click to expand...



Why do you want unlimited and unvetted Third World immigration?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Vandalshandle said:


> Well, being called a "dick" by you, vs. being called "ignorant" as others have called you, I guess I can live with that. Nevertheless, I will just focus on the issue of the thread, which is the convicted felon who was just arrested by the FBI for illegally possessing a firearm, and his gang. All of whom having been disavowed by the Border Patrol, GoFundMe, and Paypal, and who everyone but the least educated among us recognizes is a fascist, vigilante gang of armed hoodlums, who need to get home and get friggin' jobs, instead of acting as wannabe Rambos, complete with judge and jury responsibilities, presuming to decide who is guilty, and who is not.


I am not a huge fan of militias in general but they serve a useful purpose when order has broken down as it has on the
border. I can't get too upset about assisting the U.S. Border Patrol in stemming the human flow of illegals that have
flowed over the border like a backed up toilet. 

In this case the leader of the group apparently was a sketchy guy so that's not good but am I going to vilify and heap 
leftist inspired dung on this group more than I already have? Nope! It serves no purpose. 

This bit player in this drama would have been absolutely irrelevant and not even a factor if not for the actions of the Marxist plotters on the left who organized, financed and pulled off these caravans all with the intention of crashing the Southern borders, creating chaos and fueling the open borders left, a nasty group of anti American idiots. 

Or of course New Mexico governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, a sanctuary advocate who believes the law is something she can use like an ala carte menu (_I'll follow this law and that law but not those laws_) to support her political ideology, just like Jim Crow politicians in the South. She was so swift in siccing the FBI on the militia...still waiting for her to show any support at all for our system of immigration law. 

Who you condemn and not in this scenario shows where you are with regard to American sovereignty. I am in favor of it. 
I take it you are not. .


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

busybee01 said:


> Cities are not required to enforce federal law. The federal government can deputize local law enforcement but only with the permission of local law enforcement. They are not breaking any laws.


There is a world of difference between simply not enforcing a law (just like Jim Crow fans of segregation did NOT do...a wonderful ideological mate for you asses) and proactively working to undermine the law, as sanctuary laws do.

For instance Oakland Mayor Libby Schaff announced the exact dates that ICE planned a sweep of her city and just like a look out in a bank robbery, she alerted all the criminals to the plans of the law.

Sanctuary policy aids and abets criminals in breaking the law. They are accomplices to the crime of illegal immigration.
Stop with your lying bullshit. You fool no one except yourself, I guess. .


----------



## Jitss617

This group in particular stopped 5,700 illegals held them for border patrol.. 

I think trump should Deputize them


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Rigby5 said:


> First of all, I never said anything remotely like that.
> What I said is that by not paying for road maintenance through higher fuel taxes, you get poor people who do not use roads, to help pay for them.
> Of course people without cars do not walk everywhere.
> The take mass transit, like trains and trolleys. But even buses do not cause significant road wear like cars do. Mass transit also causes a tiny fraction of as much emissions, deaths, etc.


I said nothing about road wear of buses as opposed to cars. It's immaterial. The point is you implied that it's somehow unfair to ask people without cars to help build and maintain roads (through taxes, I guess).

And that is ridiculous unless of course those without cars never ever use roads but that's impossible because even IF they somehow were magically able to walk, or bicycle, everywhere they go they still receive all the benefits of the roads they help to pay for in many different ways.

Like for instance, how do you suppose all the food these people eat get to the supermarket for them to purchase....by carrier pigeon?

Stop making such infantile arguments that you can't defend. You won't look so dim witted.


----------



## Jitss617

What’s the point of having a milita to protect us from a  tyrannical government , if that government controls you?? lol


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Donald Trump, we are at a statistical zero unemployment rate.  That would be anything under 4  percent.  If someone hired the foreigner, someone rented to them, and businesses do business with them, they must have *THEIR* permission.  If the states are telling the feds to butt out, the foreigners must have permission.
> 
> We might not like it, but that's reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is "they" in your post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word "_they_" isn't in the post.  What is it you have a concern with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really so stupid, that you can't make a connection between your use of "their" and my use of "they"?
> 
> 
> Or are you just playing really stupid games?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one playing games.  I can't read your freaking mind.  Do you have a specific question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You stated that "they must have their permission".
> 
> Who's permission are you talking about, that is more important than our democratically enacted laws?
Click to expand...



I don't believe in democracy, but when the people elect a governor, he is the head honcho in the Executive department of that state.  Sorry they misinformed you, but every decision is NOT made by mob rule.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Where is the crisis?  We have statistical zero unemployment and a nation that does not revere its culture?  I'd fight to the death to protect your Right to believe anything you like; however, if the highest elected official in a state disagrees with you, I have to concede you are wrong in your opinion since perception is reality and that governor's perception is reality until he or she leaves office
> 
> 2)  Ruling by the United States Supreme Court:
> 
> "_§1227. Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all.
> 
> ...it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States."   _Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)
> 
> You are arguing with the United States Supreme Court, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Perception is not reality, and that governor is at best a fool and at worst a traitor.
> 
> 2. The Supreme Court has been wrong before, and it is wrong again. DEPORT THE FUCKING ILLEGALS. How hard is that to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Most psychologists would disagree with you:
> 
> 
> 2)  While I agree that the United States Supreme Court is wrong on a lot of issues, my perception as yours is NOT reality.  The fact that the high Court legislates from the bench IS reality.  It's not constitutional, but it is reality.  The United States Supreme Court says that undocumented foreigners being in the United States is *not *a crime.
> 
> Given that holding and working within the parameters of the law, the foreigner is in civil violation of the law, but an American that hires them is committing a criminal felony.  You want to uphold such B.S.?  Shame on you!
> 
> The employer owns the job he / she creates.  Under the Constitution, that employer has committed NO crime as the federal government has NO jurisdiction over who the state allows to stay within that state's respective border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I once  perceived an old oven mitt as not having a hole in it. When I picked up the hot tray, objective reality trumped my perception.
> "most psychologists" can go f**k themselves.
> 
> 2. I explained my reasoning, you cited an Authority. YOur claim that the state control their own immigration policy sounds insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll, you are not very intelligent.  Let's face it.  Let's talk reality.
> 
> From 1789 to 1875 the states DID determine who was welcome in their state and who was not.  First, however, let us answer a question.
> 
> What is immigration?  Immigration is defined as:
> 
> _The entrance into a country of foreigners for purposes of* permanent residence*. The correlative term _emigration _denotes the act of such persons in leaving their former country.
> 
> immigration_
> 
> So, if a person leaves a foreign country to become a *permanent resident*, they would be required to file papers with the federal government and become a citizen.  But, what happens when a person *does not *want to become a permanent resident?  The bottom line is that person *does not* fall under the purview of the Constitution.  So, how did Congress end up exercising control over all foreigners in all circumstances?
> 
> In 1875, in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman, The United States Supreme Court granted_ plenary powers_ to Congress over all aspects of immigration when the Commissioner of Immigration failed to even mount a defense to a case in San Francisco.  Here is something that was quite telling about that case:
> 
> "_The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case.[2]
> 
> ...The court was also critical of the lack of due process governing the immigration commissioner's decisions to mark particular immigrants as lewd and debauched
> 
> ...Most recently, in Arizona v. United States (2012), the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional some sections of Arizona's SB 1070, a law that would lead states to devote law enforcement resources to enforce some aspects of federal immigration law. The ruling cited Chy Lung v. Freeman as a precedent._.."
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia
> 
> Do I have to explain the irony of this case to you?  Or had you rather focus on the constitutionality of the real issue?  You see, you cannot show me any section of the Constitution where it gives the United States Supreme Court the* authority* to bestow upon any branch of government *any powers*.  That was unconstitutional legislating from the bench whether you benefited or not.  So, are you for screwing the Constitution if you benefit off the act?  See also:
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> Whatcha gonna do when it's YOUR Rights that are given to some government agency and then YOUR Rights are gone?  You will have done it to yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want unlimited and unvetted Third World immigration?
Click to expand...


Why do you have to lie and start shit with people?  You can't think of a different approach?  You are not smart enough to be in this discussion.

FWIW, I have made at least twenty posts pointing to the fact that under Correll's strategy we will get a million new citizens each year until they have enough political clout to displace the posterity of the founders, making this discussion moot.  Correll, and those like him, are doing more to destroy the REPUBLIC than all the left combined!  Correll and the left are one and the same.


----------



## whitehall

It's legal for an armed citizen to detain a suspect who trespasses on their property but not someone who trespasses on their country. The people who stop illegal immigration are deemed the criminals while the people who harbor them and prevent their arrest are the heroes. Tell me the world isn't upside down.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, being called a "dick" by you, vs. being called "ignorant" as others have called you, I guess I can live with that. Nevertheless, I will just focus on the issue of the thread, which is the convicted felon who was just arrested by the FBI for illegally possessing a firearm, and his gang. All of whom having been disavowed by the Border Patrol, GoFundMe, and Paypal, and who everyone but the least educated among us recognizes is a fascist, vigilante gang of armed hoodlums, who need to get home and get friggin' jobs, instead of acting as wannabe Rambos, complete with judge and jury responsibilities, presuming to decide who is guilty, and who is not.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a huge fan of militias in general but they serve a useful purpose when order has broken down as it has on the
> border. I can't get too upset about assisting the U.S. Border Patrol in stemming the human flow of illegals that have
> flowed over the border like a backed up toilet.
> 
> In this case the leader of the group apparently was a sketchy guy so that's not good but am I going to vilify and heap
> leftist inspired dung on this group more than I already have? Nope! It serves no purpose.
> 
> This bit player in this drama would have been absolutely irrelevant and not even a factor if not for the actions of the Marxist plotters on the left who organized, financed and pulled off these caravans all with the intention of crashing the Southern borders, creating chaos and fueling the open borders left, a nasty group of anti American idiots.
> 
> Or of course New Mexico governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, a sanctuary advocate who believes the law is something she can use like an ala carte menu (_I'll follow this law and that law but not those laws_) to support her political ideology, just like Jim Crow politicians in the South. She was so swift in siccing the FBI on the militia...still waiting for her to show any support at all for our system of immigration law.
> 
> Who you condemn and not in this scenario shows where you are with regard to American sovereignty. I am in favor of it.
> I take it you are not. .
Click to expand...



You are* NOT *for American sovereignty.  What you promote is neo-nazi National Socialism wherein the state owns and controls production and labor.  Our God given, *unalienable*, inherent, absolute, irrevocable and natural Rights take a back seat to a freaking wall.  So much for the Bill of Rights.  You think there is only one way to solve the problem, but cannot see the downside of what happens *IF* you could actually win.

I condemn both the wallists AND the Democrats.  The idea was that of the left *before* they conned dumb asses into supporting it.  So, you have nothing against people coming here _"legally_" as you mistakenly call it.  If America is taken over "_legally"_ then it's all good???  What freaking stupidity!  Currently 12 percent of the federal legislators are immigrants or the children of immigrants.  Of those, 11 out of the 12 first generation immigrants are Democrats.  Of the second generation immigrants 39 are Democrats and 13 Republicans with 1 Independent.  We're losing representation, but it's all legal like and all, so apparently it's all good.  Right?

Immigrants or children of immigrants make up at least 12% of Congress

The stupidity of wallists theology is to keep everyone out unless they come in by some "_legal_" means which is code for citizen.  Once these people become citizens, they are more than 3 times more likely to become Democrats than Republicans.  Mr. Blair, you are destroying America.  You neither understand the Constitution nor would you want to.

Your double talking, nonsensical mantra that was thought up by neo-nazis (that I can name them by name and affiliation) may fool those of limited intelligence, but what you are engaged in helps only the Democrats... and by and large, they don't give a shit about sovereignty.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cities are not required to enforce federal law. The federal government can deputize local law enforcement but only with the permission of local law enforcement. They are not breaking any laws.
> 
> 
> 
> There is a world of difference between simply not enforcing a law (just like Jim Crow fans of segregation did NOT do...a wonderful ideological mate for you asses) and proactively working to undermine the law, as sanctuary laws do.
> 
> For instance Oakland Mayor Libby Schaff announced the exact dates that ICE planned a sweep of her city and just like a look out in a bank robbery, she alerted all the criminals to the plans of the law.
> 
> Sanctuary policy aids and abets criminals in breaking the law. They are accomplices to the crime of illegal immigration.
> Stop with your lying bullshit. You fool no one except yourself, I guess. .
Click to expand...


It has been explained to you that the United States Supreme Court (under a conservative Chief Justice) held that being in the United States without documentation is not a crime.  Get a life already, would you?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

whitehall said:


> It's legal for an armed citizen to detain a suspect who trespasses on their property but not someone who trespasses on their country. The people who stop illegal immigration are deemed the criminals while the people who harbor them and prevent their arrest are the heroes. Tell me the world isn't upside down.



I'll bet you any amount of money you cannot tell me WHICH side of this argument made that imbalance a reality.


----------



## RealDave

Jitss617 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can't do it at gunpoint.
> 
> 
> 
> We use to shot them off our lands years ago.. gtfo of you now want to put us in jail for pointing a gun at them.. embarrassing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a embarrassing thug.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I talk like we used to talk!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like a white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What race doesn’t think it’s supreme ??
Click to expand...

Most people do not assume that are supreme.,   Just you White Supremacists & your hero Hitler.

To whom do you think you are superior?


----------



## RealDave

Jitss617 said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> So sad that none of you militia assholes got to shoot any body.
> 
> Maybe next time.
> 
> 
> 
> What you don’t know won’t hurt you lol
Click to expand...

 
You must have no pain.


----------



## Jitss617

RealDave said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We use to shot them off our lands years ago.. gtfo of you now want to put us in jail for pointing a gun at them.. embarrassing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a embarrassing thug.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I talk like we used to talk!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like a white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What race doesn’t think it’s supreme ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people do not assume that are supreme.,   Just you White Supremacists & your hero Hitler.
> 
> To whom do you think you are superior?
Click to expand...

I grew up around every race except white, and they all told me they were better then whites.. why can’t whites be equal and say the same back


----------



## RealDave

Jitss617 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a embarrassing thug.
> 
> 
> 
> No I talk like we used to talk!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like a white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What race doesn’t think it’s supreme ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people do not assume that are supreme.,   Just you White Supremacists & your hero Hitler.
> 
> To whom do you think you are superior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I grew up around every race except white, and they all told me they were better then whites.. why can’t whites be equal and say the same back
Click to expand...

You are lying.  Outside of your ilk, I never heard anyone saying their race was superior.


----------



## Jitss617

RealDave said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I talk like we used to talk!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like a white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What race doesn’t think it’s supreme ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most people do not assume that are supreme.,   Just you White Supremacists & your hero Hitler.
> 
> To whom do you think you are superior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I grew up around every race except white, and they all told me they were better then whites.. why can’t whites be equal and say the same back
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are lying.  Outside of your ilk, I never heard anyone saying their race was superior.
Click to expand...

It’s in most hip hop music, when they treat white women as property and pray on them,, of r CHANNELS LIKE bet, magazines like hey that openly  promote superiority .. do you live in a bubble?


----------



## LuckyDuck

Jitss617 said:


> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?


Sadly, the militia, nor any other "civilian" group or individual can do a "citizen's arrest" if what they are doing isn't a felony, which crossing the border isn't.
If the federal government would make it a felony, then a citizen's arrest would be appropriate.


----------



## Jitss617

LuckyDuck said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, the militia, nor any other "civilian" group or individual can do a "citizen's arrest" if what they are doing isn't a felony, which crossing the border isn't.
> If the federal government would make it a felony, then a citizen's arrest would be appropriate.
Click to expand...

They did it 5,700 times


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


> You are* NOT *for American sovereignty. What you promote is neo-nazi National Socialism wherein the state owns and controls production and labor. Our God given, *unalienable*, inherent, absolute, irrevocable and natural Rights take a back seat to a freaking wall. So much for the Bill of Rights. You think there is only one way to solve the problem, but cannot see the downside of what happens *IF* you could actually win.
> 
> I condemn both the wallists AND the Democrats. The idea was that of the left *before* they conned dumb asses into supporting it. So, you have nothing against people coming here _"legally_" as you mistakenly call it. If America is taken over "_legally"_ then it's all good??? What freaking stupidity! Currently 12 percent of the federal legislators are immigrants or the children of immigrants. Of those, 11 out of the 12 first generation immigrants are Democrats. Of the second generation immigrants 39 are Democrats and 13 Republicans with 1 Independent. We're losing representation, but it's all legal like and all, so apparently it's all good. Right?
> 
> Immigrants or children of immigrants make up at least 12% of Congress


I don't know what your particular mental problem is but you make no distinction between legal immigration (immigration that is controlled, vetted and we know who we are taking in ) and illegal immigration (we don't know who these  people are, what their background is, how many are pouring into the country and whether they can support themselves or not, and not surprisingly low educated and low skilled workers frequently can't).

A wall is just a barrier that makes it easier to keep the people who shouldn't be here out. No reason to pee your pants in consternation over it. Many nations put walls to very good use. Grow up.




> The stupidity of wallists theology is to keep everyone out unless they come in by some "_legal_" means which is code for citizen. Once these people become citizens, they are more than 3 times more likely to become Democrats than Republicans. Mr. Blair, you are destroying America. You neither understand the Constitution nor would you want to.
> 
> Your double talking, nonsensical mantra that was thought up by neo-nazis (that I can name them by name and affiliation) may fool those of limited intelligence, but what you are engaged in helps only the Democrats... and by and large, they don't give a shit about sovereignty.


I am destroying America? What is you plan to save the country?
You don't seem rational or sane enough to have one.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is "they" in your post?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word "_they_" isn't in the post.  What is it you have a concern with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really so stupid, that you can't make a connection between your use of "their" and my use of "they"?
> 
> 
> Or are you just playing really stupid games?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one playing games.  I can't read your freaking mind.  Do you have a specific question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You stated that "they must have their permission".
> 
> Who's permission are you talking about, that is more important than our democratically enacted laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in democracy, but when the people elect a governor, he is the head honcho in the Executive department of that state.  Sorry they misinformed you, but every decision is NOT made by mob rule.
Click to expand...



The Governor does not have the legal power to disregard the laws of this nation. That is not his job. 


You dont' believe in democracy? What do you consider a legitimate source of authority or rights then, and why does the American people not have it?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


> It has been explained to you that the United States Supreme Court (under a conservative Chief Justice) held that being in the United States without documentation is not a crime. Get a life already, would you?


Either someone is in the country legally or they are not. If they are not here legally they should be removed immediately.

Whether they are carrying documentation or not at some particular point is irrelevant but you keep bringing it up like you just discovered the wheel.

Quit clogging the boards with your absolute bullshit! Your lunacy is not helpful.


----------



## longknife

*Attack. Divert. Troll.*

*Never seen so much on any thread in this forum.*

*Don't understand why truly thinking posters are even bothering wasting their time.*


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Correll said:


> The Governor does not have the legal power to disregard the laws of this nation. That is not his job.


Leftist shitbags rationalize sanctuary policy by saying it's not their job to enforce federal law but that's not really the issue at all. No one is asking the governor of New Mexico to conduct ICE raids or check the status of suspected illegals.
It's an absurd straw man lie.

When a state directly orders employees NOT to speak or communicate with federal immigration officers under any circumstances, for instance,  that crosses a line and sanctuary officials have gone from a hands off stance to actively
opposing US federal law.

MIchelle Lujan Grisham doesn't get to decide which laws she wants to follow or not. That's what Jim Crow politicians did.
She isn't entitled to pick and choose in an ala carte manner which laws she will deign to observe.

That's an absolute break down of law and order and the matter should be brought up to the Supreme Court. I can't believe it isn't illegal and improper to simply ignore the laws you don't wish to obey. Fucking leftists liars!


----------



## Vandalshandle

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Governor does not have the legal power to disregard the laws of this nation. That is not his job.
> 
> 
> 
> Leftist shitbags rationalize sanctuary policy by saying it's not their job to enforce federal law but that's not really the issue at all. No one is asking the governor of New Mexico to conduct ICE raids or check the status of suspected illegals.
> It's an absurd straw man lie.
> 
> When a state directly orders employees NOT to speak or communicate with federal immigration officers under any circumstances, for instance,  that crosses a line and sanctuary officials have gone from a hands off stance to actively
> opposing US federal law.
> 
> MIchelle Lujan Grisham doesn't get to decide which laws she wants to follow or not. That's what Jim Crow politicians did.
> She isn't entitled to pick and choose in an ala carte manner which laws she will deign to observe.
> 
> That's an absolute break down of law and order and the matter should be brought up to the Supreme Court. I can't believe it isn't illegal and improper to simply ignore the laws you don't wish to obey. Fucking leftists liars!
Click to expand...


I am sure that you have a link documenting where a state has ordered employees not to speak to a federal immigration official, but you just haven't been able to find the time to post it. never mind. I'm sure that somebody on Fox news told you that.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Vandalshandle said:


> I am sure that you have a link documenting where a state has ordered employees not to speak to a federal immigration official, but you just haven't been able to find the time to post it. never mind. I'm sure that somebody on Fox news told you that.


"Two years after New Mexico’s largest county barred local law enforcement from cooperating with immigration authorities, its leaders learned that the policy was being subverted from within." US immigration agents find ways around ‘sanctuary’ policies – Boston Herald

What does "barred from cooperating with immigration authorities" mean to you?
San Francisco country employees are banned from speaking with federal agents. I'm sure they could say hello to one another. Not so much after that.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure that you have a link documenting where a state has ordered employees not to speak to a federal immigration official, but you just haven't been able to find the time to post it. never mind. I'm sure that somebody on Fox news told you that.
> 
> 
> 
> "Two years after New Mexico’s largest county barred local law enforcement from cooperating with immigration authorities, its leaders learned that the policy was being subverted from within." US immigration agents find ways around ‘sanctuary’ policies – Boston Herald
> 
> What does "barred from cooperating with immigration authorities" mean to you?
> San Francisco country employees are banned from speaking with federal agents. I'm sure they could say hello to one another. Not so much after that.
Click to expand...


Totally false. They simply do not hold people in their jails for violating federal law. In short, if the feds are not there to do their job and take them into custody when the county releases them, the county is not going to do their job for them. You are a virtual encyclopedia of misinformation.


----------



## OldLady

longknife said:


> *Attack. Divert. Troll.*
> 
> *Never seen so much on any thread in this forum.*
> 
> *Don't understand why truly thinking posters are even bothering wasting their time.*


And I was just thinking it was calming down and getting semi-reasonable.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are* NOT *for American sovereignty. What you promote is neo-nazi National Socialism wherein the state owns and controls production and labor. Our God given, *unalienable*, inherent, absolute, irrevocable and natural Rights take a back seat to a freaking wall. So much for the Bill of Rights. You think there is only one way to solve the problem, but cannot see the downside of what happens *IF* you could actually win.
> 
> I condemn both the wallists AND the Democrats. The idea was that of the left *before* they conned dumb asses into supporting it. So, you have nothing against people coming here _"legally_" as you mistakenly call it. If America is taken over "_legally"_ then it's all good??? What freaking stupidity! Currently 12 percent of the federal legislators are immigrants or the children of immigrants. Of those, 11 out of the 12 first generation immigrants are Democrats. Of the second generation immigrants 39 are Democrats and 13 Republicans with 1 Independent. We're losing representation, but it's all legal like and all, so apparently it's all good. Right?
> 
> Immigrants or children of immigrants make up at least 12% of Congress
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what your particular mental problem is but you make no distinction between legal immigration (immigration that is controlled, vetted and we know who we are taking in ) and illegal immigration (we don't know who these  people are, what their background is, how many are pouring into the country and whether they can support themselves or not, and not surprisingly low educated and low skilled workers frequently can't).
> 
> A wall is just a barrier that makes it easier to keep the people who shouldn't be here out. No reason to pee your pants in consternation over it. Many nations put walls to very good use. Grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The stupidity of wallists theology is to keep everyone out unless they come in by some "_legal_" means which is code for citizen. Once these people become citizens, they are more than 3 times more likely to become Democrats than Republicans. Mr. Blair, you are destroying America. You neither understand the Constitution nor would you want to.
> 
> Your double talking, nonsensical mantra that was thought up by neo-nazis (that I can name them by name and affiliation) may fool those of limited intelligence, but what you are engaged in helps only the Democrats... and by and large, they don't give a shit about sovereignty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am destroying America? What is you plan to save the country?
> You don't seem rational or sane enough to have one.
Click to expand...


You questioning my sanity while you contribute to your own demise would be downright funny if not so idiotic.  You shouldn't rattle my cage.  With your limited IQ, it would be too much for you.

First off let's straighten out your dumb-assery.  The United States Supreme Court ruled that is it not a crime to be in the United States without papers.  If you don't like it, take it up with them, but quit screwing with me.  I didn't make the freaking ruling.

Second point, *IF* the federal government has jurisdiction, you should be able to point us to that section of the Constitution.  It don't exist.  States have rights.  

Third point,  Mexico's government put out comic books teaching their citizens how to avoid the immigration authorities.  The Muslims have an ideology that is incompatible with our foundational principles.  So, you're going to do a background check and trust those people to give you the straight skinny on their citizens???  REALLY?  The damn idiocy by which you argue your case is laughable.

Once a person is here, whether you like it or not; whether you agree with it or not, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that they have a guarantee of the "_equal protection of the laws_"  by virtue of the 14th Amendment.  It does not matter whether or not they have human registration papers.

FWIW, YOUR side supports the 14th Amendment; I fight it and maintain that it was *illegally ratified*.   You are only getting caught up in your own web of deceit.  

My plan to save the country?  We were doing it before 9 / 11 when the left flipped people like you and conned your dumb asses into nullifying the Bill of Rights and propping up the 14th and 16th Amendments.  You should have made that determination BEFORE you started screwing yourself out of your *unalienable* Rights.  Before your brainwashed asses came along, the patriots were winning the freaking war.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Vandalshandle said:


> Totally false. They simply do not hold people in their jails for violating federal law. In short, if the feds are not there to do their job and take them into custody when the county releases them, the county is not going to do their job for them. You are a virtual encyclopedia of misinformation.


And you are a virtual encyclopedia of imagination. 
Everyone knows a dump like San Francisco won't hold prisoners for the feds. But if the feds happen to call the county sheriff and just inquire about a certain prisoner being held and a release date the policy is to tell him to fuck off (but perhaps not in those exact words). 

Yes. Simply releasing information to federal agents is considered "doing the job of the federal government" and they are ordered not to comply. 
That is going far beyond simply not doing the work ICE should be doing to actual hostile proactive non cooperation that intentionally violates federal immigration law. So in a very real sense sanctuary cities and counties are intentionally and
diligently breaking the law when they are sworn to uphold it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has been explained to you that the United States Supreme Court (under a conservative Chief Justice) held that being in the United States without documentation is not a crime. Get a life already, would you?
> 
> 
> 
> Either someone is in the country legally or they are not. If they are not here legally they should be removed immediately.
> 
> Whether they are carrying documentation or not at some particular point is irrelevant but you keep bringing it up like you just discovered the wheel.
> 
> Quit clogging the boards with your absolute bullshit! Your lunacy is not helpful.
Click to expand...


YOUR lunacy is what is destroying the country.  Anyone who doesn't walk around like a Zombie, chanting your National Socialist mantra is someone you consider batshit crazy.  Then again, maybe you know better and are lying to us or you're really plain stupid and just projecting.

You don't pack the gear to be in a serious and civil conversation.  You have to go off the reservation because you realize that you don't have the right answers.  Mob rule only works for a short time, son.  The founders warned that a democracy soon wastes and exhausts itself... much the way you just did.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Totally false. They simply do not hold people in their jails for violating federal law. In short, if the feds are not there to do their job and take them into custody when the county releases them, the county is not going to do their job for them. You are a virtual encyclopedia of misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> And you are a virtual encyclopedia of imagination.
> Everyone knows a dump like San Francisco won't hold prisoners for the feds. But if the feds happen to call the county sheriff and just inquire about a certain prisoner being held and a release date the policy is to tell him to fuck off (but perhaps not in those exact words).
> 
> Yes. Simply releasing information to federal agents is considered "doing the job of the federal government" and they are ordered not to comply.
> That is going far beyond simply not doing the work ICE should be doing to actual hostile proactive non cooperation that intentionally violates federal immigration law. So in a very real sense sanctuary cities and counties are intentionally and
> diligently breaking the law when they are sworn to uphold it.
Click to expand...


Despite links to the rulings proving you wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt, you continue to dabble in outright LIES.  

Keep posting the same lies over and over - isn't that a National Socialist strategy?

“_Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth_” Joseph Goebbels 

How liars create the ‘illusion of truth’-


----------



## busybee01

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Governor does not have the legal power to disregard the laws of this nation. That is not his job.
> 
> 
> 
> Leftist shitbags rationalize sanctuary policy by saying it's not their job to enforce federal law but that's not really the issue at all. No one is asking the governor of New Mexico to conduct ICE raids or check the status of suspected illegals.
> It's an absurd straw man lie.
> 
> When a state directly orders employees NOT to speak or communicate with federal immigration officers under any circumstances, for instance,  that crosses a line and sanctuary officials have gone from a hands off stance to actively
> opposing US federal law.
> 
> MIchelle Lujan Grisham doesn't get to decide which laws she wants to follow or not. That's what Jim Crow politicians did.
> She isn't entitled to pick and choose in an ala carte manner which laws she will deign to observe.
> 
> That's an absolute break down of law and order and the matter should be brought up to the Supreme Court. I can't believe it isn't illegal and improper to simply ignore the laws you don't wish to obey. Fucking leftists liars!
Click to expand...


Local officials are under no obligation to enforce federal laws. The Supreme Court made it clear that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. It has nothing to do with Jim Crow laws.


----------



## busybee01

Correll said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The supreme court will always side with the law .. not the anti American democrat
> 
> 
> 
> If Trump was truly serious about getting a handle on the problem of illegal immigration and not just blowing smoke up the skirts of his base he would find a way to get the issue of sanctuary cities, counties and states before the Supreme Court.
> 
> There is absolutely zero doubt that ignoring the laws you don't like, as the Jim Crow era governors of the South did
> at one time, and applying the law in an ala carte way, is not legal or Constitutional.
> 
> So why is someone like Michelle Lujan Grisham getting away with coming down on militia members in her state (and I am not especially enamored with militias in general and don't even own a gun)?
> They are attempting to aid our Border Patrol in enforcing the law. She is demonizing them for it. Where is the justice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Militias need to be destroyed. Militia members blew up the federal building in OKC. Militias are a threat to this country.
> 
> Militias have been given no authority to enforce laws so detaining people is kidnapping. Even the Border Patrol says people should call rather than taking the law into their own hands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya and democrats call BP  kidnappers..
> 
> At the end of the day we will be taking our country back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe a exception needs to be made for American invaders such as yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've not invaded anyone, moron, so what the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> ANd for the love of God, try to actually make your fucking point, if you have the brain power to do so, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have been invaded by with supremacists and neo-nazis who have taken over the Republican Party.
> 
> If your kind left the country, the national IQ would double.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. Stupider than I thought.
> 
> 
> "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> To be clear, you are the lying asshole I was talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the lying little asshole., Filth like you is a national disgrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what would have made that post really powerful?
> 
> 
> If you had backed up your claim that I was lying, with a link proving that my claim,
> 
> ie, that  "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> to some study or something that proved that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you didn't do that....
> 
> 
> Almost as though you know that you CAN'T.
> 
> 
> To be clear, for the slower among us,
> 
> 
> I challenge you to back up your shit claim, that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America..
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to seeing whether you do the norm lib response, and dodge or deflect, or whether you are stupid enough to even TRY to back up this shit, and if so, what incredible shit you post to try to do so.
> 
> 
> FUn times.
Click to expand...


The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
Stephen King R-Iowa
Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis


----------



## Jitss617

busybee01 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Trump was truly serious about getting a handle on the problem of illegal immigration and not just blowing smoke up the skirts of his base he would find a way to get the issue of sanctuary cities, counties and states before the Supreme Court.
> 
> There is absolutely zero doubt that ignoring the laws you don't like, as the Jim Crow era governors of the South did
> at one time, and applying the law in an ala carte way, is not legal or Constitutional.
> 
> So why is someone like Michelle Lujan Grisham getting away with coming down on militia members in her state (and I am not especially enamored with militias in general and don't even own a gun)?
> They are attempting to aid our Border Patrol in enforcing the law. She is demonizing them for it. Where is the justice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militias need to be destroyed. Militia members blew up the federal building in OKC. Militias are a threat to this country.
> 
> Militias have been given no authority to enforce laws so detaining people is kidnapping. Even the Border Patrol says people should call rather than taking the law into their own hands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya and democrats call BP  kidnappers..
> 
> At the end of the day we will be taking our country back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've not invaded anyone, moron, so what the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> ANd for the love of God, try to actually make your fucking point, if you have the brain power to do so, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have been invaded by with supremacists and neo-nazis who have taken over the Republican Party.
> 
> If your kind left the country, the national IQ would double.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. Stupider than I thought.
> 
> 
> "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> To be clear, you are the lying asshole I was talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the lying little asshole., Filth like you is a national disgrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what would have made that post really powerful?
> 
> 
> If you had backed up your claim that I was lying, with a link proving that my claim,
> 
> ie, that  "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> to some study or something that proved that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you didn't do that....
> 
> 
> Almost as though you know that you CAN'T.
> 
> 
> To be clear, for the slower among us,
> 
> 
> I challenge you to back up your shit claim, that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America..
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to seeing whether you do the norm lib response, and dodge or deflect, or whether you are stupid enough to even TRY to back up this shit, and if so, what incredible shit you post to try to do so.
> 
> 
> FUn times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
> 2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
> Stephen King R-Iowa
> Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
> Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis
Click to expand...

Why can’t white people talk about other races like black people talk about other races?? It’s a free country


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Jitss617 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Militias need to be destroyed. Militia members blew up the federal building in OKC. Militias are a threat to this country.
> 
> Militias have been given no authority to enforce laws so detaining people is kidnapping. Even the Border Patrol says people should call rather than taking the law into their own hands.
> 
> 
> 
> Ya and democrats call BP  kidnappers..
> 
> At the end of the day we will be taking our country back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have been invaded by with supremacists and neo-nazis who have taken over the Republican Party.
> 
> If your kind left the country, the national IQ would double.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. Stupider than I thought.
> 
> 
> "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> To be clear, you are the lying asshole I was talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the lying little asshole., Filth like you is a national disgrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what would have made that post really powerful?
> 
> 
> If you had backed up your claim that I was lying, with a link proving that my claim,
> 
> ie, that  "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> to some study or something that proved that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you didn't do that....
> 
> 
> Almost as though you know that you CAN'T.
> 
> 
> To be clear, for the slower among us,
> 
> 
> I challenge you to back up your shit claim, that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America..
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to seeing whether you do the norm lib response, and dodge or deflect, or whether you are stupid enough to even TRY to back up this shit, and if so, what incredible shit you post to try to do so.
> 
> 
> FUn times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
> 2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
> Stephen King R-Iowa
> Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
> Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can’t white people talk about other races like black people talk about other races?? It’s a free country
Click to expand...


If you want to talk about other races, you have every Right to do so.  You will not gain majority sentiment; you may even have to defend your Rights, but if you want to say it then you have every Right to do so.

BTW, whether I agree with you or not, I will fight to the death to protect your Right to say it.  Will you do so for me?  Read some of the earlier posts here.  IIRC, it was on this thread that another poster threatened me with censorship.


----------



## Jitss617

Porter Rockwell said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya and democrats call BP  kidnappers..
> 
> At the end of the day we will be taking our country back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Stupider than I thought.
> 
> 
> "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> To be clear, you are the lying asshole I was talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the lying little asshole., Filth like you is a national disgrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what would have made that post really powerful?
> 
> 
> If you had backed up your claim that I was lying, with a link proving that my claim,
> 
> ie, that  "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> to some study or something that proved that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you didn't do that....
> 
> 
> Almost as though you know that you CAN'T.
> 
> 
> To be clear, for the slower among us,
> 
> 
> I challenge you to back up your shit claim, that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America..
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to seeing whether you do the norm lib response, and dodge or deflect, or whether you are stupid enough to even TRY to back up this shit, and if so, what incredible shit you post to try to do so.
> 
> 
> FUn times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
> 2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
> Stephen King R-Iowa
> Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
> Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can’t white people talk about other races like black people talk about other races?? It’s a free country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to talk about other races, you have every Right to do so.  You will not gain majority sentiment; you may even have to defend your Rights, but if you want to say it then you have every Right to do so.
> 
> BTW, whether I agree with you or not, I will fight to the death to protect your Right to say it.  Will you do so for me?  Read some of the earlier posts here.  IIRC, it was on this thread that another poster threatened me with censorship.
Click to expand...

We are a country of a culture built by white Americans blacks can assimilate or not, but I will make fun of there culture Perpetrated by whites or blacks


----------



## Dr Grump

andaronjim said:


> ...The needs of the many out way the needs of the few.



You're sounding like a good little leftie...


----------



## Dr Grump

Jitss617 said:


> We are a country of a culture built by white Americans blacks can assimilate or not, but I will make fun of there culture Perpetrated by whites or blacks



I'd settle for you being semi-literate. Many cultures built the US.


----------



## Jitss617

Dr Grump said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a country of a culture built by white Americans blacks can assimilate or not, but I will make fun of there culture Perpetrated by whites or blacks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd settle for you being semi-literate. Many cultures built the US.
Click to expand...

Lol hmmm funny how many signed the constitution oppppppps


----------



## Rigby5

Jitss617 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree. Your standard of living is not at all better, as you don't get public health care and you lose coverage if you quit your job, you do not get good mass transit, and you do not get good air quality when there is no emission gasoline tax.
> The US cost of living is not lower, except that food is subsidized and some European areas are very crowded.
> How much house you have is not good, but bad because it means urban sprawl. You pay less for cars and gasoline because you are not being taxed for the road maintenance and emissions. You let the poor people who don't have a car pay for the road maintenance.
> 
> 
> 
> People without cars walk absolutely everywhere they go? Well I never knew that! Fascinating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, I never said anything remotely like that.
> What I said is that by not paying for road maintenance through higher fuel taxes, you get poor people who do not use roads, to help pay for them.
> Of course people without cars do not walk everywhere.
> The take mass transit, like trains and trolleys.  But even buses do not cause significant road wear like cars do.  Mass transit also causes a tiny fraction of as much emissions, deaths, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Poor people don’t use roads lol are you on crack?? Haha
Click to expand...


A lot of people do not have cars because they can't afford them.
This is especially true in crowded places like NYC, San Francisco, etc., where parking and insurance is expensive.
This is especially true with the young, like students, and the elderly who are retired.


----------



## Jitss617

Rigby5 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree. Your standard of living is not at all better, as you don't get public health care and you lose coverage if you quit your job, you do not get good mass transit, and you do not get good air quality when there is no emission gasoline tax.
> The US cost of living is not lower, except that food is subsidized and some European areas are very crowded.
> How much house you have is not good, but bad because it means urban sprawl. You pay less for cars and gasoline because you are not being taxed for the road maintenance and emissions. You let the poor people who don't have a car pay for the road maintenance.
> 
> 
> 
> People without cars walk absolutely everywhere they go? Well I never knew that! Fascinating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, I never said anything remotely like that.
> What I said is that by not paying for road maintenance through higher fuel taxes, you get poor people who do not use roads, to help pay for them.
> Of course people without cars do not walk everywhere.
> The take mass transit, like trains and trolleys.  But even buses do not cause significant road wear like cars do.  Mass transit also causes a tiny fraction of as much emissions, deaths, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Poor people don’t use roads lol are you on crack?? Haha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of people do not have cars because they can't afford them.
> This is especially true in crowded places like NYC, San Francisco, etc., where parking and insurance is expensive.
> This is especially true with the young, like students, and the elderly who are retired.
Click to expand...

But you do know poor people have cars .. right?? Lol


----------



## Rigby5

Tipsycatlover said:


> Uhh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have millions of Europeans that would come here and do this farm work. Maybe not for the wage Mexicans do it for but they will assimilate. And add value to our country..
> Latinos are to subservient, they never protest democrats, most are doing something illegal, and they don’t invest in America most use us and move back home
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sounds as if you think everyone south of our border is the same. they aren't
> hispanic people have played important roles in the growth and creation of our country.
> but the mexican people are not the same as the people from honduras for example
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they have destroyed every neighborhood they moved in to.. that was once white..gtfo with your garbage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not true.
> Most neighborhoods that turn Hispanic end up having lower crime, more friendly, and better restaurants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a flat lie.   Crime map says the more hispanic the higher the crime.   I remember when Santa Ana was a kitchy little white art community.  Now you are more likely to get your throat slit than your purse stolen.
> 
> Santa Ana, California Crime
Click to expand...


One city or even one state is not very representative.

This appears to be saying that Hispanics are less criminal than average.


----------



## Rigby5

Jitss617 said:


> How about  Egleston Square in Boston ,, used to be white middle class then  Puerto Ricans move in and create a Latin Kings .. lol just murder, drugs, robbery



I doubt they could have afforded to move into a middle class neighborhood.
More likely is that the neighborhood ran down, became less expensive, and therefore attracted a poorer resident who was more likely to be involved in crime.


----------



## Dr Grump

Jitss617 said:


> Lol hmmm funny how many signed the constitution oppppppps



Funny. How many were allowed to.


----------



## Jitss617

Rigby5 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about  Egleston Square in Boston ,, used to be white middle class then  Puerto Ricans move in and create a Latin Kings .. lol just murder, drugs, robbery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt they could have afforded to move into a middle class neighborhood.
> More likely is that the neighborhood ran down, became less expensive, and therefore attracted a poorer resident who was more likely to be involved in crime.
Click to expand...

So you can’t answer my question


----------



## Jitss617

Dr Grump said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol hmmm funny how many signed the constitution oppppppps
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny. How many were allowed to.
Click to expand...

How many weren’t?? There were none lol America was all white haha


----------



## Rigby5

Jitss617 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree. Your standard of living is not at all better, as you don't get public health care and you lose coverage if you quit your job, you do not get good mass transit, and you do not get good air quality when there is no emission gasoline tax.
> The US cost of living is not lower, except that food is subsidized and some European areas are very crowded.
> How much house you have is not good, but bad because it means urban sprawl. You pay less for cars and gasoline because you are not being taxed for the road maintenance and emissions. You let the poor people who don't have a car pay for the road maintenance.
> 
> 
> 
> People without cars walk absolutely everywhere they go? Well I never knew that! Fascinating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, I never said anything remotely like that.
> What I said is that by not paying for road maintenance through higher fuel taxes, you get poor people who do not use roads, to help pay for them.
> Of course people without cars do not walk everywhere.
> The take mass transit, like trains and trolleys.  But even buses do not cause significant road wear like cars do.  Mass transit also causes a tiny fraction of as much emissions, deaths, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Poor people don’t use roads lol are you on crack?? Haha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of people do not have cars because they can't afford them.
> This is especially true in crowded places like NYC, San Francisco, etc., where parking and insurance is expensive.
> This is especially true with the young, like students, and the elderly who are retired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you do know poor people have cars .. right?? Lol
Click to expand...


Poor people have fewer cars than wealthy do.
Insurance, maintenance, parking, etc., can cost a whole lot of money.
The poorest segments of our society are students and elderly retired, and most of them do not have cars because they can't afford them.


----------



## Rigby5

Jitss617 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about  Egleston Square in Boston ,, used to be white middle class then  Puerto Ricans move in and create a Latin Kings .. lol just murder, drugs, robbery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt they could have afforded to move into a middle class neighborhood.
> More likely is that the neighborhood ran down, became less expensive, and therefore attracted a poorer resident who was more likely to be involved in crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can’t answer my question
Click to expand...


You did not ask a question.
You claimed a correlation between Hispanics moving in and the neighborhood going down hill.
But you did not establish which happened first, so you did not prove causation.


----------



## Rigby5

Jitss617 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol hmmm funny how many signed the constitution oppppppps
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny. How many were allowed to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many weren’t?? There were none lol America was all white haha
Click to expand...


America was never "all white".
There were always natives, Hispanics, Blacks, etc.


----------



## Jitss617

Rigby5 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> People without cars walk absolutely everywhere they go? Well I never knew that! Fascinating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I never said anything remotely like that.
> What I said is that by not paying for road maintenance through higher fuel taxes, you get poor people who do not use roads, to help pay for them.
> Of course people without cars do not walk everywhere.
> The take mass transit, like trains and trolleys.  But even buses do not cause significant road wear like cars do.  Mass transit also causes a tiny fraction of as much emissions, deaths, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Poor people don’t use roads lol are you on crack?? Haha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of people do not have cars because they can't afford them.
> This is especially true in crowded places like NYC, San Francisco, etc., where parking and insurance is expensive.
> This is especially true with the young, like students, and the elderly who are retired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you do know poor people have cars .. right?? Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor people have fewer cars than wealthy do.
> Insurance, maintenance, parking, etc., can cost a whole lot of money.
> The poorest segments of our society are students and elderly retired, and most of them do not have cars because they can't afford them.
Click to expand...

Are you say poor people don’t have cars yes or no?? And what bubble do you live in I’m going to send you internet connection lol


----------



## Jitss617

Rigby5 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about  Egleston Square in Boston ,, used to be white middle class then  Puerto Ricans move in and create a Latin Kings .. lol just murder, drugs, robbery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt they could have afforded to move into a middle class neighborhood.
> More likely is that the neighborhood ran down, became less expensive, and therefore attracted a poorer resident who was more likely to be involved in crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can’t answer my question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did not ask a question.
> You claimed a correlation between Hispanics moving in and the neighborhood going down hill.
> But you did not establish which happened first, so you did not prove causation.
Click to expand...

 Egleston Square was a white neighborhood in Boston middle class to poor,, then turned Latin and  they made a documentary on Latin Kings .. call me crazy I think crime went up lol


----------



## Porter Rockwell

busybee01 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Trump was truly serious about getting a handle on the problem of illegal immigration and not just blowing smoke up the skirts of his base he would find a way to get the issue of sanctuary cities, counties and states before the Supreme Court.
> 
> There is absolutely zero doubt that ignoring the laws you don't like, as the Jim Crow era governors of the South did
> at one time, and applying the law in an ala carte way, is not legal or Constitutional.
> 
> So why is someone like Michelle Lujan Grisham getting away with coming down on militia members in her state (and I am not especially enamored with militias in general and don't even own a gun)?
> They are attempting to aid our Border Patrol in enforcing the law. She is demonizing them for it. Where is the justice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militias need to be destroyed. Militia members blew up the federal building in OKC. Militias are a threat to this country.
> 
> Militias have been given no authority to enforce laws so detaining people is kidnapping. Even the Border Patrol says people should call rather than taking the law into their own hands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya and democrats call BP  kidnappers..
> 
> At the end of the day we will be taking our country back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've not invaded anyone, moron, so what the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> ANd for the love of God, try to actually make your fucking point, if you have the brain power to do so, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have been invaded by with supremacists and neo-nazis who have taken over the Republican Party.
> 
> If your kind left the country, the national IQ would double.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. Stupider than I thought.
> 
> 
> "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> To be clear, you are the lying asshole I was talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the lying little asshole., Filth like you is a national disgrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what would have made that post really powerful?
> 
> 
> If you had backed up your claim that I was lying, with a link proving that my claim,
> 
> ie, that  "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> to some study or something that proved that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you didn't do that....
> 
> 
> Almost as though you know that you CAN'T.
> 
> 
> To be clear, for the slower among us,
> 
> 
> I challenge you to back up your shit claim, that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America..
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to seeing whether you do the norm lib response, and dodge or deflect, or whether you are stupid enough to even TRY to back up this shit, and if so, what incredible shit you post to try to do so.
> 
> 
> FUn times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
> 2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
> Stephen King R-Iowa
> Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
> Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis
Click to expand...


Why everyone wants to be so dishonest (on both sides) regarding this issue is way beyond me.

Having been *IN* a civilian militia since 1987, I saw first hand what happened when the wallists (those who have made a religion out of wall worship) came in and co-opted the civilian militias over that one issue.

In order to understand the militia (as envisioned by the founders) we must return to the *primary* reason  we have a Second Amendment.  As Justice Joseph Story of the United States Supreme Court opined:

"_The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since* it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them*_."

- Joseph Story, _Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States_, 1833  (Justice Story was nominated by founding father James Madison)

If you are *IN* the militia, the* primary* function you serve is to serve the foundational principles as codified in the Constitution (i.e. the Bill of Rights for example.)  Instead of doing that, the wallists co-opted the civilian militias and forced them to begin chanting nonsense about borders, walls, etc.

In defending the wall worship manure, the wallists declared war against the Bill of Rights.  Their war against the Fourth Amendment, for example, wants *everyone* to be subject to the pee test, blood test, hair sample, DNA sample, criminal background check, credit check, MVR check, driver's license, National ID Card, E-Verify, gun license, fishing license, occupation license... 24 / 7 / 365 womb to the tomb monitoring.  They cannot apply this just to foreigners; it applies equally across the board due to the _equal protection clause_ of the 14th Amendment.

Since those former militia types want to have every detail of their lives at the disposal of an illegal government emanating out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption, they have demanded an end to their own privacy and anonymity.  Since information is the ultimate weapon, the people who used to make up the militia (and are now hooked into wall worship) are little more than lackeys for the government.  They are incapable of protecting the Constitution.  

Instead, they are being led around by neo-nazis and parroting socialist solutions while leaving their posts and not protecting the Bill of Rights.  Those people have done more to dismantle the Constitution than the left could do in over 200 years of our Republic's existence... and they did it in less than two decades.  

All of this back and forth is entertaining, but what IS simply IS.  Yeah, in early America, racism was the baliwick of the Democrats (who supported white racism.)  Today the blacks have taken over the Democrats and they are pushing black racism.  The whites, organized under former Democrat, Donald Trump, are pushing the National Socialist party line and a bastardized form of white racism.  

There is no point in denying any of it.  You're simply going to join one or the other of those extreme views OR you will get involved with a militia group that understands the Constitution and start worrying about Liberty.  The immigration / race issue is important, but is being used as a diversionary tactic to get everyone to agree to ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT without knowing how they ended up with it.


----------



## Jitss617

Rigby5 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol hmmm funny how many signed the constitution oppppppps
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny. How many were allowed to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many weren’t?? There were none lol America was all white haha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America was never "all white".
> There were always natives, Hispanics, Blacks, etc.
Click to expand...

 There was almost no Hispanics in America until we introduced welfare in the 1940s to 60s They started to suck the white tit.. Blacks only started to asimulate after slavery in the 1920s to 40s they voted republican and contributed to America,  again until Democrats introduced welfare things went down hill... but again no Latin, no Indian no black signed the constitution even though there were many free citizens..


----------



## Vandalshandle

Fortunately, the militia issue seems to be resolved by the arrest of their leader, who has felonies going back 23 years. The FBI and the BP have made it crystal clear to the rest of those nuts that they are not to point weapons at anyone, and that the only authorization they have is to watch, and report people crossing the border.

End of issue.


----------



## busybee01

Jitss617 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the lying little asshole., Filth like you is a national disgrace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what would have made that post really powerful?
> 
> 
> If you had backed up your claim that I was lying, with a link proving that my claim,
> 
> ie, that  "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> to some study or something that proved that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you didn't do that....
> 
> 
> Almost as though you know that you CAN'T.
> 
> 
> To be clear, for the slower among us,
> 
> 
> I challenge you to back up your shit claim, that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America..
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to seeing whether you do the norm lib response, and dodge or deflect, or whether you are stupid enough to even TRY to back up this shit, and if so, what incredible shit you post to try to do so.
> 
> 
> FUn times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
> 2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
> Stephen King R-Iowa
> Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
> Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can’t white people talk about other races like black people talk about other races?? It’s a free country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to talk about other races, you have every Right to do so.  You will not gain majority sentiment; you may even have to defend your Rights, but if you want to say it then you have every Right to do so.
> 
> BTW, whether I agree with you or not, I will fight to the death to protect your Right to say it.  Will you do so for me?  Read some of the earlier posts here.  IIRC, it was on this thread that another poster threatened me with censorship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are a country of a culture built by white Americans blacks can assimilate or not, but I will make fun of there culture Perpetrated by whites or blacks
Click to expand...


White America also introduced slavery for example. That is hardly anything to brag about.


----------



## skookerasbil

Vandalshandle said:


> Fortunately, the militia issue seems to be resolved by the arrest of their leader, who has felonies going back 23 years. The FBI and the BP have made it crystal clear to the rest of those nuts that they are not to point weapons at anyone, and that the only authorization they have is to watch, and report people crossing the border.
> 
> End of issue.



End of issue?

What?

How is it progressives can somehow just have zero ability to see past the matrix narrative. Youd think after 2016 they'd have gotten some level of clue about the real landscape. Nope.

This story means one thing....in the end, the open borders contingent will lose. Just a matter of when s0ns!

Real Americans are done with this shit!


----------



## Jitss617

busybee01 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what would have made that post really powerful?
> 
> 
> If you had backed up your claim that I was lying, with a link proving that my claim,
> 
> ie, that  "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> to some study or something that proved that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you didn't do that....
> 
> 
> Almost as though you know that you CAN'T.
> 
> 
> To be clear, for the slower among us,
> 
> 
> I challenge you to back up your shit claim, that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America..
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to seeing whether you do the norm lib response, and dodge or deflect, or whether you are stupid enough to even TRY to back up this shit, and if so, what incredible shit you post to try to do so.
> 
> 
> FUn times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
> 2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
> Stephen King R-Iowa
> Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
> Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can’t white people talk about other races like black people talk about other races?? It’s a free country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to talk about other races, you have every Right to do so.  You will not gain majority sentiment; you may even have to defend your Rights, but if you want to say it then you have every Right to do so.
> 
> BTW, whether I agree with you or not, I will fight to the death to protect your Right to say it.  Will you do so for me?  Read some of the earlier posts here.  IIRC, it was on this thread that another poster threatened me with censorship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are a country of a culture built by white Americans blacks can assimilate or not, but I will make fun of there culture Perpetrated by whites or blacks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White America also introduced slavery for example. That is hardly anything to brag about.
Click to expand...

 It was a conquering era ,, it was blacks that introduced it first. Only 1.6% of Americans owned slaves


----------



## busybee01

Jitss617 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol hmmm funny how many signed the constitution oppppppps
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny. How many were allowed to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many weren’t?? There were none lol America was all white haha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America was never "all white".
> There were always natives, Hispanics, Blacks, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was almost no Hispanics in America until we introduced welfare in the 1940s to 60s They started to suck the white tit.. Blacks only started to asimulate after slavery in the 1920s to 40s they voted republican and contributed to America,  again until Democrats introduced welfare things went down hill... but again no Latin, no Indian no black signed the constitution even though there were many free citizens..
Click to expand...


The Republican Party has become a party of white supremacists, neo-nazis and bigots in general.


----------



## Jitss617

busybee01 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol hmmm funny how many signed the constitution oppppppps
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny. How many were allowed to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many weren’t?? There were none lol America was all white haha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America was never "all white".
> There were always natives, Hispanics, Blacks, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was almost no Hispanics in America until we introduced welfare in the 1940s to 60s They started to suck the white tit.. Blacks only started to asimulate after slavery in the 1920s to 40s they voted republican and contributed to America,  again until Democrats introduced welfare things went down hill... but again no Latin, no Indian no black signed the constitution even though there were many free citizens..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Republican Party has become a party of white supremacists, neo-nazis and bigots in general.
Click to expand...

Wrong all cries of racial oppression only comes from towns run by Democrats.. black oppression by democrats have followed democrats from the south to the north.


----------



## busybee01

Jitss617 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
> 2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
> Stephen King R-Iowa
> Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
> Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis
> 
> 
> 
> Why can’t white people talk about other races like black people talk about other races?? It’s a free country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to talk about other races, you have every Right to do so.  You will not gain majority sentiment; you may even have to defend your Rights, but if you want to say it then you have every Right to do so.
> 
> BTW, whether I agree with you or not, I will fight to the death to protect your Right to say it.  Will you do so for me?  Read some of the earlier posts here.  IIRC, it was on this thread that another poster threatened me with censorship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are a country of a culture built by white Americans blacks can assimilate or not, but I will make fun of there culture Perpetrated by whites or blacks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White America also introduced slavery for example. That is hardly anything to brag about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a conquering era ,, it was blacks that introduced it first. Only 1.6% of Americans owned slaves
Click to expand...


They were shipped here by whites. No one put a gun to their heads and told them to introduce slaves to the US.


----------



## Jitss617

busybee01 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can’t white people talk about other races like black people talk about other races?? It’s a free country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to talk about other races, you have every Right to do so.  You will not gain majority sentiment; you may even have to defend your Rights, but if you want to say it then you have every Right to do so.
> 
> BTW, whether I agree with you or not, I will fight to the death to protect your Right to say it.  Will you do so for me?  Read some of the earlier posts here.  IIRC, it was on this thread that another poster threatened me with censorship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are a country of a culture built by white Americans blacks can assimilate or not, but I will make fun of there culture Perpetrated by whites or blacks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White America also introduced slavery for example. That is hardly anything to brag about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a conquering era ,, it was blacks that introduced it first. Only 1.6% of Americans owned slaves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were shipped here by whites. No one put a gun to their heads and told them to introduce slaves to the US.
Click to expand...

They had to be slaves first by BLACKS LOL 
It was a conquering era in the world.  Africans are still sold as slaves today .. it was whites that ended slavery republicans.


----------



## busybee01

Jitss617 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny. How many were allowed to.
> 
> 
> 
> How many weren’t?? There were none lol America was all white haha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America was never "all white".
> There were always natives, Hispanics, Blacks, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was almost no Hispanics in America until we introduced welfare in the 1940s to 60s They started to suck the white tit.. Blacks only started to asimulate after slavery in the 1920s to 40s they voted republican and contributed to America,  again until Democrats introduced welfare things went down hill... but again no Latin, no Indian no black signed the constitution even though there were many free citizens..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Republican Party has become a party of white supremacists, neo-nazis and bigots in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong all cries of racial oppression only comes from towns run by Democrats.. black oppression by democrats have followed democrats from the south to the north.
Click to expand...


Stephen King is a racist Republican.
The 2018 Republican candidate for Senate had ties to white supremacists.
A number of white supremacists and neo-nazis ran as Republicans.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Jitss617 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the lying little asshole., Filth like you is a national disgrace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what would have made that post really powerful?
> 
> 
> If you had backed up your claim that I was lying, with a link proving that my claim,
> 
> ie, that  "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> to some study or something that proved that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you didn't do that....
> 
> 
> Almost as though you know that you CAN'T.
> 
> 
> To be clear, for the slower among us,
> 
> 
> I challenge you to back up your shit claim, that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America..
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to seeing whether you do the norm lib response, and dodge or deflect, or whether you are stupid enough to even TRY to back up this shit, and if so, what incredible shit you post to try to do so.
> 
> 
> FUn times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
> 2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
> Stephen King R-Iowa
> Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
> Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can’t white people talk about other races like black people talk about other races?? It’s a free country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to talk about other races, you have every Right to do so.  You will not gain majority sentiment; you may even have to defend your Rights, but if you want to say it then you have every Right to do so.
> 
> BTW, whether I agree with you or not, I will fight to the death to protect your Right to say it.  Will you do so for me?  Read some of the earlier posts here.  IIRC, it was on this thread that another poster threatened me with censorship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are a country of a culture built by white Americans blacks can assimilate or not, but I will make fun of there culture Perpetrated by whites or blacks
Click to expand...


There is no doubt, no question to any honest person who studies our history:  America was founded by white Christians, most of them with a Bible in one hand and a rifle in the other.  

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/...e.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1489&context=wmlr

Bible's Influence on the Constitution | C-SPAN.org

The problem we face today is that there is virtually *NOBODY* out there who understands the Constitution and the core principles regarding *unalienable* Rights. Consequently, we have a lot of people out there who don't understand our country's founding culture and what they have today is one great big clusterphuck.

It's an iffy proposition to say anything against other races when the white race seems to want to commit cultural genocide.  They have set themselves up to be laughingstocks AND they are transferring the balance of power to people whose world view is antithetical to what the founders envisioned.  BTW, what have YOU done to stop the liberals from tearing down your statues, monuments and memorials?  Did you do anything to save the Confederate flag?  Did you protest the removal of the statue of Kate Smith this week whose race crime was singing God Bless America?  What militia activity have you engaged in that would protect, maintain and /or advance the cause of Liberty and protect the Bill of Rights?


----------



## busybee01

Jitss617 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to talk about other races, you have every Right to do so.  You will not gain majority sentiment; you may even have to defend your Rights, but if you want to say it then you have every Right to do so.
> 
> BTW, whether I agree with you or not, I will fight to the death to protect your Right to say it.  Will you do so for me?  Read some of the earlier posts here.  IIRC, it was on this thread that another poster threatened me with censorship.
> 
> 
> 
> We are a country of a culture built by white Americans blacks can assimilate or not, but I will make fun of there culture Perpetrated by whites or blacks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White America also introduced slavery for example. That is hardly anything to brag about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a conquering era ,, it was blacks that introduced it first. Only 1.6% of Americans owned slaves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were shipped here by whites. No one put a gun to their heads and told them to introduce slaves to the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had to be slaves first by BLACKS LOL
> It was a conquering era in the world.  Africans are still sold as slaves today .. it was whites that ended slavery republicans.
Click to expand...


That Republican Party no longer exists. It has been destroyed by Trump.


----------



## Jitss617

busybee01 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many weren’t?? There were none lol America was all white haha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America was never "all white".
> There were always natives, Hispanics, Blacks, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was almost no Hispanics in America until we introduced welfare in the 1940s to 60s They started to suck the white tit.. Blacks only started to asimulate after slavery in the 1920s to 40s they voted republican and contributed to America,  again until Democrats introduced welfare things went down hill... but again no Latin, no Indian no black signed the constitution even though there were many free citizens..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Republican Party has become a party of white supremacists, neo-nazis and bigots in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong all cries of racial oppression only comes from towns run by Democrats.. black oppression by democrats have followed democrats from the south to the north.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stephen King is a racist Republican.
> The 2018 Republican candidate for Senate had ties to white supremacists.
> A number of white supremacists and neo-nazis ran as Republicans.
Click to expand...

No democrat policy is why blacks are oppressed and rioting in towns run by democrats for 80 years lol


----------



## Jitss617

busybee01 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a country of a culture built by white Americans blacks can assimilate or not, but I will make fun of there culture Perpetrated by whites or blacks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> White America also introduced slavery for example. That is hardly anything to brag about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a conquering era ,, it was blacks that introduced it first. Only 1.6% of Americans owned slaves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were shipped here by whites. No one put a gun to their heads and told them to introduce slaves to the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had to be slaves first by BLACKS LOL
> It was a conquering era in the world.  Africans are still sold as slaves today .. it was whites that ended slavery republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That Republican Party no longer exists. It has been destroyed by Trump.
Click to expand...

Blacks are improving under trump.. sorry racist


----------



## Vandalshandle

skookerasbil said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately, the militia issue seems to be resolved by the arrest of their leader, who has felonies going back 23 years. The FBI and the BP have made it crystal clear to the rest of those nuts that they are not to point weapons at anyone, and that the only authorization they have is to watch, and report people crossing the border.
> 
> End of issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> End of issue?
> 
> What?
> 
> How is it progressives can somehow just have zero ability to see past the matrix narrative. Youd think after 2016 they'd have gotten some level of clue about the real landscape. Nope.
> 
> This story means one thing....in the end, the open borders contingent will lose. Just a matter of when s0ns!
Click to expand...


Interesting twist. The militia leader is in jail, and the militia can no longer brandish guns, and they win? Sounds like a Trumpism to me.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Dr Grump said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a country of a culture built by white Americans blacks can assimilate or not, but I will make fun of there culture Perpetrated by whites or blacks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd settle for you being semi-literate. Many cultures built the US.
Click to expand...


No they did not.  How many blacks, Orientals, Muslims or Mexicans signed the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation or the Constitution?

The *FIRST* naturalization law was put in place within months of the ratification of the Constitution.  Let it be your guide to the truth:

"_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a *free white person,* who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof_"

naturalization laws 1790-1795


----------



## Porter Rockwell

busybee01 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many weren’t?? There were none lol America was all white haha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America was never "all white".
> There were always natives, Hispanics, Blacks, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was almost no Hispanics in America until we introduced welfare in the 1940s to 60s They started to suck the white tit.. Blacks only started to asimulate after slavery in the 1920s to 40s they voted republican and contributed to America,  again until Democrats introduced welfare things went down hill... but again no Latin, no Indian no black signed the constitution even though there were many free citizens..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Republican Party has become a party of white supremacists, neo-nazis and bigots in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong all cries of racial oppression only comes from towns run by Democrats.. black oppression by democrats have followed democrats from the south to the north.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stephen King is a racist Republican.
> The 2018 Republican candidate for Senate had ties to white supremacists.
> A number of white supremacists and neo-nazis ran as Republicans.
Click to expand...


 A number of black supremacists ran as Democrats.  What is the point?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

busybee01 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what would have made that post really powerful?
> 
> 
> If you had backed up your claim that I was lying, with a link proving that my claim,
> 
> ie, that  "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> to some study or something that proved that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you didn't do that....
> 
> 
> Almost as though you know that you CAN'T.
> 
> 
> To be clear, for the slower among us,
> 
> 
> I challenge you to back up your shit claim, that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America..
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to seeing whether you do the norm lib response, and dodge or deflect, or whether you are stupid enough to even TRY to back up this shit, and if so, what incredible shit you post to try to do so.
> 
> 
> FUn times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
> 2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
> Stephen King R-Iowa
> Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
> Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can’t white people talk about other races like black people talk about other races?? It’s a free country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to talk about other races, you have every Right to do so.  You will not gain majority sentiment; you may even have to defend your Rights, but if you want to say it then you have every Right to do so.
> 
> BTW, whether I agree with you or not, I will fight to the death to protect your Right to say it.  Will you do so for me?  Read some of the earlier posts here.  IIRC, it was on this thread that another poster threatened me with censorship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are a country of a culture built by white Americans blacks can assimilate or not, but I will make fun of there culture Perpetrated by whites or blacks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White America also introduced slavery for example. That is hardly anything to brag about.
Click to expand...


Bull freaking shit.  The blacks invented slavery eons before the whites ever thought about it.  And, although whites practiced it, the black slaves in the colonies ate better and lived better than their blue collar, white contemporaries.


----------



## skookerasbil

Vandalshandle said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately, the militia issue seems to be resolved by the arrest of their leader, who has felonies going back 23 years. The FBI and the BP have made it crystal clear to the rest of those nuts that they are not to point weapons at anyone, and that the only authorization they have is to watch, and report people crossing the border.
> 
> End of issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> End of issue?
> 
> What?
> 
> How is it progressives can somehow just have zero ability to see past the matrix narrative. Youd think after 2016 they'd have gotten some level of clue about the real landscape. Nope.
> 
> This story means one thing....in the end, the open borders contingent will lose. Just a matter of when s0ns!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting twist. The militia leader is in jail, and the militia can no longer brandish guns, and they win? Sounds like a Trumpism to me.
Click to expand...


Exactly right s0n....that's the point!!!


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Vandalshandle said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately, the militia issue seems to be resolved by the arrest of their leader, who has felonies going back 23 years. The FBI and the BP have made it crystal clear to the rest of those nuts that they are not to point weapons at anyone, and that the only authorization they have is to watch, and report people crossing the border.
> 
> End of issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> End of issue?
> 
> What?
> 
> How is it progressives can somehow just have zero ability to see past the matrix narrative. Youd think after 2016 they'd have gotten some level of clue about the real landscape. Nope.
> 
> This story means one thing....in the end, the open borders contingent will lose. Just a matter of when s0ns!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting twist. The militia leader is in jail, and the militia can no longer brandish guns, and they win? Sounds like a Trumpism to me.
Click to expand...


The militia thinks Trump hung the moon and his anti-gun policy is unconstitutional on so many levels.  The bump stock ban

1) Violated the Second Amendment

2)  Took private property without just compensation (Fifth Amendment)

3)  It made illegal a product that was legally purchased and that violated the prohibition on ex post fact laws.  See Article I, section 9, clause 3

I don't know how much more "_winning_" America can stand under Trump.


----------



## Rigby5

Jitss617 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I never said anything remotely like that.
> What I said is that by not paying for road maintenance through higher fuel taxes, you get poor people who do not use roads, to help pay for them.
> Of course people without cars do not walk everywhere.
> The take mass transit, like trains and trolleys.  But even buses do not cause significant road wear like cars do.  Mass transit also causes a tiny fraction of as much emissions, deaths, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Poor people don’t use roads lol are you on crack?? Haha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A lot of people do not have cars because they can't afford them.
> This is especially true in crowded places like NYC, San Francisco, etc., where parking and insurance is expensive.
> This is especially true with the young, like students, and the elderly who are retired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you do know poor people have cars .. right?? Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor people have fewer cars than wealthy do.
> Insurance, maintenance, parking, etc., can cost a whole lot of money.
> The poorest segments of our society are students and elderly retired, and most of them do not have cars because they can't afford them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you say poor people don’t have cars yes or no?? And what bubble do you live in I’m going to send you internet connection lol
Click to expand...


There are about 250 million cars registered in the US.
Since many of those do not run, are collectibles, or more than one owned by the same person, like Jay Leno, then that leaves about 100 million at least without a car.


----------



## Jitss617

Rigby5 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor people don’t use roads lol are you on crack?? Haha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of people do not have cars because they can't afford them.
> This is especially true in crowded places like NYC, San Francisco, etc., where parking and insurance is expensive.
> This is especially true with the young, like students, and the elderly who are retired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you do know poor people have cars .. right?? Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor people have fewer cars than wealthy do.
> Insurance, maintenance, parking, etc., can cost a whole lot of money.
> The poorest segments of our society are students and elderly retired, and most of them do not have cars because they can't afford them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you say poor people don’t have cars yes or no?? And what bubble do you live in I’m going to send you internet connection lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are about 250 million cars registered in the US.
> Since many of those do not run, are collectibles, or more than one owned by the same person, like Jay Leno, then that leaves about 100 million at least without a car.
Click to expand...

Are you saying poor people don’t drive yes or no??


----------



## Jitss617

Vandalshandle said:


> Fortunately, the militia issue seems to be resolved by the arrest of their leader, who has felonies going back 23 years. The FBI and the BP have made it crystal clear to the rest of those nuts that they are not to point weapons at anyone, and that the only authorization they have is to watch, and report people crossing the border.
> 
> End of issue.


And if this was 1960 and you supported this action by the government you probably would have been confronted by your neighbors . this is sick that anyone would support  any prosecution of guys helping out border patrol


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Perception is not reality, and that governor is at best a fool and at worst a traitor.
> 
> 2. The Supreme Court has been wrong before, and it is wrong again. DEPORT THE FUCKING ILLEGALS. How hard is that to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Most psychologists would disagree with you:
> 
> 
> 2)  While I agree that the United States Supreme Court is wrong on a lot of issues, my perception as yours is NOT reality.  The fact that the high Court legislates from the bench IS reality.  It's not constitutional, but it is reality.  The United States Supreme Court says that undocumented foreigners being in the United States is *not *a crime.
> 
> Given that holding and working within the parameters of the law, the foreigner is in civil violation of the law, but an American that hires them is committing a criminal felony.  You want to uphold such B.S.?  Shame on you!
> 
> The employer owns the job he / she creates.  Under the Constitution, that employer has committed NO crime as the federal government has NO jurisdiction over who the state allows to stay within that state's respective border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I once  perceived an old oven mitt as not having a hole in it. When I picked up the hot tray, objective reality trumped my perception.
> "most psychologists" can go f**k themselves.
> 
> 2. I explained my reasoning, you cited an Authority. YOur claim that the state control their own immigration policy sounds insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll, you are not very intelligent.  Let's face it.  Let's talk reality.
> 
> From 1789 to 1875 the states DID determine who was welcome in their state and who was not.  First, however, let us answer a question.
> 
> What is immigration?  Immigration is defined as:
> 
> _The entrance into a country of foreigners for purposes of* permanent residence*. The correlative term _emigration _denotes the act of such persons in leaving their former country.
> 
> immigration_
> 
> So, if a person leaves a foreign country to become a *permanent resident*, they would be required to file papers with the federal government and become a citizen.  But, what happens when a person *does not *want to become a permanent resident?  The bottom line is that person *does not* fall under the purview of the Constitution.  So, how did Congress end up exercising control over all foreigners in all circumstances?
> 
> In 1875, in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman, The United States Supreme Court granted_ plenary powers_ to Congress over all aspects of immigration when the Commissioner of Immigration failed to even mount a defense to a case in San Francisco.  Here is something that was quite telling about that case:
> 
> "_The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case.[2]
> 
> ...The court was also critical of the lack of due process governing the immigration commissioner's decisions to mark particular immigrants as lewd and debauched
> 
> ...Most recently, in Arizona v. United States (2012), the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional some sections of Arizona's SB 1070, a law that would lead states to devote law enforcement resources to enforce some aspects of federal immigration law. The ruling cited Chy Lung v. Freeman as a precedent._.."
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia
> 
> Do I have to explain the irony of this case to you?  Or had you rather focus on the constitutionality of the real issue?  You see, you cannot show me any section of the Constitution where it gives the United States Supreme Court the* authority* to bestow upon any branch of government *any powers*.  That was unconstitutional legislating from the bench whether you benefited or not.  So, are you for screwing the Constitution if you benefit off the act?  See also:
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> Whatcha gonna do when it's YOUR Rights that are given to some government agency and then YOUR Rights are gone?  You will have done it to yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want unlimited and unvetted Third World immigration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you have to lie and start shit with people?  You can't think of a different approach?  You are not smart enough to be in this discussion.
> 
> FWIW, I have made at least twenty posts pointing to the fact that under Correll's strategy we will get a million new citizens each year until they have enough political clout to displace the posterity of the founders, making this discussion moot.  Correll, and those like him, are doing more to destroy the REPUBLIC than all the left combined!  Correll and the left are one and the same.
Click to expand...



I'm supporting the enforcement of our border, to prevent unlimited and unvetted Third World immigration into our nation.

YOu are attacking those who are tying to do that and supporting those who are encouraging the illegal immigration.


Please explain how you reached your above conclusion.


----------



## Correll

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Governor does not have the legal power to disregard the laws of this nation. That is not his job.
> 
> 
> 
> Leftist shitbags rationalize sanctuary policy by saying it's not their job to enforce federal law but that's not really the issue at all. No one is asking the governor of New Mexico to conduct ICE raids or check the status of suspected illegals.
> It's an absurd straw man lie.
> 
> When a state directly orders employees NOT to speak or communicate with federal immigration officers under any circumstances, for instance,  that crosses a line and sanctuary officials have gone from a hands off stance to actively
> opposing US federal law.
> 
> MIchelle Lujan Grisham doesn't get to decide which laws she wants to follow or not. That's what Jim Crow politicians did.
> She isn't entitled to pick and choose in an ala carte manner which laws she will deign to observe.
> 
> That's an absolute break down of law and order and the matter should be brought up to the Supreme Court. I can't believe it isn't illegal and improper to simply ignore the laws you don't wish to obey. Fucking leftists liars!
Click to expand...



Agreed.


----------



## Correll

busybee01 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Governor does not have the legal power to disregard the laws of this nation. That is not his job.
> 
> 
> 
> Leftist shitbags rationalize sanctuary policy by saying it's not their job to enforce federal law but that's not really the issue at all. No one is asking the governor of New Mexico to conduct ICE raids or check the status of suspected illegals.
> It's an absurd straw man lie.
> 
> When a state directly orders employees NOT to speak or communicate with federal immigration officers under any circumstances, for instance,  that crosses a line and sanctuary officials have gone from a hands off stance to actively
> opposing US federal law.
> 
> MIchelle Lujan Grisham doesn't get to decide which laws she wants to follow or not. That's what Jim Crow politicians did.
> She isn't entitled to pick and choose in an ala carte manner which laws she will deign to observe.
> 
> That's an absolute break down of law and order and the matter should be brought up to the Supreme Court. I can't believe it isn't illegal and improper to simply ignore the laws you don't wish to obey. Fucking leftists liars!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Local officials are under no obligation to enforce federal laws. The Supreme Court made it clear that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. It has nothing to do with Jim Crow laws.
Click to expand...




They arrested people that were helping to enforce the laws. That is more than just NOT enforcing them, that is actively undermining them.


----------



## Correll

busybee01 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Trump was truly serious about getting a handle on the problem of illegal immigration and not just blowing smoke up the skirts of his base he would find a way to get the issue of sanctuary cities, counties and states before the Supreme Court.
> 
> There is absolutely zero doubt that ignoring the laws you don't like, as the Jim Crow era governors of the South did
> at one time, and applying the law in an ala carte way, is not legal or Constitutional.
> 
> So why is someone like Michelle Lujan Grisham getting away with coming down on militia members in her state (and I am not especially enamored with militias in general and don't even own a gun)?
> They are attempting to aid our Border Patrol in enforcing the law. She is demonizing them for it. Where is the justice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Militias need to be destroyed. Militia members blew up the federal building in OKC. Militias are a threat to this country.
> 
> Militias have been given no authority to enforce laws so detaining people is kidnapping. Even the Border Patrol says people should call rather than taking the law into their own hands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya and democrats call BP  kidnappers..
> 
> At the end of the day we will be taking our country back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've not invaded anyone, moron, so what the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> ANd for the love of God, try to actually make your fucking point, if you have the brain power to do so, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have been invaded by with supremacists and neo-nazis who have taken over the Republican Party.
> 
> If your kind left the country, the national IQ would double.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. Stupider than I thought.
> 
> 
> "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> To be clear, you are the lying asshole I was talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the lying little asshole., Filth like you is a national disgrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what would have made that post really powerful?
> 
> 
> If you had backed up your claim that I was lying, with a link proving that my claim,
> 
> ie, that  "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> to some study or something that proved that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you didn't do that....
> 
> 
> Almost as though you know that you CAN'T.
> 
> 
> To be clear, for the slower among us,
> 
> 
> I challenge you to back up your shit claim, that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America..
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to seeing whether you do the norm lib response, and dodge or deflect, or whether you are stupid enough to even TRY to back up this shit, and if so, what incredible shit you post to try to do so.
> 
> 
> FUn times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
> 2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
> Stephen King R-Iowa
> Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
> Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis
Click to expand...



1. The Proud Boys are not neo nazis. 

2. Trump did condemn the white supremacists and neo nazis in charlottesville repeatedly. That you lie about that, shows that you know you need to lie.


----------



## Correll

busybee01 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what would have made that post really powerful?
> 
> 
> If you had backed up your claim that I was lying, with a link proving that my claim,
> 
> ie, that  "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> to some study or something that proved that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you didn't do that....
> 
> 
> Almost as though you know that you CAN'T.
> 
> 
> To be clear, for the slower among us,
> 
> 
> I challenge you to back up your shit claim, that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America..
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to seeing whether you do the norm lib response, and dodge or deflect, or whether you are stupid enough to even TRY to back up this shit, and if so, what incredible shit you post to try to do so.
> 
> 
> FUn times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
> 2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
> Stephen King R-Iowa
> Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
> Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can’t white people talk about other races like black people talk about other races?? It’s a free country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to talk about other races, you have every Right to do so.  You will not gain majority sentiment; you may even have to defend your Rights, but if you want to say it then you have every Right to do so.
> 
> BTW, whether I agree with you or not, I will fight to the death to protect your Right to say it.  Will you do so for me?  Read some of the earlier posts here.  IIRC, it was on this thread that another poster threatened me with censorship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are a country of a culture built by white Americans blacks can assimilate or not, but I will make fun of there culture Perpetrated by whites or blacks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White America also introduced slavery for example. That is hardly anything to brag about.
Click to expand...


Which does not contradict what he said. So, what is your point?


----------



## Correll

busybee01 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol hmmm funny how many signed the constitution oppppppps
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny. How many were allowed to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many weren’t?? There were none lol America was all white haha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America was never "all white".
> There were always natives, Hispanics, Blacks, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was almost no Hispanics in America until we introduced welfare in the 1940s to 60s They started to suck the white tit.. Blacks only started to asimulate after slavery in the 1920s to 40s they voted republican and contributed to America,  again until Democrats introduced welfare things went down hill... but again no Latin, no Indian no black signed the constitution even though there were many free citizens..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Republican Party has become a party of white supremacists, neo-nazis and bigots in general.
Click to expand...


Only a fucktard would say a lie like that. 


You ever say that to a republican's face, or are you only a complete asshole online?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Most psychologists would disagree with you:
> 
> 
> 2)  While I agree that the United States Supreme Court is wrong on a lot of issues, my perception as yours is NOT reality.  The fact that the high Court legislates from the bench IS reality.  It's not constitutional, but it is reality.  The United States Supreme Court says that undocumented foreigners being in the United States is *not *a crime.
> 
> Given that holding and working within the parameters of the law, the foreigner is in civil violation of the law, but an American that hires them is committing a criminal felony.  You want to uphold such B.S.?  Shame on you!
> 
> The employer owns the job he / she creates.  Under the Constitution, that employer has committed NO crime as the federal government has NO jurisdiction over who the state allows to stay within that state's respective border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I once  perceived an old oven mitt as not having a hole in it. When I picked up the hot tray, objective reality trumped my perception.
> "most psychologists" can go f**k themselves.
> 
> 2. I explained my reasoning, you cited an Authority. YOur claim that the state control their own immigration policy sounds insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll, you are not very intelligent.  Let's face it.  Let's talk reality.
> 
> From 1789 to 1875 the states DID determine who was welcome in their state and who was not.  First, however, let us answer a question.
> 
> What is immigration?  Immigration is defined as:
> 
> _The entrance into a country of foreigners for purposes of* permanent residence*. The correlative term _emigration _denotes the act of such persons in leaving their former country.
> 
> immigration_
> 
> So, if a person leaves a foreign country to become a *permanent resident*, they would be required to file papers with the federal government and become a citizen.  But, what happens when a person *does not *want to become a permanent resident?  The bottom line is that person *does not* fall under the purview of the Constitution.  So, how did Congress end up exercising control over all foreigners in all circumstances?
> 
> In 1875, in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman, The United States Supreme Court granted_ plenary powers_ to Congress over all aspects of immigration when the Commissioner of Immigration failed to even mount a defense to a case in San Francisco.  Here is something that was quite telling about that case:
> 
> "_The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case.[2]
> 
> ...The court was also critical of the lack of due process governing the immigration commissioner's decisions to mark particular immigrants as lewd and debauched
> 
> ...Most recently, in Arizona v. United States (2012), the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional some sections of Arizona's SB 1070, a law that would lead states to devote law enforcement resources to enforce some aspects of federal immigration law. The ruling cited Chy Lung v. Freeman as a precedent._.."
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia
> 
> Do I have to explain the irony of this case to you?  Or had you rather focus on the constitutionality of the real issue?  You see, you cannot show me any section of the Constitution where it gives the United States Supreme Court the* authority* to bestow upon any branch of government *any powers*.  That was unconstitutional legislating from the bench whether you benefited or not.  So, are you for screwing the Constitution if you benefit off the act?  See also:
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> Whatcha gonna do when it's YOUR Rights that are given to some government agency and then YOUR Rights are gone?  You will have done it to yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want unlimited and unvetted Third World immigration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you have to lie and start shit with people?  You can't think of a different approach?  You are not smart enough to be in this discussion.
> 
> FWIW, I have made at least twenty posts pointing to the fact that under Correll's strategy we will get a million new citizens each year until they have enough political clout to displace the posterity of the founders, making this discussion moot.  Correll, and those like him, are doing more to destroy the REPUBLIC than all the left combined!  Correll and the left are one and the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm supporting the enforcement of our border, to prevent unlimited and unvetted Third World immigration into our nation.
> 
> YOu are attacking those who are tying to do that and supporting those who are encouraging the illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> Please explain how you reached your above conclusion.
Click to expand...


I reached my conclusion by working all sides of the immigration issue.  I volunteered to work in a non-profit group that helped foreigners with immigration issues.  In addition to that I spent a number of years manning the border with civilian border patrols.  My resume would include having done research for John Tanton (who founded and runs such nonprofits as CIS, (Center for Immigration Studies), FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform), and Numbers USA.  Much of my research from the late 1970s is STILL used by the neo-nazi groups that permeate the wallist propaganda machine.  I know most of the movers and shakers on a first name basis.

I developed a number of research papers for right wing organizations over an 11 year period and spent 6 years working with foreigners in order to get a complete picture of the situation.

As a civilian militia member and officer, I watched the neo nazis drain militia personnel into immigration causes and abandon their posts that were necessary to retain our constitutional Liberties.  Having been on *all* sides I watched the left flip the right and today the wallists are doing exactly what Benjamin Franklin warned us NOT to do.  We are forfeiting Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety.

The primary way I reached my conclusions came back in the early 2000s when a group of Salvadorans tried to enter the United States by trespassing over private property.  They were met by Ranch Rescue, a civilian border group protecting property at the behest of the property owner, Jack Foote.  An altercation took place and the Salvadorans came out second best in round one.

In round two, the matter ended up in court with Ranch Rescue members ending up in prison and the property owner losing his home and land to the Salvadorans.  The judge ruled that the civilian border patrol had violated the "_civil rights_" of the Salvadorans.  Those "_civil rights_" obviously trumped the private property Rights of land owners (thanks to the illegally ratified 14th Amendment.)

Leiva v. Ranch Rescue

Bear in mind I was with the legal team that begged Foote and Ranch Rescue to appeal that decision.  They refused.  So, when the wallists tell you about your property Rights and duty to protect borders, they are feeding you a load of pure horse shit.  It was not the left or Democrats; liberals or "_open border_" types; it wasn't even Nancy Pelosi supporters that insured the foreigners would have "_civil rights" _regardless of whether they had papers or not.  That ruling was made possible by the neo nazis that developed the wall worship idea.  

In 2004, the border patrols were organized by neo nazis (honest to God real nazis) into an organization called the Minutemen.  Ever since, these people have worked day and night to screw you out of your *unalienable* Rights.  They lie to you (yes, due to the actions of the wallists, undocumented foreigners DO have rights.)  They propose solutions that are calculated so as to deprive you of your Rights and dismantle the Constitution.  While you are focused on foreigners - who are *economically profitable* for business,* your* Rights and *your* culture are disappearing from right under your nose.  In the case of that background check argument, you are helping destroy the militia, the Right to Privacy, the ability of free men to revolt against tyranny, and you are nullifying the Fourth Amendment.  Now, do you require proof of what I just said?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

busybee01 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol hmmm funny how many signed the constitution oppppppps
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny. How many were allowed to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many weren’t?? There were none lol America was all white haha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America was never "all white".
> There were always natives, Hispanics, Blacks, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was almost no Hispanics in America until we introduced welfare in the 1940s to 60s They started to suck the white tit.. Blacks only started to asimulate after slavery in the 1920s to 40s they voted republican and contributed to America,  again until Democrats introduced welfare things went down hill... but again no Latin, no Indian no black signed the constitution even though there were many free citizens..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Republican Party has become a party of white supremacists, neo-nazis and bigots in general.
Click to expand...



Trump is NOT the Republican Party.  Donald Trump is the ultimate change agent.  He was a Democrat and he is destroying the Republican Party from within.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

busybee01 said:


> Local officials are under no obligation to enforce federal laws. The Supreme Court made it clear that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. It has nothing to do with Jim Crow laws.


It has _everything_ to do with Jim Crow laws! You can't choose which laws you will observe and which laws you will ignore.
You have to be an absolute moron to deny that. No one is asking Libby Schaff or Gavin Newsom or Michelle Lujan-Grisham to conduct ICE raids themselves or track down the immigration status of the people they give cover to.

The very word "sanctuary" itself means a safe haven from the law. It means the law doesn't matter to sanctuary quislings in California or New Mexico or wherever it happens to be.

Can you let a rapist live in your home because you are under no obligation to help the police? You know damned well you would be arrested as an accessory to a crime if you did that. Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration shouldn't be an option
and show me any other law that you can choose not to observe. Name one! Go ahead.

Your lies are tiresome and bullshit. They aren't even effective as rhetorical devices. You cannot selectively apply the law!
Stop pretending, you ass!


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I once  perceived an old oven mitt as not having a hole in it. When I picked up the hot tray, objective reality trumped my perception.
> "most psychologists" can go f**k themselves.
> 
> 2. I explained my reasoning, you cited an Authority. YOur claim that the state control their own immigration policy sounds insane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll, you are not very intelligent.  Let's face it.  Let's talk reality.
> 
> From 1789 to 1875 the states DID determine who was welcome in their state and who was not.  First, however, let us answer a question.
> 
> What is immigration?  Immigration is defined as:
> 
> _The entrance into a country of foreigners for purposes of* permanent residence*. The correlative term _emigration _denotes the act of such persons in leaving their former country.
> 
> immigration_
> 
> So, if a person leaves a foreign country to become a *permanent resident*, they would be required to file papers with the federal government and become a citizen.  But, what happens when a person *does not *want to become a permanent resident?  The bottom line is that person *does not* fall under the purview of the Constitution.  So, how did Congress end up exercising control over all foreigners in all circumstances?
> 
> In 1875, in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman, The United States Supreme Court granted_ plenary powers_ to Congress over all aspects of immigration when the Commissioner of Immigration failed to even mount a defense to a case in San Francisco.  Here is something that was quite telling about that case:
> 
> "_The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case.[2]
> 
> ...The court was also critical of the lack of due process governing the immigration commissioner's decisions to mark particular immigrants as lewd and debauched
> 
> ...Most recently, in Arizona v. United States (2012), the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional some sections of Arizona's SB 1070, a law that would lead states to devote law enforcement resources to enforce some aspects of federal immigration law. The ruling cited Chy Lung v. Freeman as a precedent._.."
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia
> 
> Do I have to explain the irony of this case to you?  Or had you rather focus on the constitutionality of the real issue?  You see, you cannot show me any section of the Constitution where it gives the United States Supreme Court the* authority* to bestow upon any branch of government *any powers*.  That was unconstitutional legislating from the bench whether you benefited or not.  So, are you for screwing the Constitution if you benefit off the act?  See also:
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> Whatcha gonna do when it's YOUR Rights that are given to some government agency and then YOUR Rights are gone?  You will have done it to yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want unlimited and unvetted Third World immigration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you have to lie and start shit with people?  You can't think of a different approach?  You are not smart enough to be in this discussion.
> 
> FWIW, I have made at least twenty posts pointing to the fact that under Correll's strategy we will get a million new citizens each year until they have enough political clout to displace the posterity of the founders, making this discussion moot.  Correll, and those like him, are doing more to destroy the REPUBLIC than all the left combined!  Correll and the left are one and the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm supporting the enforcement of our border, to prevent unlimited and unvetted Third World immigration into our nation.
> 
> YOu are attacking those who are tying to do that and supporting those who are encouraging the illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> Please explain how you reached your above conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I reached my conclusion by working all sides of the immigration issue.  I volunteered to work in a non-profit group that helped foreigners with immigration issues.  In addition to that I spent a number of years manning the border with civilian border patrols.  My resume would include having done research for John Tanton (who founded and runs such nonprofits as CIS, (Center for Immigration Studies), FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform), and Numbers USA.  Much of my research from the late 1970s is STILL used by the neo-nazi groups that permeate the wallist propaganda machine.  I know most of the movers and shakers on a first name basis.
> 
> I developed a number of research papers for right wing organizations over an 11 year period and spent 6 years working with foreigners in order to get a complete picture of the situation.
> 
> As a civilian militia member and officer, I watched the neo nazis drain militia personnel into immigration causes and abandon their posts that were necessary to retain our constitutional Liberties.  Having been on *all* sides I watched the left flip the right and today the wallists are doing exactly what Benjamin Franklin warned us NOT to do.  We are forfeiting Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety.
> 
> The primary way I reached my conclusions came back in the early 2000s when a group of Salvadorans tried to enter the United States by trespassing over private property.  They were met by Ranch Rescue, a civilian border group protecting property at the behest of the property owner, Jack Foote.  An altercation took place and the Salvadorans came out second best in round one.
> 
> In round two, the matter ended up in court with Ranch Rescue members ending up in prison and the property owner losing his home and land to the Salvadorans.  The judge ruled that the civilian border patrol had violated the "_civil rights_" of the Salvadorans.  Those "_civil rights_" obviously trumped the private property Rights of land owners (thanks to the illegally ratified 14th Amendment.)
> 
> Leiva v. Ranch Rescue
> 
> Bear in mind I was with the legal team that begged Foote and Ranch Rescue to appeal that decision.  They refused.  So, when the wallists tell you about your property Rights and duty to protect borders, they are feeding you a load of pure horse shit.  It was not the left or Democrats; liberals or "_open border_" types; it wasn't even Nancy Pelosi supporters that insured the foreigners would have "_civil rights" _regardless of whether they had papers or not.  That ruling was made possible by the neo nazis that developed the wall worship idea.
> 
> In 2004, the border patrols were organized by neo nazis (honest to God real nazis) into an organization called the MinutemeTn.  Ever since, these people have worked day and night to screw you out of your *unalienable* Rights.  They lie to you (yes, due to the actions of the wallists, undocumented foreigners DO have rights.)  They propose solutions that are calculated so as to deprive you of your Rights and dismantle the Constitution.  While you are focused on foreigners - who are *economically profitable* for business,* your* Rights and *your* culture are disappearing from right under your nose.  In the case of that background check argument, you are helping destroy the militia, the Right to Privacy, the ability of free men to revolt against tyranny, and you are nullifying the Fourth Amendment.  Now, do you require proof of what I just said?
Click to expand...





I do not support giving the land of citizens to foreigners based on situations like you describe, so presenting that as an answer to why you think I support a million immigrants a year, makes no sense.


NONE.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Most psychologists would disagree with you:
> 
> 
> 2)  While I agree that the United States Supreme Court is wrong on a lot of issues, my perception as yours is NOT reality.  The fact that the high Court legislates from the bench IS reality.  It's not constitutional, but it is reality.  The United States Supreme Court says that undocumented foreigners being in the United States is *not *a crime.
> 
> Given that holding and working within the parameters of the law, the foreigner is in civil violation of the law, but an American that hires them is committing a criminal felony.  You want to uphold such B.S.?  Shame on you!
> 
> The employer owns the job he / she creates.  Under the Constitution, that employer has committed NO crime as the federal government has NO jurisdiction over who the state allows to stay within that state's respective border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I once  perceived an old oven mitt as not having a hole in it. When I picked up the hot tray, objective reality trumped my perception.
> "most psychologists" can go f**k themselves.
> 
> 2. I explained my reasoning, you cited an Authority. YOur claim that the state control their own immigration policy sounds insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll, you are not very intelligent.  Let's face it.  Let's talk reality.
> 
> From 1789 to 1875 the states DID determine who was welcome in their state and who was not.  First, however, let us answer a question.
> 
> What is immigration?  Immigration is defined as:
> 
> _The entrance into a country of foreigners for purposes of* permanent residence*. The correlative term _emigration _denotes the act of such persons in leaving their former country.
> 
> immigration_
> 
> So, if a person leaves a foreign country to become a *permanent resident*, they would be required to file papers with the federal government and become a citizen.  But, what happens when a person *does not *want to become a permanent resident?  The bottom line is that person *does not* fall under the purview of the Constitution.  So, how did Congress end up exercising control over all foreigners in all circumstances?
> 
> In 1875, in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman, The United States Supreme Court granted_ plenary powers_ to Congress over all aspects of immigration when the Commissioner of Immigration failed to even mount a defense to a case in San Francisco.  Here is something that was quite telling about that case:
> 
> "_The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case.[2]
> 
> ...The court was also critical of the lack of due process governing the immigration commissioner's decisions to mark particular immigrants as lewd and debauched
> 
> ...Most recently, in Arizona v. United States (2012), the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional some sections of Arizona's SB 1070, a law that would lead states to devote law enforcement resources to enforce some aspects of federal immigration law. The ruling cited Chy Lung v. Freeman as a precedent._.."
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia
> 
> Do I have to explain the irony of this case to you?  Or had you rather focus on the constitutionality of the real issue?  You see, you cannot show me any section of the Constitution where it gives the United States Supreme Court the* authority* to bestow upon any branch of government *any powers*.  That was unconstitutional legislating from the bench whether you benefited or not.  So, are you for screwing the Constitution if you benefit off the act?  See also:
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> Whatcha gonna do when it's YOUR Rights that are given to some government agency and then YOUR Rights are gone?  You will have done it to yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want unlimited and unvetted Third World immigration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you have to lie and start shit with people?  You can't think of a different approach?  You are not smart enough to be in this discussion.
> 
> FWIW, I have made at least twenty posts pointing to the fact that under Correll's strategy we will get a million new citizens each year until they have enough political clout to displace the posterity of the founders, making this discussion moot.  Correll, and those like him, are doing more to destroy the REPUBLIC than all the left combined!  Correll and the left are one and the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm supporting the enforcement of our border, to prevent unlimited and unvetted Third World immigration into our nation.
> 
> YOu are attacking those who are tying to do that and supporting those who are encouraging the illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> Please explain how you reached your above conclusion.
Click to expand...



..and here is more on the militia leader who the RW have raised to hero status:

FBI Received Reports Militia Leader Talked Of Assassin Training Targeting Obama, Soros

*Court recorders show that the militia was in training to kill Obama and Clinton.*


----------



## Vandalshandle

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Totally false. They simply do not hold people in their jails for violating federal law. In short, if the feds are not there to do their job and take them into custody when the county releases them, the county is not going to do their job for them. You are a virtual encyclopedia of misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> And you are a virtual encyclopedia of imagination.
> Everyone knows a dump like San Francisco won't hold prisoners for the feds. *But if the feds happen to call the county sheriff and just inquire about a certain prisoner being held and a release date the policy is to tell him to fuck off (but perhaps not in those exact words). *
> 
> Yes. Simply releasing information to federal agents is considered "doing the job of the federal government" and they are ordered not to comply.
> That is going far beyond simply not doing the work ICE should be doing to actual hostile proactive non cooperation that intentionally violates federal immigration law. So in a very real sense sanctuary cities and counties are intentionally and
> diligently breaking the law when they are sworn to uphold it.
Click to expand...


I am still waiting for a link of the above embolden part of your post. In the meantime, I am trying to visualize this:

Caller" "Is Garcia getting out of jail today?"
San Francisco County cop: "Who is asking"
Caller, "Immigration"
San Francisco County cop, "Fuck off" (Click)

Yeah, I am sure that is exactly what is happening.


----------



## Correll

Vandalshandle said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I once  perceived an old oven mitt as not having a hole in it. When I picked up the hot tray, objective reality trumped my perception.
> "most psychologists" can go f**k themselves.
> 
> 2. I explained my reasoning, you cited an Authority. YOur claim that the state control their own immigration policy sounds insane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll, you are not very intelligent.  Let's face it.  Let's talk reality.
> 
> From 1789 to 1875 the states DID determine who was welcome in their state and who was not.  First, however, let us answer a question.
> 
> What is immigration?  Immigration is defined as:
> 
> _The entrance into a country of foreigners for purposes of* permanent residence*. The correlative term _emigration _denotes the act of such persons in leaving their former country.
> 
> immigration_
> 
> So, if a person leaves a foreign country to become a *permanent resident*, they would be required to file papers with the federal government and become a citizen.  But, what happens when a person *does not *want to become a permanent resident?  The bottom line is that person *does not* fall under the purview of the Constitution.  So, how did Congress end up exercising control over all foreigners in all circumstances?
> 
> In 1875, in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman, The United States Supreme Court granted_ plenary powers_ to Congress over all aspects of immigration when the Commissioner of Immigration failed to even mount a defense to a case in San Francisco.  Here is something that was quite telling about that case:
> 
> "_The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case.[2]
> 
> ...The court was also critical of the lack of due process governing the immigration commissioner's decisions to mark particular immigrants as lewd and debauched
> 
> ...Most recently, in Arizona v. United States (2012), the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional some sections of Arizona's SB 1070, a law that would lead states to devote law enforcement resources to enforce some aspects of federal immigration law. The ruling cited Chy Lung v. Freeman as a precedent._.."
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia
> 
> Do I have to explain the irony of this case to you?  Or had you rather focus on the constitutionality of the real issue?  You see, you cannot show me any section of the Constitution where it gives the United States Supreme Court the* authority* to bestow upon any branch of government *any powers*.  That was unconstitutional legislating from the bench whether you benefited or not.  So, are you for screwing the Constitution if you benefit off the act?  See also:
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> Whatcha gonna do when it's YOUR Rights that are given to some government agency and then YOUR Rights are gone?  You will have done it to yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want unlimited and unvetted Third World immigration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you have to lie and start shit with people?  You can't think of a different approach?  You are not smart enough to be in this discussion.
> 
> FWIW, I have made at least twenty posts pointing to the fact that under Correll's strategy we will get a million new citizens each year until they have enough political clout to displace the posterity of the founders, making this discussion moot.  Correll, and those like him, are doing more to destroy the REPUBLIC than all the left combined!  Correll and the left are one and the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm supporting the enforcement of our border, to prevent unlimited and unvetted Third World immigration into our nation.
> 
> YOu are attacking those who are tying to do that and supporting those who are encouraging the illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> Please explain how you reached your above conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ..and here is more on the militia leader who the RW have raised to hero status:
> 
> FBI Received Reports Militia Leader Talked Of Assassin Training Targeting Obama, Soros
> 
> *Court recorders show that the militia was in training to kill Obama and Clinton.*
Click to expand...




1. Discussing his actions, even defending his actions in  this instance is hardly "raising him to hero status". 

2. Sorry the FBI, is not to be trusted, not after the Steele Dossier fiasco.

3. Do you support unlimited, unvetted Third World immigration to the US?


----------



## Correll

Vandalshandle said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Totally false. They simply do not hold people in their jails for violating federal law. In short, if the feds are not there to do their job and take them into custody when the county releases them, the county is not going to do their job for them. You are a virtual encyclopedia of misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> And you are a virtual encyclopedia of imagination.
> Everyone knows a dump like San Francisco won't hold prisoners for the feds. *But if the feds happen to call the county sheriff and just inquire about a certain prisoner being held and a release date the policy is to tell him to fuck off (but perhaps not in those exact words). *
> 
> Yes. Simply releasing information to federal agents is considered "doing the job of the federal government" and they are ordered not to comply.
> That is going far beyond simply not doing the work ICE should be doing to actual hostile proactive non cooperation that intentionally violates federal immigration law. So in a very real sense sanctuary cities and counties are intentionally and
> diligently breaking the law when they are sworn to uphold it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am still waiting for a link of the above embolden part of your post. In the meantime, I am trying to visualize this:
> 
> Caller" "Is Garcia getting out of jail today?"
> San Francisco County cop: "Who is asking"
> Caller, "Immigration"
> San Francisco County cop, "Fuck off" (Click)
> 
> Yeah, I am sure that is exactly what is happening.
Click to expand...



That is what Sanctuary City MEANS. That is what the stated policy of these cities and local governments ARE.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

busybee01 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what would have made that post really powerful?
> 
> 
> If you had backed up your claim that I was lying, with a link proving that my claim,
> 
> ie, that  "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> to some study or something that proved that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you didn't do that....
> 
> 
> Almost as though you know that you CAN'T.
> 
> 
> To be clear, for the slower among us,
> 
> 
> I challenge you to back up your shit claim, that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America..
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to seeing whether you do the norm lib response, and dodge or deflect, or whether you are stupid enough to even TRY to back up this shit, and if so, what incredible shit you post to try to do so.
> 
> 
> FUn times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
> 2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
> Stephen King R-Iowa
> Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
> Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can’t white people talk about other races like black people talk about other races?? It’s a free country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to talk about other races, you have every Right to do so.  You will not gain majority sentiment; you may even have to defend your Rights, but if you want to say it then you have every Right to do so.
> 
> BTW, whether I agree with you or not, I will fight to the death to protect your Right to say it.  Will you do so for me?  Read some of the earlier posts here.  IIRC, it was on this thread that another poster threatened me with censorship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are a country of a culture built by white Americans blacks can assimilate or not, but I will make fun of there culture Perpetrated by whites or blacks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White America also introduced slavery for example. That is hardly anything to brag about.
Click to expand...



How do you define "White?"  

Jews started the trading of slaves in the New World and, by white supremacist ideology, Jews ain't white.

Slavery and the Jews

How culpable were Dutch Jews in the slave trade? - Jewish Telegraphic Agency


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
> 2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
> Stephen King R-Iowa
> Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
> Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis
> 
> 
> 
> Why can’t white people talk about other races like black people talk about other races?? It’s a free country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to talk about other races, you have every Right to do so.  You will not gain majority sentiment; you may even have to defend your Rights, but if you want to say it then you have every Right to do so.
> 
> BTW, whether I agree with you or not, I will fight to the death to protect your Right to say it.  Will you do so for me?  Read some of the earlier posts here.  IIRC, it was on this thread that another poster threatened me with censorship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are a country of a culture built by white Americans blacks can assimilate or not, but I will make fun of there culture Perpetrated by whites or blacks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White America also introduced slavery for example. That is hardly anything to brag about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you define "White?"
> 
> Jews started the trading of slaves in the New World and, by white supremacist ideology, Jews ain't white.
> 
> Slavery and the Jews
> 
> How culpable were Dutch Jews in the slave trade? - Jewish Telegraphic Agency
Click to expand...



Why limit the discussion of slavery to the New World?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Local officials are under no obligation to enforce federal laws. The Supreme Court made it clear that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. It has nothing to do with Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> It has _everything_ to do with Jim Crow laws! You can't choose which laws you will observe and which laws you will ignore.
> You have to be an absolute moron to deny that. No one is asking Libby Schaff or Gavin Newsom or Michelle Lujan-Grisham to conduct ICE raids themselves or track down the immigration status of the people they give cover to.
> 
> The very word "sanctuary" itself means a safe haven from the law. It means the law doesn't matter to sanctuary quislings in California or New Mexico or wherever it happens to be.
> 
> Can you let a rapist live in your home because you are under no obligation to help the police? You know damned well you would be arrested as an accessory to a crime if you did that. Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration shouldn't be an option
> and show me any other law that you can choose not to observe. Name one! Go ahead.
> 
> Your lies are tiresome and bullshit. They aren't even effective as rhetorical devices. You cannot selectively apply the law!
> Stop pretending, you ass!
Click to expand...



I don't agree with some posters on their political stances many times.  I do disagree with you on your knowledge of the law.  Some of us have actually studied and worked in that field.  Now, I've heard your opinion about this subject and I've looked into how the United States Supreme Court would answer you.  Here it is:

_The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_

_The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._

_An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._

_Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._

_A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._

_An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law._

_Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._

_No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it._

_— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)_


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Local officials are under no obligation to enforce federal laws. The Supreme Court made it clear that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. It has nothing to do with Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> It has _everything_ to do with Jim Crow laws! You can't choose which laws you will observe and which laws you will ignore.
> You have to be an absolute moron to deny that. No one is asking Libby Schaff or Gavin Newsom or Michelle Lujan-Grisham to conduct ICE raids themselves or track down the immigration status of the people they give cover to.
> 
> The very word "sanctuary" itself means a safe haven from the law. It means the law doesn't matter to sanctuary quislings in California or New Mexico or wherever it happens to be.
> 
> Can you let a rapist live in your home because you are under no obligation to help the police? You know damned well you would be arrested as an accessory to a crime if you did that. Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration shouldn't be an option
> and show me any other law that you can choose not to observe. Name one! Go ahead.
> 
> Your lies are tiresome and bullshit. They aren't even effective as rhetorical devices. You cannot selectively apply the law!
> Stop pretending, you ass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with some posters on their political stances many times.  I do disagree with you on your knowledge of the law.  Some of us have actually studied and worked in that field.  Now, I've heard your opinion about this subject and I've looked into how the United States Supreme Court would answer you.  Here it is:
> 
> _The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law._
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._
> 
> _No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it._
> 
> _— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)_
Click to expand...



Are you trying to imply that Immigration laws are unconstitutional and thus it is ok for sanctuary cities to ignore them?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correll, you are not very intelligent.  Let's face it.  Let's talk reality.
> 
> From 1789 to 1875 the states DID determine who was welcome in their state and who was not.  First, however, let us answer a question.
> 
> What is immigration?  Immigration is defined as:
> 
> _The entrance into a country of foreigners for purposes of* permanent residence*. The correlative term _emigration _denotes the act of such persons in leaving their former country.
> 
> immigration_
> 
> So, if a person leaves a foreign country to become a *permanent resident*, they would be required to file papers with the federal government and become a citizen.  But, what happens when a person *does not *want to become a permanent resident?  The bottom line is that person *does not* fall under the purview of the Constitution.  So, how did Congress end up exercising control over all foreigners in all circumstances?
> 
> In 1875, in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman, The United States Supreme Court granted_ plenary powers_ to Congress over all aspects of immigration when the Commissioner of Immigration failed to even mount a defense to a case in San Francisco.  Here is something that was quite telling about that case:
> 
> "_The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case.[2]
> 
> ...The court was also critical of the lack of due process governing the immigration commissioner's decisions to mark particular immigrants as lewd and debauched
> 
> ...Most recently, in Arizona v. United States (2012), the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional some sections of Arizona's SB 1070, a law that would lead states to devote law enforcement resources to enforce some aspects of federal immigration law. The ruling cited Chy Lung v. Freeman as a precedent._.."
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia
> 
> Do I have to explain the irony of this case to you?  Or had you rather focus on the constitutionality of the real issue?  You see, you cannot show me any section of the Constitution where it gives the United States Supreme Court the* authority* to bestow upon any branch of government *any powers*.  That was unconstitutional legislating from the bench whether you benefited or not.  So, are you for screwing the Constitution if you benefit off the act?  See also:
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> Whatcha gonna do when it's YOUR Rights that are given to some government agency and then YOUR Rights are gone?  You will have done it to yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want unlimited and unvetted Third World immigration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you have to lie and start shit with people?  You can't think of a different approach?  You are not smart enough to be in this discussion.
> 
> FWIW, I have made at least twenty posts pointing to the fact that under Correll's strategy we will get a million new citizens each year until they have enough political clout to displace the posterity of the founders, making this discussion moot.  Correll, and those like him, are doing more to destroy the REPUBLIC than all the left combined!  Correll and the left are one and the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm supporting the enforcement of our border, to prevent unlimited and unvetted Third World immigration into our nation.
> 
> YOu are attacking those who are tying to do that and supporting those who are encouraging the illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> Please explain how you reached your above conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I reached my conclusion by working all sides of the immigration issue.  I volunteered to work in a non-profit group that helped foreigners with immigration issues.  In addition to that I spent a number of years manning the border with civilian border patrols.  My resume would include having done research for John Tanton (who founded and runs such nonprofits as CIS, (Center for Immigration Studies), FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform), and Numbers USA.  Much of my research from the late 1970s is STILL used by the neo-nazi groups that permeate the wallist propaganda machine.  I know most of the movers and shakers on a first name basis.
> 
> I developed a number of research papers for right wing organizations over an 11 year period and spent 6 years working with foreigners in order to get a complete picture of the situation.
> 
> As a civilian militia member and officer, I watched the neo nazis drain militia personnel into immigration causes and abandon their posts that were necessary to retain our constitutional Liberties.  Having been on *all* sides I watched the left flip the right and today the wallists are doing exactly what Benjamin Franklin warned us NOT to do.  We are forfeiting Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety.
> 
> The primary way I reached my conclusions came back in the early 2000s when a group of Salvadorans tried to enter the United States by trespassing over private property.  They were met by Ranch Rescue, a civilian border group protecting property at the behest of the property owner, Jack Foote.  An altercation took place and the Salvadorans came out second best in round one.
> 
> In round two, the matter ended up in court with Ranch Rescue members ending up in prison and the property owner losing his home and land to the Salvadorans.  The judge ruled that the civilian border patrol had violated the "_civil rights_" of the Salvadorans.  Those "_civil rights_" obviously trumped the private property Rights of land owners (thanks to the illegally ratified 14th Amendment.)
> 
> Leiva v. Ranch Rescue
> 
> Bear in mind I was with the legal team that begged Foote and Ranch Rescue to appeal that decision.  They refused.  So, when the wallists tell you about your property Rights and duty to protect borders, they are feeding you a load of pure horse shit.  It was not the left or Democrats; liberals or "_open border_" types; it wasn't even Nancy Pelosi supporters that insured the foreigners would have "_civil rights" _regardless of whether they had papers or not.  That ruling was made possible by the neo nazis that developed the wall worship idea.
> 
> In 2004, the border patrols were organized by neo nazis (honest to God real nazis) into an organization called the MinutemeTn.  Ever since, these people have worked day and night to screw you out of your *unalienable* Rights.  They lie to you (yes, due to the actions of the wallists, undocumented foreigners DO have rights.)  They propose solutions that are calculated so as to deprive you of your Rights and dismantle the Constitution.  While you are focused on foreigners - who are *economically profitable* for business,* your* Rights and *your* culture are disappearing from right under your nose.  In the case of that background check argument, you are helping destroy the militia, the Right to Privacy, the ability of free men to revolt against tyranny, and you are nullifying the Fourth Amendment.  Now, do you require proof of what I just said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not support giving the land of citizens to foreigners based on situations like you describe, so presenting that as an answer to why you think I support a million immigrants a year, makes no sense.
> 
> 
> NONE.
Click to expand...


Whether you support a given principle or not is irrelevant.  If / when you don't understand the law and you don't know from whence the political propaganda you spew originated from, you can unwittingly become part and parcel of an effort that may have unintended consequences for you.  Would you like a couple of examples?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Porter Rockwell said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
> 2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
> Stephen King R-Iowa
> Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
> Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis
> 
> 
> 
> Why can’t white people talk about other races like black people talk about other races?? It’s a free country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to talk about other races, you have every Right to do so.  You will not gain majority sentiment; you may even have to defend your Rights, but if you want to say it then you have every Right to do so.
> 
> BTW, whether I agree with you or not, I will fight to the death to protect your Right to say it.  Will you do so for me?  Read some of the earlier posts here.  IIRC, it was on this thread that another poster threatened me with censorship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are a country of a culture built by white Americans blacks can assimilate or not, but I will make fun of there culture Perpetrated by whites or blacks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White America also introduced slavery for example. That is hardly anything to brag about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you define "White?"
> 
> Jews started the trading of slaves in the New World and, by white supremacist ideology, Jews ain't white.
> 
> Slavery and the Jews
> 
> How culpable were Dutch Jews in the slave trade? - Jewish Telegraphic Agency
Click to expand...



Why limit it?  In a general conversation, I don't.  This thread, however, is about right wing militias so my comments must be relevant to their involvement in the allegations of slavery.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want unlimited and unvetted Third World immigration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you have to lie and start shit with people?  You can't think of a different approach?  You are not smart enough to be in this discussion.
> 
> FWIW, I have made at least twenty posts pointing to the fact that under Correll's strategy we will get a million new citizens each year until they have enough political clout to displace the posterity of the founders, making this discussion moot.  Correll, and those like him, are doing more to destroy the REPUBLIC than all the left combined!  Correll and the left are one and the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm supporting the enforcement of our border, to prevent unlimited and unvetted Third World immigration into our nation.
> 
> YOu are attacking those who are tying to do that and supporting those who are encouraging the illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> Please explain how you reached your above conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I reached my conclusion by working all sides of the immigration issue.  I volunteered to work in a non-profit group that helped foreigners with immigration issues.  In addition to that I spent a number of years manning the border with civilian border patrols.  My resume would include having done research for John Tanton (who founded and runs such nonprofits as CIS, (Center for Immigration Studies), FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform), and Numbers USA.  Much of my research from the late 1970s is STILL used by the neo-nazi groups that permeate the wallist propaganda machine.  I know most of the movers and shakers on a first name basis.
> 
> I developed a number of research papers for right wing organizations over an 11 year period and spent 6 years working with foreigners in order to get a complete picture of the situation.
> 
> As a civilian militia member and officer, I watched the neo nazis drain militia personnel into immigration causes and abandon their posts that were necessary to retain our constitutional Liberties.  Having been on *all* sides I watched the left flip the right and today the wallists are doing exactly what Benjamin Franklin warned us NOT to do.  We are forfeiting Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety.
> 
> The primary way I reached my conclusions came back in the early 2000s when a group of Salvadorans tried to enter the United States by trespassing over private property.  They were met by Ranch Rescue, a civilian border group protecting property at the behest of the property owner, Jack Foote.  An altercation took place and the Salvadorans came out second best in round one.
> 
> In round two, the matter ended up in court with Ranch Rescue members ending up in prison and the property owner losing his home and land to the Salvadorans.  The judge ruled that the civilian border patrol had violated the "_civil rights_" of the Salvadorans.  Those "_civil rights_" obviously trumped the private property Rights of land owners (thanks to the illegally ratified 14th Amendment.)
> 
> Leiva v. Ranch Rescue
> 
> Bear in mind I was with the legal team that begged Foote and Ranch Rescue to appeal that decision.  They refused.  So, when the wallists tell you about your property Rights and duty to protect borders, they are feeding you a load of pure horse shit.  It was not the left or Democrats; liberals or "_open border_" types; it wasn't even Nancy Pelosi supporters that insured the foreigners would have "_civil rights" _regardless of whether they had papers or not.  That ruling was made possible by the neo nazis that developed the wall worship idea.
> 
> In 2004, the border patrols were organized by neo nazis (honest to God real nazis) into an organization called the MinutemeTn.  Ever since, these people have worked day and night to screw you out of your *unalienable* Rights.  They lie to you (yes, due to the actions of the wallists, undocumented foreigners DO have rights.)  They propose solutions that are calculated so as to deprive you of your Rights and dismantle the Constitution.  While you are focused on foreigners - who are *economically profitable* for business,* your* Rights and *your* culture are disappearing from right under your nose.  In the case of that background check argument, you are helping destroy the militia, the Right to Privacy, the ability of free men to revolt against tyranny, and you are nullifying the Fourth Amendment.  Now, do you require proof of what I just said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not support giving the land of citizens to foreigners based on situations like you describe, so presenting that as an answer to why you think I support a million immigrants a year, makes no sense.
> 
> 
> NONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether you support a given principle or not is irrelevant.  If / when you don't understand the law and you don't know from whence the political propaganda you spew originated from, you can unwittingly become part and parcel of an effort that may have unintended consequences for you.  Would you like a couple of examples?
Click to expand...




1. Calling my posts "political propaganda" instead of addressing what I actually say, is just you being rude.


2  REfuseing to address what I actually say, and trying to tie what I said in with other people that you see some similarity to, is you being dishonest.

3. If you disagree with what I say, explain why, as concisely as you can. 

4. Save the name calling for the tourists. iF you see your fingers typing "nazis" or "wallist" give yourself a hard shake, and try again.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Vandalshandle said:


> and here is more on the militia leader who the RW have raised to hero status:
> 
> FBI Received Reports Militia Leader Talked Of Assassin Training Targeting Obama, Soros
> 
> *Court recorders show that the militia was in training to kill Obama and Clinton.*


This is all a side show for leftist shitbags to hold up and point to....looks like it works for you.

Larry Mitchell Hopkins and his twenty _(count em' twenty_) whole followers are not a threat to the nation.

But a porous collapsed border is! The people who have entered the nation and reside here illegally represent well over one hundred billion dollars of cost to taxpayers every single year! Record $135 billion a year for illegal immigration, average $8,075 each, $25,000 in NY
That's all tax payer money not available to citizens because it is going to support criminals living in our midst.
Larry Mitchell Hopkins is not responsible for that.

They represent all sorts of communicable diseases that are being brought into our nation that we haven't seen here in decades, or never seen at all! You can't blame Larry Mitchell Hopkins for that!

They represent a frightening demographic shift because the long term implications of a large and growing group of people who all owe their very presence in the U.S. to a blatant disregard for our laws and our generous safety net does not bode well for the nation...unless you are in the DNC and you make your living attracting supporters by out preforming the other party in terms of giving away free stuff in return for their votes.

Gee...there must be a reason why Pelosi and Schumer will not budge on the issue of a border barrier of some sort.
Could this be the reason? Well, duh! Once more, Larry Mitchell Hopkins not responsible for that
as well as the rape, murder, theft, drug and human trafficking committed by illegal immigrants.
He didn't do any of that. 

Well, maybe you get the idea (but you almost certainly won't). And please don't pretend I am endorsing this man who was nabbed by the FBI, after the New Mexico governor screamed that some of the people who were entering the country illegally were being stopped. I am not!

I am saying he is a side show and his existence should not take attention away from how Marxist organizers in the U.S. are actively trying to collapse the Southern border through the groups they are organizing and supporting and hopefully giving the U.S. a black eye.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


> I don't agree with some posters on their political stances many times. I do disagree with you on your knowledge of the law. Some of us have actually studied and worked in that field. Now, I've heard your opinion about this subject and I've looked into how the United States Supreme Court would answer you. Here it is:
> 
> _The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law._
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._
> 
> _No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it._
> 
> _— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)_


How is any of this pertinent to what I posted? You've cited a wonderful commentary but it is completely irrelevant
since it has not been applied to my comments in any way at all.

So it sounds impressive but it exists in an intellectual vacuum and is therefor useless.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Local officials are under no obligation to enforce federal laws. The Supreme Court made it clear that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. It has nothing to do with Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> It has _everything_ to do with Jim Crow laws! You can't choose which laws you will observe and which laws you will ignore.
> You have to be an absolute moron to deny that. No one is asking Libby Schaff or Gavin Newsom or Michelle Lujan-Grisham to conduct ICE raids themselves or track down the immigration status of the people they give cover to.
> 
> The very word "sanctuary" itself means a safe haven from the law. It means the law doesn't matter to sanctuary quislings in California or New Mexico or wherever it happens to be.
> 
> Can you let a rapist live in your home because you are under no obligation to help the police? You know damned well you would be arrested as an accessory to a crime if you did that. Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration shouldn't be an option
> and show me any other law that you can choose not to observe. Name one! Go ahead.
> 
> Your lies are tiresome and bullshit. They aren't even effective as rhetorical devices. You cannot selectively apply the law!
> Stop pretending, you ass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with some posters on their political stances many times.  I do disagree with you on your knowledge of the law.  Some of us have actually studied and worked in that field.  Now, I've heard your opinion about this subject and I've looked into how the United States Supreme Court would answer you.  Here it is:
> 
> _The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law._
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._
> 
> _No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it._
> 
> _— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)_
Click to expand...

Translation:
Either 4 or 5 judges would agree.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Local officials are under no obligation to enforce federal laws. The Supreme Court made it clear that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. It has nothing to do with Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> It has _everything_ to do with Jim Crow laws! You can't choose which laws you will observe and which laws you will ignore.
> You have to be an absolute moron to deny that. No one is asking Libby Schaff or Gavin Newsom or Michelle Lujan-Grisham to conduct ICE raids themselves or track down the immigration status of the people they give cover to.
> 
> The very word "sanctuary" itself means a safe haven from the law. It means the law doesn't matter to sanctuary quislings in California or New Mexico or wherever it happens to be.
> 
> Can you let a rapist live in your home because you are under no obligation to help the police? You know damned well you would be arrested as an accessory to a crime if you did that. Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration shouldn't be an option
> and show me any other law that you can choose not to observe. Name one! Go ahead.
> 
> Your lies are tiresome and bullshit. They aren't even effective as rhetorical devices. You cannot selectively apply the law!
> Stop pretending, you ass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with some posters on their political stances many times.  I do disagree with you on your knowledge of the law.  Some of us have actually studied and worked in that field.  Now, I've heard your opinion about this subject and I've looked into how the United States Supreme Court would answer you.  Here it is:
> 
> _The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law._
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._
> 
> _No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it._
> 
> _— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to imply that Immigration laws are unconstitutional and thus it is ok for sanctuary cities to ignore them?
Click to expand...


How many times have I asked you to show me that section of the Constitution that gives the federal government jurisdiction over the states to invite whomever they choose to let in?

You try to make your life all about what you believe with this garden variety of questions like when did you quit beating your wife.  What you need to do is step back and examine the issue from the perspective of others.  The left and the right have appealed to each other.  I'm on the outside, looking in.  BOTH of you are going to the same destination, just by different routes.  So, let me dumb this down for you.

There was a time in America when we respected the constitutional Rights of individuals and the federal government had *some* modicum of respect for states rights.  

Back then employers hired whomever they chose.  Since that was the case, they relied on what neighbors and former employers had to say with respect to a job candidate.  Today, people like you want to "_vet_" potential workers.  Part of your religion says that government is God.  And so, you want to take the word of liars in government.  Adding insult to injury, you are naive enough to think that a foreign government that lies to us and disagrees with us is going to give us the straight skinny about some individual they want to pawn off on us OR an individual that is going to do us harm.

When employers were required to hire X number of blacks, Y number of women, Z number of gays / transgender, etc. it took away the private property Rights of Americans.  An American owns the job as much as a writer owns the words to the music or manuscript they wrote.  When *ANY* law puts those Rights into jeopardy, they are unconstitutional.  When you limit the private sector's ability to get government records about an individual, then you have to rely on people who actually *KNOW* the person you want to do business with.

There are times when it is applicable to have information on potential workers: you don't want pedophiles watching your kids and you don't want a bank robber to work in a bank.  But, in your world, those people cannot find *ANY* job since *ANY* criminal act precludes those people from finding *ANY* job.  Employers are able to access records that are irrelevant to their needs.  Americans get locked out of jobs due to these background checks and MILLIONS wind up on welfare.

I might be wrong, but I don't think you're so stupid that you don't realize that a background check cannot be limited to people you don't like and just of the purpose of delving into their immigration status (and yes, those laws *are* unconstitutional.)  The background check, as applied by employers, is a clear cut violation of the Fourth Amendment.  We may try to make bogus arguments that the limitation applies to the government; however, what you want is for the employer to an agent of law enforcement for federal officials.  THAT is what makes it unconstitutional.

As to federal law, the federal government has *NO* jurisdiction in who may or may not be invited into a state. This bogus B.S. about "_vetting_" foreigners is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog.  What you are advocating is pure socialism.  Background checks did not stop the parents of Nidal Hasan from brainwashing their son with Muslim crap that led him to kill 13 of his fellow soldiers and injure 30 more.  It did not stop the Boston Marathon Bombers; had no effect on stopping the son of a Muslim politician from killing 49 people in a bar in Florida.  It did not stop the San Bernadino shooters.   Even the 9 / 11 attackers were background checked.  Bottom line: background checks are ineffective AND *there are better ways*.  

If you still do not understand why I'm against background checks, I will do yet another long winded diatribe on the effects they've had on the Bill of Rights.  Quit asking rhetorical questions suggesting you have the only answer - you don't.  Quit being a liar and suggesting that those who disagree with your solutions want to flood this country with foreigners.  Your strategies are going to fail; you're going to make enemies when some day you might need the support of constitutionalists.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you have to lie and start shit with people?  You can't think of a different approach?  You are not smart enough to be in this discussion.
> 
> FWIW, I have made at least twenty posts pointing to the fact that under Correll's strategy we will get a million new citizens each year until they have enough political clout to displace the posterity of the founders, making this discussion moot.  Correll, and those like him, are doing more to destroy the REPUBLIC than all the left combined!  Correll and the left are one and the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm supporting the enforcement of our border, to prevent unlimited and unvetted Third World immigration into our nation.
> 
> YOu are attacking those who are tying to do that and supporting those who are encouraging the illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> Please explain how you reached your above conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I reached my conclusion by working all sides of the immigration issue.  I volunteered to work in a non-profit group that helped foreigners with immigration issues.  In addition to that I spent a number of years manning the border with civilian border patrols.  My resume would include having done research for John Tanton (who founded and runs such nonprofits as CIS, (Center for Immigration Studies), FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform), and Numbers USA.  Much of my research from the late 1970s is STILL used by the neo-nazi groups that permeate the wallist propaganda machine.  I know most of the movers and shakers on a first name basis.
> 
> I developed a number of research papers for right wing organizations over an 11 year period and spent 6 years working with foreigners in order to get a complete picture of the situation.
> 
> As a civilian militia member and officer, I watched the neo nazis drain militia personnel into immigration causes and abandon their posts that were necessary to retain our constitutional Liberties.  Having been on *all* sides I watched the left flip the right and today the wallists are doing exactly what Benjamin Franklin warned us NOT to do.  We are forfeiting Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety.
> 
> The primary way I reached my conclusions came back in the early 2000s when a group of Salvadorans tried to enter the United States by trespassing over private property.  They were met by Ranch Rescue, a civilian border group protecting property at the behest of the property owner, Jack Foote.  An altercation took place and the Salvadorans came out second best in round one.
> 
> In round two, the matter ended up in court with Ranch Rescue members ending up in prison and the property owner losing his home and land to the Salvadorans.  The judge ruled that the civilian border patrol had violated the "_civil rights_" of the Salvadorans.  Those "_civil rights_" obviously trumped the private property Rights of land owners (thanks to the illegally ratified 14th Amendment.)
> 
> Leiva v. Ranch Rescue
> 
> Bear in mind I was with the legal team that begged Foote and Ranch Rescue to appeal that decision.  They refused.  So, when the wallists tell you about your property Rights and duty to protect borders, they are feeding you a load of pure horse shit.  It was not the left or Democrats; liberals or "_open border_" types; it wasn't even Nancy Pelosi supporters that insured the foreigners would have "_civil rights" _regardless of whether they had papers or not.  That ruling was made possible by the neo nazis that developed the wall worship idea.
> 
> In 2004, the border patrols were organized by neo nazis (honest to God real nazis) into an organization called the MinutemeTn.  Ever since, these people have worked day and night to screw you out of your *unalienable* Rights.  They lie to you (yes, due to the actions of the wallists, undocumented foreigners DO have rights.)  They propose solutions that are calculated so as to deprive you of your Rights and dismantle the Constitution.  While you are focused on foreigners - who are *economically profitable* for business,* your* Rights and *your* culture are disappearing from right under your nose.  In the case of that background check argument, you are helping destroy the militia, the Right to Privacy, the ability of free men to revolt against tyranny, and you are nullifying the Fourth Amendment.  Now, do you require proof of what I just said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not support giving the land of citizens to foreigners based on situations like you describe, so presenting that as an answer to why you think I support a million immigrants a year, makes no sense.
> 
> 
> NONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether you support a given principle or not is irrelevant.  If / when you don't understand the law and you don't know from whence the political propaganda you spew originated from, you can unwittingly become part and parcel of an effort that may have unintended consequences for you.  Would you like a couple of examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Calling my posts "political propaganda" instead of addressing what I actually say, is just you being rude.
> 
> 
> 2  REfuseing to address what I actually say, and trying to tie what I said in with other people that you see some similarity to, is you being dishonest.
> 
> 3. If you disagree with what I say, explain why, as concisely as you can.
> 
> 4. Save the name calling for the tourists. iF you see your fingers typing "nazis" or "wallist" give yourself a hard shake, and try again.
Click to expand...


Son, what I said about wallists is true.  If you challenge me again, you will be introduced to a long post that will prove, unequivocally who it is running the show.  They aren't just racists or left of center.  They are bonafide real life nazis.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Local officials are under no obligation to enforce federal laws. The Supreme Court made it clear that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. It has nothing to do with Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> It has _everything_ to do with Jim Crow laws! You can't choose which laws you will observe and which laws you will ignore.
> You have to be an absolute moron to deny that. No one is asking Libby Schaff or Gavin Newsom or Michelle Lujan-Grisham to conduct ICE raids themselves or track down the immigration status of the people they give cover to.
> 
> The very word "sanctuary" itself means a safe haven from the law. It means the law doesn't matter to sanctuary quislings in California or New Mexico or wherever it happens to be.
> 
> Can you let a rapist live in your home because you are under no obligation to help the police? You know damned well you would be arrested as an accessory to a crime if you did that. Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration shouldn't be an option
> and show me any other law that you can choose not to observe. Name one! Go ahead.
> 
> Your lies are tiresome and bullshit. They aren't even effective as rhetorical devices. You cannot selectively apply the law!
> Stop pretending, you ass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with some posters on their political stances many times.  I do disagree with you on your knowledge of the law.  Some of us have actually studied and worked in that field.  Now, I've heard your opinion about this subject and I've looked into how the United States Supreme Court would answer you.  Here it is:
> 
> _The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law._
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._
> 
> _No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it._
> 
> _— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to imply that Immigration laws are unconstitutional and thus it is ok for sanctuary cities to ignore them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times have I asked you to show me that section of the Constitution that gives the federal government jurisdiction over the states to invite whomever they choose to let in?
> 
> You try to make your life all about what you believe with this garden variety of questions like when did you quit beating your wife.  What you need to do is step back and examine the issue from the perspective of others.  The left and the right have appealed to each other.  I'm on the outside, looking in.  BOTH of you are going to the same destination, just by different routes.  So, let me dumb this down for you.
> 
> There was a time in America when we respected the constitutional Rights of individuals and the federal government had *some* modicum of respect for states rights.
> 
> Back then employers hired whomever they chose.  Since that was the case, they relied on what neighbors and former employers had to say with respect to a job candidate.  Today, people like you want to "_vet_" potential workers.  Part of your religion says that government is God.  And so, you want to take the word of liars in government.  Adding insult to injury, you are naive enough to think that a foreign government that lies to us and disagrees with us is going to give us the straight skinny about some individual they want to pawn off on us OR an individual that is going to do us harm.
> 
> When employers were required to hire X number of blacks, Y number of women, Z number of gays / transgender, etc. it took away the private property Rights of Americans.  An American owns the job as much as a writer owns the words to the music or manuscript they wrote.  When *ANY* law puts those Rights into jeopardy, they are unconstitutional.  When you limit the private sector's ability to get government records about an individual, then you have to rely on people who actually *KNOW* the person you want to do business with.
> 
> There are times when it is applicable to have information on potential workers: you don't want pedophiles watching your kids and you don't want a bank robber to work in a bank.  But, in your world, those people cannot find *ANY* job since *ANY* criminal act precludes those people from finding *ANY* job.  Employers are able to access records that are irrelevant to their needs.  Americans get locked out of jobs due to these background checks and MILLIONS wind up on welfare.
> 
> I might be wrong, but I don't think you're so stupid that you don't realize that a background check cannot be limited to people you don't like and just of the purpose of delving into their immigration status (and yes, those laws *are* unconstitutional.)  The background check, as applied by employers, is a clear cut violation of the Fourth Amendment.  We may try to make bogus arguments that the limitation applies to the government; however, what you want is for the employer to an agent of law enforcement for federal officials.  THAT is what makes it unconstitutional.
> 
> As to federal law, the federal government has *NO* jurisdiction in who may or may not be invited into a state. This bogus B.S. about "_vetting_" foreigners is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog.  What you are advocating is pure socialism.  Background checks did not stop the parents of Nidal Hasan from brainwashing their son with Muslim crap that led him to kill 13 of his fellow soldiers and injure 30 more.  It did not stop the Boston Marathon Bombers; had no effect on stopping the son of a Muslim politician from killing 49 people in a bar in Florida.  It did not stop the San Bernadino shooters.   Even the 9 / 11 attackers were background checked.  Bottom line: background checks are ineffective AND *there are better ways*.
> 
> If you still do not understand why I'm against background checks, I will do yet another long winded diatribe on the effects they've had on the Bill of Rights.  Quit asking rhetorical questions suggesting you have the only answer - you don't.  Quit being a liar and suggesting that those who disagree with your solutions want to flood this country with foreigners.  Your strategies are going to fail; you're going to make enemies when some day you might need the support of constitutionalists.
Click to expand...

Kewl...anyone who harbors illegals is not objective.
Your state is merely a corridor to states that don’t want them.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with some posters on their political stances many times. I do disagree with you on your knowledge of the law. Some of us have actually studied and worked in that field. Now, I've heard your opinion about this subject and I've looked into how the United States Supreme Court would answer you. Here it is:
> 
> _The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law._
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._
> 
> _No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it._
> 
> _— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)_
> 
> 
> 
> How is any of this pertinent to what I posted? You've cited a wonderful commentary but it is completely irrelevant
> since it has not been applied to my comments in any way at all.
> 
> So it sounds impressive but it exists in an intellectual vacuum and is therefor useless.
Click to expand...


If you cannot understand the relevancy, you should never challenge anyone here on what is legal or illegal.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with some posters on their political stances many times. I do disagree with you on your knowledge of the law. Some of us have actually studied and worked in that field. Now, I've heard your opinion about this subject and I've looked into how the United States Supreme Court would answer you. Here it is:
> 
> _The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law._
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._
> 
> _No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it._
> 
> _— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)_
> 
> 
> 
> How is any of this pertinent to what I posted? You've cited a wonderful commentary but it is completely irrelevant
> since it has not been applied to my comments in any way at all.
> 
> So it sounds impressive but it exists in an intellectual vacuum and is therefor useless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you cannot understand the relevancy, you should never challenge anyone here on what is legal or illegal.
Click to expand...

I guess that’s why we have entire legal libraries filled with case law.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Local officials are under no obligation to enforce federal laws. The Supreme Court made it clear that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. It has nothing to do with Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> It has _everything_ to do with Jim Crow laws! You can't choose which laws you will observe and which laws you will ignore.
> You have to be an absolute moron to deny that. No one is asking Libby Schaff or Gavin Newsom or Michelle Lujan-Grisham to conduct ICE raids themselves or track down the immigration status of the people they give cover to.
> 
> The very word "sanctuary" itself means a safe haven from the law. It means the law doesn't matter to sanctuary quislings in California or New Mexico or wherever it happens to be.
> 
> Can you let a rapist live in your home because you are under no obligation to help the police? You know damned well you would be arrested as an accessory to a crime if you did that. Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration shouldn't be an option
> and show me any other law that you can choose not to observe. Name one! Go ahead.
> 
> Your lies are tiresome and bullshit. They aren't even effective as rhetorical devices. You cannot selectively apply the law!
> Stop pretending, you ass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with some posters on their political stances many times.  I do disagree with you on your knowledge of the law.  Some of us have actually studied and worked in that field.  Now, I've heard your opinion about this subject and I've looked into how the United States Supreme Court would answer you.  Here it is:
> 
> _The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law._
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._
> 
> _No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it._
> 
> _— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to imply that Immigration laws are unconstitutional and thus it is ok for sanctuary cities to ignore them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times have I asked you to show me that section of the Constitution that gives the federal government jurisdiction over the states to invite whomever they choose to let in?
> 
> You try to make your life all about what you believe with this garden variety of questions like when did you quit beating your wife.  What you need to do is step back and examine the issue from the perspective of others.  The left and the right have appealed to each other.  I'm on the outside, looking in.  BOTH of you are going to the same destination, just by different routes.  So, let me dumb this down for you.
> 
> There was a time in America when we respected the constitutional Rights of individuals and the federal government had *some* modicum of respect for states rights.
> 
> Back then employers hired whomever they chose.  Since that was the case, they relied on what neighbors and former employers had to say with respect to a job candidate.  Today, people like you want to "_vet_" potential workers.  Part of your religion says that government is God.  And so, you want to take the word of liars in government.  Adding insult to injury, you are naive enough to think that a foreign government that lies to us and disagrees with us is going to give us the straight skinny about some individual they want to pawn off on us OR an individual that is going to do us harm.
> 
> When employers were required to hire X number of blacks, Y number of women, Z number of gays / transgender, etc. it took away the private property Rights of Americans.  An American owns the job as much as a writer owns the words to the music or manuscript they wrote.  When *ANY* law puts those Rights into jeopardy, they are unconstitutional.  When you limit the private sector's ability to get government records about an individual, then you have to rely on people who actually *KNOW* the person you want to do business with.
> 
> There are times when it is applicable to have information on potential workers: you don't want pedophiles watching your kids and you don't want a bank robber to work in a bank.  But, in your world, those people cannot find *ANY* job since *ANY* criminal act precludes those people from finding *ANY* job.  Employers are able to access records that are irrelevant to their needs.  Americans get locked out of jobs due to these background checks and MILLIONS wind up on welfare.
> 
> I might be wrong, but I don't think you're so stupid that you don't realize that a background check cannot be limited to people you don't like and just of the purpose of delving into their immigration status (and yes, those laws *are* unconstitutional.)  The background check, as applied by employers, is a clear cut violation of the Fourth Amendment.  We may try to make bogus arguments that the limitation applies to the government; however, what you want is for the employer to an agent of law enforcement for federal officials.  THAT is what makes it unconstitutional.
> 
> As to federal law, the federal government has *NO* jurisdiction in who may or may not be invited into a state. This bogus B.S. about "_vetting_" foreigners is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog.  What you are advocating is pure socialism.  Background checks did not stop the parents of Nidal Hasan from brainwashing their son with Muslim crap that led him to kill 13 of his fellow soldiers and injure 30 more.  It did not stop the Boston Marathon Bombers; had no effect on stopping the son of a Muslim politician from killing 49 people in a bar in Florida.  It did not stop the San Bernadino shooters.   Even the 9 / 11 attackers were background checked.  Bottom line: background checks are ineffective AND *there are better ways*.
> 
> If you still do not understand why I'm against background checks, I will do yet another long winded diatribe on the effects they've had on the Bill of Rights.  Quit asking rhetorical questions suggesting you have the only answer - you don't.  Quit being a liar and suggesting that those who disagree with your solutions want to flood this country with foreigners.  Your strategies are going to fail; you're going to make enemies when some day you might need the support of constitutionalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kewl...anyone who harbors illegals is not objective.
> Your state is merely a corridor to states that don’t want them.
Click to expand...



If / when communities and states in particular are left to act in their own best interests AND when the government is limited as to how much money they can waste under any pretext to influence the people, the situation balances itself out.  IF Trump cuts off federal funds to Sanctuary Cities for harboring undocumented foreigners, you get to see where Pelosi's real beliefs are.  Either she wants them and can afford them or she can't.  Her attitude will be adjusted accordingly.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


> How many times have I asked you to show me that section of the Constitution that gives the federal government jurisdiction over the states to invite whomever they choose to let in?


At least once and I already made my reply. The federal government controls the borders of the nation itself and even if California wants to simply let ALL of Mexico and Central America and whoever else wants to come on in, the first business of the federal government is to protect and defend ALL of the nation.

California cannot possibly claim that the people they invite on into their state will remain inside state borders. Their actions constitute a real and present danger to the rest of the union.


That seems so simple and elementary I'm kind of shocked you didn't get it the first time.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has _everything_ to do with Jim Crow laws! You can't choose which laws you will observe and which laws you will ignore.
> You have to be an absolute moron to deny that. No one is asking Libby Schaff or Gavin Newsom or Michelle Lujan-Grisham to conduct ICE raids themselves or track down the immigration status of the people they give cover to.
> 
> The very word "sanctuary" itself means a safe haven from the law. It means the law doesn't matter to sanctuary quislings in California or New Mexico or wherever it happens to be.
> 
> Can you let a rapist live in your home because you are under no obligation to help the police? You know damned well you would be arrested as an accessory to a crime if you did that. Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration shouldn't be an option
> and show me any other law that you can choose not to observe. Name one! Go ahead.
> 
> Your lies are tiresome and bullshit. They aren't even effective as rhetorical devices. You cannot selectively apply the law!
> Stop pretending, you ass!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with some posters on their political stances many times.  I do disagree with you on your knowledge of the law.  Some of us have actually studied and worked in that field.  Now, I've heard your opinion about this subject and I've looked into how the United States Supreme Court would answer you.  Here it is:
> 
> _The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law._
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._
> 
> _No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it._
> 
> _— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to imply that Immigration laws are unconstitutional and thus it is ok for sanctuary cities to ignore them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times have I asked you to show me that section of the Constitution that gives the federal government jurisdiction over the states to invite whomever they choose to let in?
> 
> You try to make your life all about what you believe with this garden variety of questions like when did you quit beating your wife.  What you need to do is step back and examine the issue from the perspective of others.  The left and the right have appealed to each other.  I'm on the outside, looking in.  BOTH of you are going to the same destination, just by different routes.  So, let me dumb this down for you.
> 
> There was a time in America when we respected the constitutional Rights of individuals and the federal government had *some* modicum of respect for states rights.
> 
> Back then employers hired whomever they chose.  Since that was the case, they relied on what neighbors and former employers had to say with respect to a job candidate.  Today, people like you want to "_vet_" potential workers.  Part of your religion says that government is God.  And so, you want to take the word of liars in government.  Adding insult to injury, you are naive enough to think that a foreign government that lies to us and disagrees with us is going to give us the straight skinny about some individual they want to pawn off on us OR an individual that is going to do us harm.
> 
> When employers were required to hire X number of blacks, Y number of women, Z number of gays / transgender, etc. it took away the private property Rights of Americans.  An American owns the job as much as a writer owns the words to the music or manuscript they wrote.  When *ANY* law puts those Rights into jeopardy, they are unconstitutional.  When you limit the private sector's ability to get government records about an individual, then you have to rely on people who actually *KNOW* the person you want to do business with.
> 
> There are times when it is applicable to have information on potential workers: you don't want pedophiles watching your kids and you don't want a bank robber to work in a bank.  But, in your world, those people cannot find *ANY* job since *ANY* criminal act precludes those people from finding *ANY* job.  Employers are able to access records that are irrelevant to their needs.  Americans get locked out of jobs due to these background checks and MILLIONS wind up on welfare.
> 
> I might be wrong, but I don't think you're so stupid that you don't realize that a background check cannot be limited to people you don't like and just of the purpose of delving into their immigration status (and yes, those laws *are* unconstitutional.)  The background check, as applied by employers, is a clear cut violation of the Fourth Amendment.  We may try to make bogus arguments that the limitation applies to the government; however, what you want is for the employer to an agent of law enforcement for federal officials.  THAT is what makes it unconstitutional.
> 
> As to federal law, the federal government has *NO* jurisdiction in who may or may not be invited into a state. This bogus B.S. about "_vetting_" foreigners is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog.  What you are advocating is pure socialism.  Background checks did not stop the parents of Nidal Hasan from brainwashing their son with Muslim crap that led him to kill 13 of his fellow soldiers and injure 30 more.  It did not stop the Boston Marathon Bombers; had no effect on stopping the son of a Muslim politician from killing 49 people in a bar in Florida.  It did not stop the San Bernadino shooters.   Even the 9 / 11 attackers were background checked.  Bottom line: background checks are ineffective AND *there are better ways*.
> 
> If you still do not understand why I'm against background checks, I will do yet another long winded diatribe on the effects they've had on the Bill of Rights.  Quit asking rhetorical questions suggesting you have the only answer - you don't.  Quit being a liar and suggesting that those who disagree with your solutions want to flood this country with foreigners.  Your strategies are going to fail; you're going to make enemies when some day you might need the support of constitutionalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kewl...anyone who harbors illegals is not objective.
> Your state is merely a corridor to states that don’t want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If / when communities and states in particular are left to act in their own best interests AND when the government is limited as to how much money they can waste under any pretext to influence the people, the situation balances itself out.  IF Trump cuts off federal funds to Sanctuary Cities for harboring undocumented foreigners, you get to see where Pelosi's real beliefs are.  Either she wants them and can afford them or she can't.  Her attitude will be adjusted accordingly.
Click to expand...

Save your bullshit for yourself.
Pelosi changes her mind every time MSNBC criticizes her.
When you can contain illegals in your border, get back to us minus your bleeding heart nonsense.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with some posters on their political stances many times. I do disagree with you on your knowledge of the law. Some of us have actually studied and worked in that field. Now, I've heard your opinion about this subject and I've looked into how the United States Supreme Court would answer you. Here it is:
> 
> _The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law._
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._
> 
> _No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it._
> 
> _— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)_
> 
> 
> 
> How is any of this pertinent to what I posted? You've cited a wonderful commentary but it is completely irrelevant
> since it has not been applied to my comments in any way at all.
> 
> So it sounds impressive but it exists in an intellectual vacuum and is therefor useless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you cannot understand the relevancy, you should never challenge anyone here on what is legal or illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess that’s why we have entire legal libraries filled with case law.
Click to expand...


We also have questions left to be litigated, but right now we have an illegal / de facto government operating out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption wherein the United States Supreme Court has set itself up to be the superior branch of government and the other two branches don't contest it.  We have a president that is equally deluded, thinking he is the head monkey.  What we do not have is the Republic as guaranteed in Article 4  Section 4 of the Constitution.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


> If you cannot understand the relevancy, you should never challenge anyone here on what is legal or illegal.


If you cannot make your comments relevant than you should not post on such matters again.

It's *your* job to make your mumbo jumbo relevant in the context of my post which you cited.
Not Mine!


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times have I asked you to show me that section of the Constitution that gives the federal government jurisdiction over the states to invite whomever they choose to let in?
> 
> 
> 
> At least once and I already made my reply. The federal government controls the borders of the nation itself and even if California wants to simply let ALL of Mexico and Central America and whoever else wants to come on in, the first business of the federal government is to protect and defend ALL of the nation.
> 
> California cannot possibly claim that the people they invite on into their state will remain inside state borders. Their actions constitute a real and present danger to the rest of the union.
> 
> 
> That seems so simple and elementary I'm kind of shocked you didn't get it the first time.
Click to expand...


The laws have specific meanings.  Your opinions do not reflect the law regardless of how far your cult is willing to go in trying to force others into chanting the popular mantra.  Let me help you out here:

The federal government, under the Constitution, is charged with protecting us against invasion.  Black's Law Dictionary is the most authoritative source for interpreting the meaning of words that the courts rely on.  According to Black's:

"_An encroachment upon the rights of another; the *incursion of an army for conquest or plunder.* Webster. See ^Etna Ins. Co. v. Boon, 95 U. S. 129, 24 L. Ed. 395_. "

This definition does not lend itself to suspending the Constitution just because you feel threatened by foreigners crossing the border.  It is a states right.  

So, let's be accurate here.  I'm from Georgia.  Should I be denied entry into South Carolina just because I'm not a citizen?  I mean as it now stands, I can go there and work for a period of time.  THEN, if I spend too much time there, they expect that I will become a citizen.  In the meantime, there are no laws that keep me from being there.  I can't get any state benefits (food stamps, unemployment checks, etc.) but I can go there. * IF *California lets people come into their state and those guests pose a problem in another state, that state can take California to court.  

Ignoring the Constitution, however is a NO GO.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with some posters on their political stances many times.  I do disagree with you on your knowledge of the law.  Some of us have actually studied and worked in that field.  Now, I've heard your opinion about this subject and I've looked into how the United States Supreme Court would answer you.  Here it is:
> 
> _The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law._
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._
> 
> _No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it._
> 
> _— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to imply that Immigration laws are unconstitutional and thus it is ok for sanctuary cities to ignore them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times have I asked you to show me that section of the Constitution that gives the federal government jurisdiction over the states to invite whomever they choose to let in?
> 
> You try to make your life all about what you believe with this garden variety of questions like when did you quit beating your wife.  What you need to do is step back and examine the issue from the perspective of others.  The left and the right have appealed to each other.  I'm on the outside, looking in.  BOTH of you are going to the same destination, just by different routes.  So, let me dumb this down for you.
> 
> There was a time in America when we respected the constitutional Rights of individuals and the federal government had *some* modicum of respect for states rights.
> 
> Back then employers hired whomever they chose.  Since that was the case, they relied on what neighbors and former employers had to say with respect to a job candidate.  Today, people like you want to "_vet_" potential workers.  Part of your religion says that government is God.  And so, you want to take the word of liars in government.  Adding insult to injury, you are naive enough to think that a foreign government that lies to us and disagrees with us is going to give us the straight skinny about some individual they want to pawn off on us OR an individual that is going to do us harm.
> 
> When employers were required to hire X number of blacks, Y number of women, Z number of gays / transgender, etc. it took away the private property Rights of Americans.  An American owns the job as much as a writer owns the words to the music or manuscript they wrote.  When *ANY* law puts those Rights into jeopardy, they are unconstitutional.  When you limit the private sector's ability to get government records about an individual, then you have to rely on people who actually *KNOW* the person you want to do business with.
> 
> There are times when it is applicable to have information on potential workers: you don't want pedophiles watching your kids and you don't want a bank robber to work in a bank.  But, in your world, those people cannot find *ANY* job since *ANY* criminal act precludes those people from finding *ANY* job.  Employers are able to access records that are irrelevant to their needs.  Americans get locked out of jobs due to these background checks and MILLIONS wind up on welfare.
> 
> I might be wrong, but I don't think you're so stupid that you don't realize that a background check cannot be limited to people you don't like and just of the purpose of delving into their immigration status (and yes, those laws *are* unconstitutional.)  The background check, as applied by employers, is a clear cut violation of the Fourth Amendment.  We may try to make bogus arguments that the limitation applies to the government; however, what you want is for the employer to an agent of law enforcement for federal officials.  THAT is what makes it unconstitutional.
> 
> As to federal law, the federal government has *NO* jurisdiction in who may or may not be invited into a state. This bogus B.S. about "_vetting_" foreigners is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog.  What you are advocating is pure socialism.  Background checks did not stop the parents of Nidal Hasan from brainwashing their son with Muslim crap that led him to kill 13 of his fellow soldiers and injure 30 more.  It did not stop the Boston Marathon Bombers; had no effect on stopping the son of a Muslim politician from killing 49 people in a bar in Florida.  It did not stop the San Bernadino shooters.   Even the 9 / 11 attackers were background checked.  Bottom line: background checks are ineffective AND *there are better ways*.
> 
> If you still do not understand why I'm against background checks, I will do yet another long winded diatribe on the effects they've had on the Bill of Rights.  Quit asking rhetorical questions suggesting you have the only answer - you don't.  Quit being a liar and suggesting that those who disagree with your solutions want to flood this country with foreigners.  Your strategies are going to fail; you're going to make enemies when some day you might need the support of constitutionalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kewl...anyone who harbors illegals is not objective.
> Your state is merely a corridor to states that don’t want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If / when communities and states in particular are left to act in their own best interests AND when the government is limited as to how much money they can waste under any pretext to influence the people, the situation balances itself out.  IF Trump cuts off federal funds to Sanctuary Cities for harboring undocumented foreigners, you get to see where Pelosi's real beliefs are.  Either she wants them and can afford them or she can't.  Her attitude will be adjusted accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Save your bullshit for yourself.
> Pelosi changes her mind every time MSNBC criticizes her.
> When you can contain illegals in your border, get back to us minus your bleeding heart nonsense.
Click to expand...


Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

There are no "_illegals_" since we have a presumption of innocence.  

You are a cancer on the face of humanity; you're a traitor; worse you are a political propaganda prostitute and a hate monger.  You didn't impress me one damn bit.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you cannot understand the relevancy, you should never challenge anyone here on what is legal or illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> If you cannot make your comments relevant than you should not post on such matters again.
> 
> It's *your* job to make your mumbo jumbo relevant in the context of my post which you cited.
> Not Mine!
Click to expand...


Every sentence I've posted is relevant to what you asked.  The fact that you cannot connect the dots means that maybe you should do more research and quit spewing shit for nazis.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with some posters on their political stances many times. I do disagree with you on your knowledge of the law. Some of us have actually studied and worked in that field. Now, I've heard your opinion about this subject and I've looked into how the United States Supreme Court would answer you. Here it is:
> 
> _The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law._
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._
> 
> _No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it._
> 
> _— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)_
> 
> 
> 
> How is any of this pertinent to what I posted? You've cited a wonderful commentary but it is completely irrelevant
> since it has not been applied to my comments in any way at all.
> 
> So it sounds impressive but it exists in an intellectual vacuum and is therefor useless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you cannot understand the relevancy, you should never challenge anyone here on what is legal or illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess that’s why we have entire legal libraries filled with case law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We also have questions left to be litigated, but right now we have an illegal / de facto government operating out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption wherein the United States Supreme Court has set itself up to be the superior branch of government and the other two branches don't contest it.  We have a president that is equally deluded, thinking he is the head monkey.  What we do not have is the Republic as guaranteed in Article 4  Section 4 of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Translation:
Your *feelings* got hurt.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to imply that Immigration laws are unconstitutional and thus it is ok for sanctuary cities to ignore them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times have I asked you to show me that section of the Constitution that gives the federal government jurisdiction over the states to invite whomever they choose to let in?
> 
> You try to make your life all about what you believe with this garden variety of questions like when did you quit beating your wife.  What you need to do is step back and examine the issue from the perspective of others.  The left and the right have appealed to each other.  I'm on the outside, looking in.  BOTH of you are going to the same destination, just by different routes.  So, let me dumb this down for you.
> 
> There was a time in America when we respected the constitutional Rights of individuals and the federal government had *some* modicum of respect for states rights.
> 
> Back then employers hired whomever they chose.  Since that was the case, they relied on what neighbors and former employers had to say with respect to a job candidate.  Today, people like you want to "_vet_" potential workers.  Part of your religion says that government is God.  And so, you want to take the word of liars in government.  Adding insult to injury, you are naive enough to think that a foreign government that lies to us and disagrees with us is going to give us the straight skinny about some individual they want to pawn off on us OR an individual that is going to do us harm.
> 
> When employers were required to hire X number of blacks, Y number of women, Z number of gays / transgender, etc. it took away the private property Rights of Americans.  An American owns the job as much as a writer owns the words to the music or manuscript they wrote.  When *ANY* law puts those Rights into jeopardy, they are unconstitutional.  When you limit the private sector's ability to get government records about an individual, then you have to rely on people who actually *KNOW* the person you want to do business with.
> 
> There are times when it is applicable to have information on potential workers: you don't want pedophiles watching your kids and you don't want a bank robber to work in a bank.  But, in your world, those people cannot find *ANY* job since *ANY* criminal act precludes those people from finding *ANY* job.  Employers are able to access records that are irrelevant to their needs.  Americans get locked out of jobs due to these background checks and MILLIONS wind up on welfare.
> 
> I might be wrong, but I don't think you're so stupid that you don't realize that a background check cannot be limited to people you don't like and just of the purpose of delving into their immigration status (and yes, those laws *are* unconstitutional.)  The background check, as applied by employers, is a clear cut violation of the Fourth Amendment.  We may try to make bogus arguments that the limitation applies to the government; however, what you want is for the employer to an agent of law enforcement for federal officials.  THAT is what makes it unconstitutional.
> 
> As to federal law, the federal government has *NO* jurisdiction in who may or may not be invited into a state. This bogus B.S. about "_vetting_" foreigners is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog.  What you are advocating is pure socialism.  Background checks did not stop the parents of Nidal Hasan from brainwashing their son with Muslim crap that led him to kill 13 of his fellow soldiers and injure 30 more.  It did not stop the Boston Marathon Bombers; had no effect on stopping the son of a Muslim politician from killing 49 people in a bar in Florida.  It did not stop the San Bernadino shooters.   Even the 9 / 11 attackers were background checked.  Bottom line: background checks are ineffective AND *there are better ways*.
> 
> If you still do not understand why I'm against background checks, I will do yet another long winded diatribe on the effects they've had on the Bill of Rights.  Quit asking rhetorical questions suggesting you have the only answer - you don't.  Quit being a liar and suggesting that those who disagree with your solutions want to flood this country with foreigners.  Your strategies are going to fail; you're going to make enemies when some day you might need the support of constitutionalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kewl...anyone who harbors illegals is not objective.
> Your state is merely a corridor to states that don’t want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If / when communities and states in particular are left to act in their own best interests AND when the government is limited as to how much money they can waste under any pretext to influence the people, the situation balances itself out.  IF Trump cuts off federal funds to Sanctuary Cities for harboring undocumented foreigners, you get to see where Pelosi's real beliefs are.  Either she wants them and can afford them or she can't.  Her attitude will be adjusted accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Save your bullshit for yourself.
> Pelosi changes her mind every time MSNBC criticizes her.
> When you can contain illegals in your border, get back to us minus your bleeding heart nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
> 
> There are no "_illegals_" since we have a presumption of innocence.
> 
> You are a cancer on the face of humanity; you're a traitor; worse you are a political propaganda prostitute and a hate monger.  You didn't impress me one damn bit.
Click to expand...

Ad hominem coming from someone as dignified as yourself.
Color me shocked.
I’d appreciate your paying my property taxes to pay for their shelter, clothing, food and hospital emergency room use.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

What can I do about your tremendous mental block? There are many ways to threaten a nation and invasion by a military force is just one of them.

The primary job of the federal government, before any other it can be easily argued, is to protect the sovereignty of the nation. Suppose a Pakistani national with a suitcase nuclear device wants to enter the country?
Do we let him in because we have no right to keep him out? To ask the question is to answer it.


I've tolerated your obtuse nonsense thus far because at least you provide some sort of rational for whatever you say (albeit it's nonsense). I'm not going to suffer your blather endlessly however.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times have I asked you to show me that section of the Constitution that gives the federal government jurisdiction over the states to invite whomever they choose to let in?
> 
> You try to make your life all about what you believe with this garden variety of questions like when did you quit beating your wife.  What you need to do is step back and examine the issue from the perspective of others.  The left and the right have appealed to each other.  I'm on the outside, looking in.  BOTH of you are going to the same destination, just by different routes.  So, let me dumb this down for you.
> 
> There was a time in America when we respected the constitutional Rights of individuals and the federal government had *some* modicum of respect for states rights.
> 
> Back then employers hired whomever they chose.  Since that was the case, they relied on what neighbors and former employers had to say with respect to a job candidate.  Today, people like you want to "_vet_" potential workers.  Part of your religion says that government is God.  And so, you want to take the word of liars in government.  Adding insult to injury, you are naive enough to think that a foreign government that lies to us and disagrees with us is going to give us the straight skinny about some individual they want to pawn off on us OR an individual that is going to do us harm.
> 
> When employers were required to hire X number of blacks, Y number of women, Z number of gays / transgender, etc. it took away the private property Rights of Americans.  An American owns the job as much as a writer owns the words to the music or manuscript they wrote.  When *ANY* law puts those Rights into jeopardy, they are unconstitutional.  When you limit the private sector's ability to get government records about an individual, then you have to rely on people who actually *KNOW* the person you want to do business with.
> 
> There are times when it is applicable to have information on potential workers: you don't want pedophiles watching your kids and you don't want a bank robber to work in a bank.  But, in your world, those people cannot find *ANY* job since *ANY* criminal act precludes those people from finding *ANY* job.  Employers are able to access records that are irrelevant to their needs.  Americans get locked out of jobs due to these background checks and MILLIONS wind up on welfare.
> 
> I might be wrong, but I don't think you're so stupid that you don't realize that a background check cannot be limited to people you don't like and just of the purpose of delving into their immigration status (and yes, those laws *are* unconstitutional.)  The background check, as applied by employers, is a clear cut violation of the Fourth Amendment.  We may try to make bogus arguments that the limitation applies to the government; however, what you want is for the employer to an agent of law enforcement for federal officials.  THAT is what makes it unconstitutional.
> 
> As to federal law, the federal government has *NO* jurisdiction in who may or may not be invited into a state. This bogus B.S. about "_vetting_" foreigners is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog.  What you are advocating is pure socialism.  Background checks did not stop the parents of Nidal Hasan from brainwashing their son with Muslim crap that led him to kill 13 of his fellow soldiers and injure 30 more.  It did not stop the Boston Marathon Bombers; had no effect on stopping the son of a Muslim politician from killing 49 people in a bar in Florida.  It did not stop the San Bernadino shooters.   Even the 9 / 11 attackers were background checked.  Bottom line: background checks are ineffective AND *there are better ways*.
> 
> If you still do not understand why I'm against background checks, I will do yet another long winded diatribe on the effects they've had on the Bill of Rights.  Quit asking rhetorical questions suggesting you have the only answer - you don't.  Quit being a liar and suggesting that those who disagree with your solutions want to flood this country with foreigners.  Your strategies are going to fail; you're going to make enemies when some day you might need the support of constitutionalists.
> 
> 
> 
> Kewl...anyone who harbors illegals is not objective.
> Your state is merely a corridor to states that don’t want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If / when communities and states in particular are left to act in their own best interests AND when the government is limited as to how much money they can waste under any pretext to influence the people, the situation balances itself out.  IF Trump cuts off federal funds to Sanctuary Cities for harboring undocumented foreigners, you get to see where Pelosi's real beliefs are.  Either she wants them and can afford them or she can't.  Her attitude will be adjusted accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Save your bullshit for yourself.
> Pelosi changes her mind every time MSNBC criticizes her.
> When you can contain illegals in your border, get back to us minus your bleeding heart nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
> 
> There are no "_illegals_" since we have a presumption of innocence.
> 
> You are a cancer on the face of humanity; you're a traitor; worse you are a political propaganda prostitute and a hate monger.  You didn't impress me one damn bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem coming from someone as dignified as yourself.
> Color me shocked.
> I’d appreciate your paying my property taxes to pay for their shelter, clothing, food and hospital emergency room use.
Click to expand...

The confused gentleman seems to be saying that if New Mexico or California want to let half of Mexico into their state
we have no business trying to stop them. That seems on the face of things to be absolute bullshit.


----------



## Indeependent

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kewl...anyone who harbors illegals is not objective.
> Your state is merely a corridor to states that don’t want them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If / when communities and states in particular are left to act in their own best interests AND when the government is limited as to how much money they can waste under any pretext to influence the people, the situation balances itself out.  IF Trump cuts off federal funds to Sanctuary Cities for harboring undocumented foreigners, you get to see where Pelosi's real beliefs are.  Either she wants them and can afford them or she can't.  Her attitude will be adjusted accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Save your bullshit for yourself.
> Pelosi changes her mind every time MSNBC criticizes her.
> When you can contain illegals in your border, get back to us minus your bleeding heart nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
> 
> There are no "_illegals_" since we have a presumption of innocence.
> 
> You are a cancer on the face of humanity; you're a traitor; worse you are a political propaganda prostitute and a hate monger.  You didn't impress me one damn bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem coming from someone as dignified as yourself.
> Color me shocked.
> I’d appreciate your paying my property taxes to pay for their shelter, clothing, food and hospital emergency room use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The confused gentleman seems to be saying that if New Mexico or California want to let half of Mexico into their state
> we have no business trying to stop them. That seems on the face of things to be absolute bullshit.
Click to expand...

“I’m a Liberal; if you disagree with me, you’re a Nazi!”.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with some posters on their political stances many times. I do disagree with you on your knowledge of the law. Some of us have actually studied and worked in that field. Now, I've heard your opinion about this subject and I've looked into how the United States Supreme Court would answer you. Here it is:
> 
> _The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law._
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._
> 
> _No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it._
> 
> _— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)_
> 
> 
> 
> How is any of this pertinent to what I posted? You've cited a wonderful commentary but it is completely irrelevant
> since it has not been applied to my comments in any way at all.
> 
> So it sounds impressive but it exists in an intellectual vacuum and is therefor useless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you cannot understand the relevancy, you should never challenge anyone here on what is legal or illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess that’s why we have entire legal libraries filled with case law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We also have questions left to be litigated, but right now we have an illegal / de facto government operating out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption wherein the United States Supreme Court has set itself up to be the superior branch of government and the other two branches don't contest it.  We have a president that is equally deluded, thinking he is the head monkey.  What we do not have is the Republic as guaranteed in Article 4  Section 4 of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation:
> Your *feelings* got hurt.
Click to expand...


Translation: You want to pick an Internet fight because you don't have the balls to go out in public with that attitude.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times have I asked you to show me that section of the Constitution that gives the federal government jurisdiction over the states to invite whomever they choose to let in?
> 
> You try to make your life all about what you believe with this garden variety of questions like when did you quit beating your wife.  What you need to do is step back and examine the issue from the perspective of others.  The left and the right have appealed to each other.  I'm on the outside, looking in.  BOTH of you are going to the same destination, just by different routes.  So, let me dumb this down for you.
> 
> There was a time in America when we respected the constitutional Rights of individuals and the federal government had *some* modicum of respect for states rights.
> 
> Back then employers hired whomever they chose.  Since that was the case, they relied on what neighbors and former employers had to say with respect to a job candidate.  Today, people like you want to "_vet_" potential workers.  Part of your religion says that government is God.  And so, you want to take the word of liars in government.  Adding insult to injury, you are naive enough to think that a foreign government that lies to us and disagrees with us is going to give us the straight skinny about some individual they want to pawn off on us OR an individual that is going to do us harm.
> 
> When employers were required to hire X number of blacks, Y number of women, Z number of gays / transgender, etc. it took away the private property Rights of Americans.  An American owns the job as much as a writer owns the words to the music or manuscript they wrote.  When *ANY* law puts those Rights into jeopardy, they are unconstitutional.  When you limit the private sector's ability to get government records about an individual, then you have to rely on people who actually *KNOW* the person you want to do business with.
> 
> There are times when it is applicable to have information on potential workers: you don't want pedophiles watching your kids and you don't want a bank robber to work in a bank.  But, in your world, those people cannot find *ANY* job since *ANY* criminal act precludes those people from finding *ANY* job.  Employers are able to access records that are irrelevant to their needs.  Americans get locked out of jobs due to these background checks and MILLIONS wind up on welfare.
> 
> I might be wrong, but I don't think you're so stupid that you don't realize that a background check cannot be limited to people you don't like and just of the purpose of delving into their immigration status (and yes, those laws *are* unconstitutional.)  The background check, as applied by employers, is a clear cut violation of the Fourth Amendment.  We may try to make bogus arguments that the limitation applies to the government; however, what you want is for the employer to an agent of law enforcement for federal officials.  THAT is what makes it unconstitutional.
> 
> As to federal law, the federal government has *NO* jurisdiction in who may or may not be invited into a state. This bogus B.S. about "_vetting_" foreigners is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog.  What you are advocating is pure socialism.  Background checks did not stop the parents of Nidal Hasan from brainwashing their son with Muslim crap that led him to kill 13 of his fellow soldiers and injure 30 more.  It did not stop the Boston Marathon Bombers; had no effect on stopping the son of a Muslim politician from killing 49 people in a bar in Florida.  It did not stop the San Bernadino shooters.   Even the 9 / 11 attackers were background checked.  Bottom line: background checks are ineffective AND *there are better ways*.
> 
> If you still do not understand why I'm against background checks, I will do yet another long winded diatribe on the effects they've had on the Bill of Rights.  Quit asking rhetorical questions suggesting you have the only answer - you don't.  Quit being a liar and suggesting that those who disagree with your solutions want to flood this country with foreigners.  Your strategies are going to fail; you're going to make enemies when some day you might need the support of constitutionalists.
> 
> 
> 
> Kewl...anyone who harbors illegals is not objective.
> Your state is merely a corridor to states that don’t want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If / when communities and states in particular are left to act in their own best interests AND when the government is limited as to how much money they can waste under any pretext to influence the people, the situation balances itself out.  IF Trump cuts off federal funds to Sanctuary Cities for harboring undocumented foreigners, you get to see where Pelosi's real beliefs are.  Either she wants them and can afford them or she can't.  Her attitude will be adjusted accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Save your bullshit for yourself.
> Pelosi changes her mind every time MSNBC criticizes her.
> When you can contain illegals in your border, get back to us minus your bleeding heart nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
> 
> There are no "_illegals_" since we have a presumption of innocence.
> 
> You are a cancer on the face of humanity; you're a traitor; worse you are a political propaganda prostitute and a hate monger.  You didn't impress me one damn bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem coming from someone as dignified as yourself.
> Color me shocked.
> I’d appreciate your paying my property taxes to pay for their shelter, clothing, food and hospital emergency room use.
Click to expand...


Jewish communist wannabe wants to use words he don't know the definition of... you don't impress me Groucho.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kewl...anyone who harbors illegals is not objective.
> Your state is merely a corridor to states that don’t want them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If / when communities and states in particular are left to act in their own best interests AND when the government is limited as to how much money they can waste under any pretext to influence the people, the situation balances itself out.  IF Trump cuts off federal funds to Sanctuary Cities for harboring undocumented foreigners, you get to see where Pelosi's real beliefs are.  Either she wants them and can afford them or she can't.  Her attitude will be adjusted accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Save your bullshit for yourself.
> Pelosi changes her mind every time MSNBC criticizes her.
> When you can contain illegals in your border, get back to us minus your bleeding heart nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
> 
> There are no "_illegals_" since we have a presumption of innocence.
> 
> You are a cancer on the face of humanity; you're a traitor; worse you are a political propaganda prostitute and a hate monger.  You didn't impress me one damn bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem coming from someone as dignified as yourself.
> Color me shocked.
> I’d appreciate your paying my property taxes to pay for their shelter, clothing, food and hospital emergency room use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The confused gentleman seems to be saying that if New Mexico or California want to let half of Mexico into their state
> we have no business trying to stop them. That seems on the face of things to be absolute bullshit.
Click to expand...


You are the one who seems to be confused.  You hide behind the nazis and pretend to be the good guy.  Now, you want to join the commie and get personal.  Your loss, not mine.

Basically your position is that you would forfeit every God given, natural, inherent,* unalienable*, absolute and irrevocable Right that our forefathers fought, bled and died to secure in order to have a militarized border because you got a hair up your ass over little brown people from south of the border.

The Constitution is to you as George W. Bush put it: "_just a god-damned piece of paper._" 

You should thank the God you don't believe in that we do not have a constitutional government.  If we did they would arrest you for treason, try you and execute you.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If / when communities and states in particular are left to act in their own best interests AND when the government is limited as to how much money they can waste under any pretext to influence the people, the situation balances itself out.  IF Trump cuts off federal funds to Sanctuary Cities for harboring undocumented foreigners, you get to see where Pelosi's real beliefs are.  Either she wants them and can afford them or she can't.  Her attitude will be adjusted accordingly.
> 
> 
> 
> Save your bullshit for yourself.
> Pelosi changes her mind every time MSNBC criticizes her.
> When you can contain illegals in your border, get back to us minus your bleeding heart nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
> 
> There are no "_illegals_" since we have a presumption of innocence.
> 
> You are a cancer on the face of humanity; you're a traitor; worse you are a political propaganda prostitute and a hate monger.  You didn't impress me one damn bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem coming from someone as dignified as yourself.
> Color me shocked.
> I’d appreciate your paying my property taxes to pay for their shelter, clothing, food and hospital emergency room use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The confused gentleman seems to be saying that if New Mexico or California want to let half of Mexico into their state
> we have no business trying to stop them. That seems on the face of things to be absolute bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “I’m a Liberal; if you disagree with me, you’re a Nazi!”.
Click to expand...


Your avatar pretty well told me that you were a liberal.  But, unfortunately your mental disorder is not the issue.

The real issue is that the civilian militias got hoodwinked by the far left and now the whole militia concept is being ridiculed because of the wallists willingness to violate the Constitution they pretend to care about.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Correll said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Totally false. They simply do not hold people in their jails for violating federal law. In short, if the feds are not there to do their job and take them into custody when the county releases them, the county is not going to do their job for them. You are a virtual encyclopedia of misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> And you are a virtual encyclopedia of imagination.
> Everyone knows a dump like San Francisco won't hold prisoners for the feds. *But if the feds happen to call the county sheriff and just inquire about a certain prisoner being held and a release date the policy is to tell him to fuck off (but perhaps not in those exact words). *
> 
> Yes. Simply releasing information to federal agents is considered "doing the job of the federal government" and they are ordered not to comply.
> That is going far beyond simply not doing the work ICE should be doing to actual hostile proactive non cooperation that intentionally violates federal immigration law. So in a very real sense sanctuary cities and counties are intentionally and
> diligently breaking the law when they are sworn to uphold it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am still waiting for a link of the above embolden part of your post. In the meantime, I am trying to visualize this:
> 
> Caller" "Is Garcia getting out of jail today?"
> San Francisco County cop: "Who is asking"
> Caller, "Immigration"
> San Francisco County cop, "Fuck off" (Click)
> 
> Yeah, I am sure that is exactly what is happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is what Sanctuary City MEANS. That is what the stated policy of these cities and local governments ARE.
Click to expand...


Nope. That is Rush Limbaugh's imaginary definition of "Sanctuary city"


----------



## Vandalshandle

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> and here is more on the militia leader who the RW have raised to hero status:
> 
> FBI Received Reports Militia Leader Talked Of Assassin Training Targeting Obama, Soros
> 
> *Court recorders show that the militia was in training to kill Obama and Clinton.*
> 
> 
> 
> This is all a side show for leftist shitbags to hold up and point to....looks like it works for you.
> 
> Larry Mitchell Hopkins and his twenty _(count em' twenty_) whole followers are not a threat to the nation.
> 
> But a porous collapsed border is! The people who have entered the nation and reside here illegally represent well over one hundred billion dollars of cost to taxpayers every single year! Record $135 billion a year for illegal immigration, average $8,075 each, $25,000 in NY
> That's all tax payer money not available to citizens because it is going to support criminals living in our midst.
> Larry Mitchell Hopkins is not responsible for that.
> 
> They represent all sorts of communicable diseases that are being brought into our nation that we haven't seen here in decades, or never seen at all! You can't blame Larry Mitchell Hopkins for that!
> 
> They represent a frightening demographic shift because the long term implications of a large and growing group of people who all owe their very presence in the U.S. to a blatant disregard for our laws and our generous safety net does not bode well for the nation...unless you are in the DNC and you make your living attracting supporters by out preforming the other party in terms of giving away free stuff in return for their votes.
> 
> Gee...there must be a reason why Pelosi and Schumer will not budge on the issue of a border barrier of some sort.
> Could this be the reason? Well, duh! Once more, Larry Mitchell Hopkins not responsible for that
> as well as the rape, murder, theft, drug and human trafficking committed by illegal immigrants.
> He didn't do any of that.
> 
> Well, maybe you get the idea (but you almost certainly won't). And please don't pretend I am endorsing this man who was nabbed by the FBI, after the New Mexico governor screamed that some of the people who were entering the country illegally were being stopped. I am not!
> 
> I am saying he is a side show and his existence should not take attention away from how Marxist organizers in the U.S. are actively trying to collapse the Southern border through the groups they are organizing and supporting and hopefully giving the U.S. a black eye.
Click to expand...


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is any of this pertinent to what I posted? You've cited a wonderful commentary but it is completely irrelevant
> since it has not been applied to my comments in any way at all.
> 
> So it sounds impressive but it exists in an intellectual vacuum and is therefor useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you cannot understand the relevancy, you should never challenge anyone here on what is legal or illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess that’s why we have entire legal libraries filled with case law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We also have questions left to be litigated, but right now we have an illegal / de facto government operating out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption wherein the United States Supreme Court has set itself up to be the superior branch of government and the other two branches don't contest it.  We have a president that is equally deluded, thinking he is the head monkey.  What we do not have is the Republic as guaranteed in Article 4  Section 4 of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation:
> Your *feelings* got hurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation: You want to pick an Internet fight because you don't have the balls to go out in public with that attitude.
Click to expand...

Any contrar...I am as blunt face to face as I am here.
My community and Facebook “friends” know full well where I stand on every issue.
It causes contention with both Liberals and neo-Cons.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Save your bullshit for yourself.
> Pelosi changes her mind every time MSNBC criticizes her.
> When you can contain illegals in your border, get back to us minus your bleeding heart nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
> 
> There are no "_illegals_" since we have a presumption of innocence.
> 
> You are a cancer on the face of humanity; you're a traitor; worse you are a political propaganda prostitute and a hate monger.  You didn't impress me one damn bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem coming from someone as dignified as yourself.
> Color me shocked.
> I’d appreciate your paying my property taxes to pay for their shelter, clothing, food and hospital emergency room use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The confused gentleman seems to be saying that if New Mexico or California want to let half of Mexico into their state
> we have no business trying to stop them. That seems on the face of things to be absolute bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “I’m a Liberal; if you disagree with me, you’re a Nazi!”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your avatar pretty well told me that you were a liberal.  But, unfortunately your mental disorder is not the issue.
> 
> The real issue is that the civilian militias got hoodwinked by the far left and now the whole militia concept is being ridiculed because of the wallists willingness to violate the Constitution they pretend to care about.
Click to expand...

Illegals have caused massive unemployment amongst almost every blue collar worker and construction business owner I know.
Thanks to Trump, they are all making money after many years of GW and Obama.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kewl...anyone who harbors illegals is not objective.
> Your state is merely a corridor to states that don’t want them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If / when communities and states in particular are left to act in their own best interests AND when the government is limited as to how much money they can waste under any pretext to influence the people, the situation balances itself out.  IF Trump cuts off federal funds to Sanctuary Cities for harboring undocumented foreigners, you get to see where Pelosi's real beliefs are.  Either she wants them and can afford them or she can't.  Her attitude will be adjusted accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Save your bullshit for yourself.
> Pelosi changes her mind every time MSNBC criticizes her.
> When you can contain illegals in your border, get back to us minus your bleeding heart nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
> 
> There are no "_illegals_" since we have a presumption of innocence.
> 
> You are a cancer on the face of humanity; you're a traitor; worse you are a political propaganda prostitute and a hate monger.  You didn't impress me one damn bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem coming from someone as dignified as yourself.
> Color me shocked.
> I’d appreciate your paying my property taxes to pay for their shelter, clothing, food and hospital emergency room use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jewish communist wannabe wants to use words he don't know the definition of... you don't impress me Groucho.
Click to expand...

Groucho had a way of cutting to the truth.
The ramifications of off-shoring, Business Visas and illegals are destructive.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
> 
> There are no "_illegals_" since we have a presumption of innocence.
> 
> You are a cancer on the face of humanity; you're a traitor; worse you are a political propaganda prostitute and a hate monger.  You didn't impress me one damn bit.
> 
> 
> 
> Ad hominem coming from someone as dignified as yourself.
> Color me shocked.
> I’d appreciate your paying my property taxes to pay for their shelter, clothing, food and hospital emergency room use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The confused gentleman seems to be saying that if New Mexico or California want to let half of Mexico into their state
> we have no business trying to stop them. That seems on the face of things to be absolute bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “I’m a Liberal; if you disagree with me, you’re a Nazi!”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your avatar pretty well told me that you were a liberal.  But, unfortunately your mental disorder is not the issue.
> 
> The real issue is that the civilian militias got hoodwinked by the far left and now the whole militia concept is being ridiculed because of the wallists willingness to violate the Constitution they pretend to care about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illegals have caused massive unemployment amongst almost every blue collar worker and construction business owner I know.
> Thanks to Trump, they are all making money after many years of GW and Obama.
Click to expand...


You are only consistent with inconsistency.  No wall and statistical zero unemployment.  Conclusion: states are right.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


> Your avatar pretty well told me that you were a liberal. But, unfortunately your mental disorder is not the issue.


 George Orwell? He was an anti fascist, anti authoritarian and anti Communist. Yes...a real genuine leftist. You should be so "liberal".
Scan my posts and point out all the liberal ones you can find, dimwit. 

Your carefully crafted personae is now being gutted by your own ad hom idiocy. If you let dumb people talk enough they will always tell you who they are. 



> The real issue is that the civilian militias got hoodwinked by the far left and now the whole militia concept is being ridiculed because of the wallists willingness to violate the Constitution they pretend to care about.


Your fear of barriers seems stupid, absurd and pointless. How 65 countries have erected security walls on their borders | Daily Mail Online

Your imbecilic view of the Constitution seems to be states can bring into the country whoever and however many people they wish. I don't know why any rational person would think that but you seem to really believe it. 

The Federal Government, not California or New Mexico or New York, controls who gets in. Fuck off!


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If / when communities and states in particular are left to act in their own best interests AND when the government is limited as to how much money they can waste under any pretext to influence the people, the situation balances itself out.  IF Trump cuts off federal funds to Sanctuary Cities for harboring undocumented foreigners, you get to see where Pelosi's real beliefs are.  Either she wants them and can afford them or she can't.  Her attitude will be adjusted accordingly.
> 
> 
> 
> Save your bullshit for yourself.
> Pelosi changes her mind every time MSNBC criticizes her.
> When you can contain illegals in your border, get back to us minus your bleeding heart nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
> 
> There are no "_illegals_" since we have a presumption of innocence.
> 
> You are a cancer on the face of humanity; you're a traitor; worse you are a political propaganda prostitute and a hate monger.  You didn't impress me one damn bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem coming from someone as dignified as yourself.
> Color me shocked.
> I’d appreciate your paying my property taxes to pay for their shelter, clothing, food and hospital emergency room use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jewish communist wannabe wants to use words he don't know the definition of... you don't impress me Groucho.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Groucho had a way of cutting to the truth.
> The ramifications of off-shoring, Business Visas and illegals are destructive.
Click to expand...


You believe in communism so your opinions don't count to me.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ad hominem coming from someone as dignified as yourself.
> Color me shocked.
> I’d appreciate your paying my property taxes to pay for their shelter, clothing, food and hospital emergency room use.
> 
> 
> 
> The confused gentleman seems to be saying that if New Mexico or California want to let half of Mexico into their state
> we have no business trying to stop them. That seems on the face of things to be absolute bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “I’m a Liberal; if you disagree with me, you’re a Nazi!”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your avatar pretty well told me that you were a liberal.  But, unfortunately your mental disorder is not the issue.
> 
> The real issue is that the civilian militias got hoodwinked by the far left and now the whole militia concept is being ridiculed because of the wallists willingness to violate the Constitution they pretend to care about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illegals have caused massive unemployment amongst almost every blue collar worker and construction business owner I know.
> Thanks to Trump, they are all making money after many years of GW and Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are only consistent with inconsistency.  No wall and statistical zero unemployment.  Conclusion: states are right.
Click to expand...

Silence is superior to ad libbing nonsense when you have nothing factual to say.
The millions who have been adversely affected by globalism will once again vote for Trump and a border wall.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Save your bullshit for yourself.
> Pelosi changes her mind every time MSNBC criticizes her.
> When you can contain illegals in your border, get back to us minus your bleeding heart nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
> 
> There are no "_illegals_" since we have a presumption of innocence.
> 
> You are a cancer on the face of humanity; you're a traitor; worse you are a political propaganda prostitute and a hate monger.  You didn't impress me one damn bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem coming from someone as dignified as yourself.
> Color me shocked.
> I’d appreciate your paying my property taxes to pay for their shelter, clothing, food and hospital emergency room use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jewish communist wannabe wants to use words he don't know the definition of... you don't impress me Groucho.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Groucho had a way of cutting to the truth.
> The ramifications of off-shoring, Business Visas and illegals are destructive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believe in communism so your opinions don't count to me.
Click to expand...

From which post did you derive your ad hominem?
Answer without using yet another ad hominem.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your avatar pretty well told me that you were a liberal. But, unfortunately your mental disorder is not the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> George Orwell? He was an anti fascist, anti authoritarian and anti Communist. Yes...a real genuine leftist. You should be so "liberal".
> Scan my posts and point out all the liberal ones you can find, dimwit.
> 
> Your carefully crafted personae is now being gutted by your own ad hom idiocy. If you let dumb people talk enough they will always tell you who they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The real issue is that the civilian militias got hoodwinked by the far left and now the whole militia concept is being ridiculed because of the wallists willingness to violate the Constitution they pretend to care about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your fear of barriers seems stupid, absurd and pointless. How 65 countries have erected security walls on their borders | Daily Mail Online
> 
> Your imbecilic view of the Constitution seems to be states can bring into the country whoever and however many people they wish. I don't know why any rational person would think that but you seem to really believe it.
> 
> The Federal Government, not California or New Mexico or New York, controls who gets in. Fuck off!
Click to expand...



The more you post, the more you show your lack of maturity and your lack of a solid knowledge base.

You cannot cite one, single, solitary sentence in the entire Constitution that supports your xenophobia.  Apparently, you were a member in the militia the OP began this thread about.

My "_fear of barriers_" as you call it brings me to the point of educating your dumb ass since trying to be civil didn't work.  In order for a wall to be effective, it relies on the background checks you thrive on.  You are simply too stupid to understand that *we cannot devise a background check system that applies to undocumented foreigners only*.

That being the case, Americans are subject to endless background checks that have been employed for ulterior motives (i.e. locking millions of white Americans out of the job market.)  Today, 97 percent of the public wants to have a background check in order to buy a firearm.  However, in order for the background check to be worth a shit, that means National Gun Registration.  The background check to purchase weapons is worthless without the National Gun Registration.

Registration is the precursor to weapon confiscation.  The fact that you cannot follow your own line of reasoning says more about you than all the name calling I can engage in here on USM.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> The confused gentleman seems to be saying that if New Mexico or California want to let half of Mexico into their state
> we have no business trying to stop them. That seems on the face of things to be absolute bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> “I’m a Liberal; if you disagree with me, you’re a Nazi!”.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your avatar pretty well told me that you were a liberal.  But, unfortunately your mental disorder is not the issue.
> 
> The real issue is that the civilian militias got hoodwinked by the far left and now the whole militia concept is being ridiculed because of the wallists willingness to violate the Constitution they pretend to care about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illegals have caused massive unemployment amongst almost every blue collar worker and construction business owner I know.
> Thanks to Trump, they are all making money after many years of GW and Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are only consistent with inconsistency.  No wall and statistical zero unemployment.  Conclusion: states are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Silence is superior to ad libbing nonsense when you have nothing factual to say.
> The millions who have been adversely affected by globalism will once again vote for Trump and a border wall.
Click to expand...


Trump IS a globalist.  Those who want globalism are in favor of a wall.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
> 
> There are no "_illegals_" since we have a presumption of innocence.
> 
> You are a cancer on the face of humanity; you're a traitor; worse you are a political propaganda prostitute and a hate monger.  You didn't impress me one damn bit.
> 
> 
> 
> Ad hominem coming from someone as dignified as yourself.
> Color me shocked.
> I’d appreciate your paying my property taxes to pay for their shelter, clothing, food and hospital emergency room use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jewish communist wannabe wants to use words he don't know the definition of... you don't impress me Groucho.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Groucho had a way of cutting to the truth.
> The ramifications of off-shoring, Business Visas and illegals are destructive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believe in communism so your opinions don't count to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From which post did you derive your ad hominem?
> Answer without using yet another ad hominem.
Click to expand...


Yawn.  What does your personal attack have to with the OP?


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> “I’m a Liberal; if you disagree with me, you’re a Nazi!”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your avatar pretty well told me that you were a liberal.  But, unfortunately your mental disorder is not the issue.
> 
> The real issue is that the civilian militias got hoodwinked by the far left and now the whole militia concept is being ridiculed because of the wallists willingness to violate the Constitution they pretend to care about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illegals have caused massive unemployment amongst almost every blue collar worker and construction business owner I know.
> Thanks to Trump, they are all making money after many years of GW and Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are only consistent with inconsistency.  No wall and statistical zero unemployment.  Conclusion: states are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Silence is superior to ad libbing nonsense when you have nothing factual to say.
> The millions who have been adversely affected by globalism will once again vote for Trump and a border wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump IS a globalist.  Those who want globalism are in favor of a wall.
Click to expand...

Are you on drugs?
I have an idea...
Why don’t *you* define globalism?


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ad hominem coming from someone as dignified as yourself.
> Color me shocked.
> I’d appreciate your paying my property taxes to pay for their shelter, clothing, food and hospital emergency room use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish communist wannabe wants to use words he don't know the definition of... you don't impress me Groucho.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Groucho had a way of cutting to the truth.
> The ramifications of off-shoring, Business Visas and illegals are destructive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believe in communism so your opinions don't count to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From which post did you derive your ad hominem?
> Answer without using yet another ad hominem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn.  What does your personal attack have to with the OP?
Click to expand...

Uh, are you on drugs?
*You’re* the one attacking everyone who disagrees with you.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your avatar pretty well told me that you were a liberal.  But, unfortunately your mental disorder is not the issue.
> 
> The real issue is that the civilian militias got hoodwinked by the far left and now the whole militia concept is being ridiculed because of the wallists willingness to violate the Constitution they pretend to care about.
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals have caused massive unemployment amongst almost every blue collar worker and construction business owner I know.
> Thanks to Trump, they are all making money after many years of GW and Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are only consistent with inconsistency.  No wall and statistical zero unemployment.  Conclusion: states are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Silence is superior to ad libbing nonsense when you have nothing factual to say.
> The millions who have been adversely affected by globalism will once again vote for Trump and a border wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump IS a globalist.  Those who want globalism are in favor of a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you on drugs?
> I have an idea...
> Why don’t *you* define globalism?
Click to expand...


I do not and have never taken drugs.  How is that related to the thread?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Indeependent said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish communist wannabe wants to use words he don't know the definition of... you don't impress me Groucho.
> 
> 
> 
> Groucho had a way of cutting to the truth.
> The ramifications of off-shoring, Business Visas and illegals are destructive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believe in communism so your opinions don't count to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From which post did you derive your ad hominem?
> Answer without using yet another ad hominem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn.  What does your personal attack have to with the OP?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh, are you on drugs?
> *You’re* the one attacking everyone who disagrees with you.
Click to expand...


I'm not attacking anyone.  I met your criticisms tit for tat and challenged Correll on his stupid logic that, unless you're buying his magic elixir, you are against having a secure border.  

Do you have something related to the OP or do you want to continue the pissing match?  If you have something related to the OP, spit it out; if you need to speak with me one on one, PM me.  But, if you insist on having a personality contest with me, you can expect me to ignore you.  Unlike you, at least I HAVE a personality.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Local officials are under no obligation to enforce federal laws. The Supreme Court made it clear that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. It has nothing to do with Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> It has _everything_ to do with Jim Crow laws! You can't choose which laws you will observe and which laws you will ignore.
> You have to be an absolute moron to deny that. No one is asking Libby Schaff or Gavin Newsom or Michelle Lujan-Grisham to conduct ICE raids themselves or track down the immigration status of the people they give cover to.
> 
> The very word "sanctuary" itself means a safe haven from the law. It means the law doesn't matter to sanctuary quislings in California or New Mexico or wherever it happens to be.
> 
> Can you let a rapist live in your home because you are under no obligation to help the police? You know damned well you would be arrested as an accessory to a crime if you did that. Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration shouldn't be an option
> and show me any other law that you can choose not to observe. Name one! Go ahead.
> 
> Your lies are tiresome and bullshit. They aren't even effective as rhetorical devices. You cannot selectively apply the law!
> Stop pretending, you ass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with some posters on their political stances many times.  I do disagree with you on your knowledge of the law.  Some of us have actually studied and worked in that field.  Now, I've heard your opinion about this subject and I've looked into how the United States Supreme Court would answer you.  Here it is:
> 
> _The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law._
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._
> 
> _No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it._
> 
> _— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to imply that Immigration laws are unconstitutional and thus it is ok for sanctuary cities to ignore them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times have I asked you to show me that section of the Constitution that gives the federal government jurisdiction over the states to invite whomever they choose to let in?
> 
> You try to make your life all about what you believe with this garden variety of questions like when did you quit beating your wife.  What you need to do is step back and examine the issue from the perspective of others.  The left and the right have appealed to each other.  I'm on the outside, looking in.  BOTH of you are going to the same destination, just by different routes.  So, let me dumb this down for you.
> 
> There was a time in America when we respected the constitutional Rights of individuals and the federal government had *some* modicum of respect for states rights.
> ......
Click to expand...



If the constitution does not have in it, any power granted to the federal government to control immigration, that is a failure of the Constitution.


We, as a nation, cannot survive in any meaningful way, without control of the flow of people across our borders.


Do the American people have the RIght to Self Determination, in your opinion?


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm supporting the enforcement of our border, to prevent unlimited and unvetted Third World immigration into our nation.
> 
> YOu are attacking those who are tying to do that and supporting those who are encouraging the illegal immigration.
> 
> 
> Please explain how you reached your above conclusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I reached my conclusion by working all sides of the immigration issue.  I volunteered to work in a non-profit group that helped foreigners with immigration issues.  In addition to that I spent a number of years manning the border with civilian border patrols.  My resume would include having done research for John Tanton (who founded and runs such nonprofits as CIS, (Center for Immigration Studies), FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform), and Numbers USA.  Much of my research from the late 1970s is STILL used by the neo-nazi groups that permeate the wallist propaganda machine.  I know most of the movers and shakers on a first name basis.
> 
> I developed a number of research papers for right wing organizations over an 11 year period and spent 6 years working with foreigners in order to get a complete picture of the situation.
> 
> As a civilian militia member and officer, I watched the neo nazis drain militia personnel into immigration causes and abandon their posts that were necessary to retain our constitutional Liberties.  Having been on *all* sides I watched the left flip the right and today the wallists are doing exactly what Benjamin Franklin warned us NOT to do.  We are forfeiting Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety.
> 
> The primary way I reached my conclusions came back in the early 2000s when a group of Salvadorans tried to enter the United States by trespassing over private property.  They were met by Ranch Rescue, a civilian border group protecting property at the behest of the property owner, Jack Foote.  An altercation took place and the Salvadorans came out second best in round one.
> 
> In round two, the matter ended up in court with Ranch Rescue members ending up in prison and the property owner losing his home and land to the Salvadorans.  The judge ruled that the civilian border patrol had violated the "_civil rights_" of the Salvadorans.  Those "_civil rights_" obviously trumped the private property Rights of land owners (thanks to the illegally ratified 14th Amendment.)
> 
> Leiva v. Ranch Rescue
> 
> Bear in mind I was with the legal team that begged Foote and Ranch Rescue to appeal that decision.  They refused.  So, when the wallists tell you about your property Rights and duty to protect borders, they are feeding you a load of pure horse shit.  It was not the left or Democrats; liberals or "_open border_" types; it wasn't even Nancy Pelosi supporters that insured the foreigners would have "_civil rights" _regardless of whether they had papers or not.  That ruling was made possible by the neo nazis that developed the wall worship idea.
> 
> In 2004, the border patrols were organized by neo nazis (honest to God real nazis) into an organization called the MinutemeTn.  Ever since, these people have worked day and night to screw you out of your *unalienable* Rights.  They lie to you (yes, due to the actions of the wallists, undocumented foreigners DO have rights.)  They propose solutions that are calculated so as to deprive you of your Rights and dismantle the Constitution.  While you are focused on foreigners - who are *economically profitable* for business,* your* Rights and *your* culture are disappearing from right under your nose.  In the case of that background check argument, you are helping destroy the militia, the Right to Privacy, the ability of free men to revolt against tyranny, and you are nullifying the Fourth Amendment.  Now, do you require proof of what I just said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not support giving the land of citizens to foreigners based on situations like you describe, so presenting that as an answer to why you think I support a million immigrants a year, makes no sense.
> 
> 
> NONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether you support a given principle or not is irrelevant.  If / when you don't understand the law and you don't know from whence the political propaganda you spew originated from, you can unwittingly become part and parcel of an effort that may have unintended consequences for you.  Would you like a couple of examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Calling my posts "political propaganda" instead of addressing what I actually say, is just you being rude.
> 
> 
> 2  REfuseing to address what I actually say, and trying to tie what I said in with other people that you see some similarity to, is you being dishonest.
> 
> 3. If you disagree with what I say, explain why, as concisely as you can.
> 
> 4. Save the name calling for the tourists. iF you see your fingers typing "nazis" or "wallist" give yourself a hard shake, and try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Son, what I said about wallists is true.  If you challenge me again, you will be introduced to a long post that will prove, unequivocally who it is running the show.  They aren't just racists or left of center.  They are bonafide real life nazis.
Click to expand...



YOur inability to address what I actually say, is the point. 

Playing some "seven degrees of separation" game with my words, to reach some one you claim is a "nazis" is not  an answer to a challenge. 


It is irrelevant pap.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


> The more you post, the more you show your lack of maturity and your lack of a solid knowledge base.
> 
> You cannot cite one, single, solitary sentence in the entire Constitution that supports your xenophobia. Apparently, you were a member in the militia the OP began this thread about.


Make up your diseased defective tiny mind. 
Am I am liberal, as you claimed a short time ago? Or am I  a militia member? 
Whichever it is I am clearly much brighter than you though I take no special pride in that. 




> My "_fear of barriers_" as you call it brings me to the point of educating your dumb ass since trying to be civil didn't work. In order for a wall to be effective, it relies on the background checks you thrive on. You are simply too stupid to understand that *we cannot devise a background check system that applies to undocumented foreigners only*.


_A barrier does not need a system of background checks to simply stop law breakers.
It's very effective all on it's own simply by being a large physical barrier. _
How stupid are you?


It's very hard to smuggle drugs over a wall. It's hard to get your family over a wall. It's very hard to cross over through gaps in the border while climbing over a wall. 
It's basic border interdiction that funnels people through border check points making the screening of illegals more efficient. Did you read my link about all the countries who have built border walls? 
Am I the stupid one here? It doesn't look like it. 



> That being the case, Americans are subject to endless background checks that have been employed for ulterior motives (i.e. locking millions of white Americans out of the job market.) Today, 97 percent of the public wants to have a background check in order to buy a firearm. However, in order for the background check to be worth a shit, that means National Gun Registration. The background check to purchase weapons is worthless without the National Gun Registration.
> 
> Registration is the precursor to weapon confiscation. The fact that you cannot follow your own line of reasoning says more about you than all the name calling I can engage in here on USM.


Your increasing use of ad homs shows a rising level of desperation and frustration on your part.Not mine.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


> Trump IS a globalist. Those who want globalism are in favor of a wall.


Well that's just absolute idiocy. It's nonsense.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Vandalshandle said:


>


Your little cartoon isn't a reply of any sort to all the points I made about the arrested militia leader. It's a cowardly brainless cop out. You've identified yourself as a gutless shitbag. 
I'm hardly surprised.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Correll said:


> If the constitution does not have in it, any power granted to the federal government to control immigration, that is a failure of the Constitution.
> 
> 
> We, as a nation, cannot survive in any meaningful way, without control of the flow of people across our borders.
> 
> 
> Do the American people have the RIght to Self Determination, in your opinion?


Clearly the Constitution gives to the federal government the right and responsibility to protect the nation.
And clearly controlling the border and who may enter the nation and not is a facet of national defense.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Groucho had a way of cutting to the truth.
> The ramifications of off-shoring, Business Visas and illegals are destructive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You believe in communism so your opinions don't count to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From which post did you derive your ad hominem?
> Answer without using yet another ad hominem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yawn.  What does your personal attack have to with the OP?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh, are you on drugs?
> *You’re* the one attacking everyone who disagrees with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not attacking anyone.  I met your criticisms tit for tat and challenged Correll on his stupid logic that, unless you're buying his magic elixir, you are against having a secure border.
> 
> Do you have something related to the OP or do you want to continue the pissing match?  If you have something related to the OP, spit it out; if you need to speak with me one on one, PM me.  But, if you insist on having a personality contest with me, you can expect me to ignore you.  Unlike you, at least I HAVE a personality.
Click to expand...

It’s nice to know how such an accomplished litigator as yourself disregards how he presents to others.
You disregard case law and you have  bad temper.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals have caused massive unemployment amongst almost every blue collar worker and construction business owner I know.
> Thanks to Trump, they are all making money after many years of GW and Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are only consistent with inconsistency.  No wall and statistical zero unemployment.  Conclusion: states are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Silence is superior to ad libbing nonsense when you have nothing factual to say.
> The millions who have been adversely affected by globalism will once again vote for Trump and a border wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump IS a globalist.  Those who want globalism are in favor of a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you on drugs?
> I have an idea...
> Why don’t *you* define globalism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not and have never taken drugs.  How is that related to the thread?
Click to expand...

How are your ad hominems related to this thread?
Anyone who disagrees with you is automatically relegated by you to the “Idiot” heap.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Indeependent said:


> How are your ad hominems related to this thread?
> Anyone who disagrees with you is automatically relegated by you to the “Idiot” heap.


Is Porter Rockwell a shill for American Nazi Party reptilian germ George Lincoln Rockwell?

It wold explain much.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to imply that Immigration laws are unconstitutional and thus it is ok for sanctuary cities to ignore them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times have I asked you to show me that section of the Constitution that gives the federal government jurisdiction over the states to invite whomever they choose to let in?
> 
> You try to make your life all about what you believe with this garden variety of questions like when did you quit beating your wife.  What you need to do is step back and examine the issue from the perspective of others.  The left and the right have appealed to each other.  I'm on the outside, looking in.  BOTH of you are going to the same destination, just by different routes.  So, let me dumb this down for you.
> 
> There was a time in America when we respected the constitutional Rights of individuals and the federal government had *some* modicum of respect for states rights.
> 
> Back then employers hired whomever they chose.  Since that was the case, they relied on what neighbors and former employers had to say with respect to a job candidate.  Today, people like you want to "_vet_" potential workers.  Part of your religion says that government is God.  And so, you want to take the word of liars in government.  Adding insult to injury, you are naive enough to think that a foreign government that lies to us and disagrees with us is going to give us the straight skinny about some individual they want to pawn off on us OR an individual that is going to do us harm.
> 
> When employers were required to hire X number of blacks, Y number of women, Z number of gays / transgender, etc. it took away the private property Rights of Americans.  An American owns the job as much as a writer owns the words to the music or manuscript they wrote.  When *ANY* law puts those Rights into jeopardy, they are unconstitutional.  When you limit the private sector's ability to get government records about an individual, then you have to rely on people who actually *KNOW* the person you want to do business with.
> 
> There are times when it is applicable to have information on potential workers: you don't want pedophiles watching your kids and you don't want a bank robber to work in a bank.  But, in your world, those people cannot find *ANY* job since *ANY* criminal act precludes those people from finding *ANY* job.  Employers are able to access records that are irrelevant to their needs.  Americans get locked out of jobs due to these background checks and MILLIONS wind up on welfare.
> 
> I might be wrong, but I don't think you're so stupid that you don't realize that a background check cannot be limited to people you don't like and just of the purpose of delving into their immigration status (and yes, those laws *are* unconstitutional.)  The background check, as applied by employers, is a clear cut violation of the Fourth Amendment.  We may try to make bogus arguments that the limitation applies to the government; however, what you want is for the employer to an agent of law enforcement for federal officials.  THAT is what makes it unconstitutional.
> 
> As to federal law, the federal government has *NO* jurisdiction in who may or may not be invited into a state. This bogus B.S. about "_vetting_" foreigners is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog.  What you are advocating is pure socialism.  Background checks did not stop the parents of Nidal Hasan from brainwashing their son with Muslim crap that led him to kill 13 of his fellow soldiers and injure 30 more.  It did not stop the Boston Marathon Bombers; had no effect on stopping the son of a Muslim politician from killing 49 people in a bar in Florida.  It did not stop the San Bernadino shooters.   Even the 9 / 11 attackers were background checked.  Bottom line: background checks are ineffective AND *there are better ways*.
> 
> If you still do not understand why I'm against background checks, I will do yet another long winded diatribe on the effects they've had on the Bill of Rights.  Quit asking rhetorical questions suggesting you have the only answer - you don't.  Quit being a liar and suggesting that those who disagree with your solutions want to flood this country with foreigners.  Your strategies are going to fail; you're going to make enemies when some day you might need the support of constitutionalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kewl...anyone who harbors illegals is not objective.
> Your state is merely a corridor to states that don’t want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If / when communities and states in particular are left to act in their own best interests AND when the government is limited as to how much money they can waste under any pretext to influence the people, the situation balances itself out.  IF Trump cuts off federal funds to Sanctuary Cities for harboring undocumented foreigners, you get to see where Pelosi's real beliefs are.  Either she wants them and can afford them or she can't.  Her attitude will be adjusted accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Save your bullshit for yourself.
> Pelosi changes her mind every time MSNBC criticizes her.
> When you can contain illegals in your border, get back to us minus your bleeding heart nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
> 
> There are no "_illegals_" since we have a presumption of innocence.
> 
> You are a cancer on the face of humanity; you're a traitor; worse you are a political propaganda prostitute and a hate monger.  You didn't impress me one damn bit.
Click to expand...



The legal "presumption of innocence" is not a reason to claim that we have no illegal aliens living among US.

It is not propaganda nor hate to have a problem with that.


Your position makes no sense.


----------



## Correll

Vandalshandle said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Totally false. They simply do not hold people in their jails for violating federal law. In short, if the feds are not there to do their job and take them into custody when the county releases them, the county is not going to do their job for them. You are a virtual encyclopedia of misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> And you are a virtual encyclopedia of imagination.
> Everyone knows a dump like San Francisco won't hold prisoners for the feds. *But if the feds happen to call the county sheriff and just inquire about a certain prisoner being held and a release date the policy is to tell him to fuck off (but perhaps not in those exact words). *
> 
> Yes. Simply releasing information to federal agents is considered "doing the job of the federal government" and they are ordered not to comply.
> That is going far beyond simply not doing the work ICE should be doing to actual hostile proactive non cooperation that intentionally violates federal immigration law. So in a very real sense sanctuary cities and counties are intentionally and
> diligently breaking the law when they are sworn to uphold it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am still waiting for a link of the above embolden part of your post. In the meantime, I am trying to visualize this:
> 
> Caller" "Is Garcia getting out of jail today?"
> San Francisco County cop: "Who is asking"
> Caller, "Immigration"
> San Francisco County cop, "Fuck off" (Click)
> 
> Yeah, I am sure that is exactly what is happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is what Sanctuary City MEANS. That is what the stated policy of these cities and local governments ARE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. That is Rush Limbaugh's imaginary definition of "Sanctuary city"
Click to expand...



Ordering the people in the city government to not cooperate with the feds, that is not Rush Limbaugh's imagination, that is what the sanctuary cities are doing.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Save your bullshit for yourself.
> Pelosi changes her mind every time MSNBC criticizes her.
> When you can contain illegals in your border, get back to us minus your bleeding heart nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
> 
> There are no "_illegals_" since we have a presumption of innocence.
> 
> You are a cancer on the face of humanity; you're a traitor; worse you are a political propaganda prostitute and a hate monger.  You didn't impress me one damn bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ad hominem coming from someone as dignified as yourself.
> Color me shocked.
> I’d appreciate your paying my property taxes to pay for their shelter, clothing, food and hospital emergency room use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jewish communist wannabe wants to use words he don't know the definition of... you don't impress me Groucho.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Groucho had a way of cutting to the truth.
> The ramifications of off-shoring, Business Visas and illegals are destructive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believe in communism so your opinions don't count to me.
Click to expand...


Weak dodge.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your avatar pretty well told me that you were a liberal. But, unfortunately your mental disorder is not the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> George Orwell? He was an anti fascist, anti authoritarian and anti Communist. Yes...a real genuine leftist. You should be so "liberal".
> Scan my posts and point out all the liberal ones you can find, dimwit.
> 
> Your carefully crafted personae is now being gutted by your own ad hom idiocy. If you let dumb people talk enough they will always tell you who they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The real issue is that the civilian militias got hoodwinked by the far left and now the whole militia concept is being ridiculed because of the wallists willingness to violate the Constitution they pretend to care about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your fear of barriers seems stupid, absurd and pointless. How 65 countries have erected security walls on their borders | Daily Mail Online
> 
> Your imbecilic view of the Constitution seems to be states can bring into the country whoever and however many people they wish. I don't know why any rational person would think that but you seem to really believe it.
> 
> The Federal Government, not California or New Mexico or New York, controls who gets in. Fuck off!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more you post, the more you show your lack of maturity and your lack of a solid knowledge base.
> 
> You cannot cite one, single, solitary sentence in the entire Constitution that supports your xenophobia.  Apparently, you were a member in the militia the OP began this thread about.
> 
> My "_fear of barriers_" as you call it brings me to the point of educating your dumb ass since trying to be civil didn't work.  In order for a wall to be effective, it relies on the background checks you thrive on.  You are simply too stupid to understand that *we cannot devise a background check system that applies to undocumented foreigners only*.
> 
> That being the case, Americans are subject to endless background checks that have been employed for ulterior motives (i.e. locking millions of white Americans out of the job market.)  Today, 97 percent of the public wants to have a background check in order to buy a firearm.  However, in order for the background check to be worth a shit, that means National Gun Registration.  The background check to purchase weapons is worthless without the National Gun Registration.
> 
> Registration is the precursor to weapon confiscation.  The fact that you cannot follow your own line of reasoning says more about you than all the name calling I can engage in here on USM.
Click to expand...



YOur rhetoric apes that of the far right, but your position on the issues, is that of the far left, 


ie unlimited unvetted Third World immigration. 


That will, no, that IS destroying America and you are supporting it. 


All your pretense of caring about American institutions, or culture or even "whites" is irrelevant window dressing to try to hide that fact.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Correll said:


> YOur rhetoric apes that of the far right, but your position on the issues, is that of the far left,
> 
> 
> ie unlimited unvetted Third World immigration.
> 
> 
> That will, no, that IS destroying America and you are supporting it.
> 
> 
> All your pretense of caring about American institutions, or culture or even "whites" is irrelevant window dressing to try to hide that fact.


He is all over the lot. The bottom line is he seems to want what's not good for the country, and says we have no business telling states who they can let enter their borders. That's obviously and manifestly a lie.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times have I asked you to show me that section of the Constitution that gives the federal government jurisdiction over the states to invite whomever they choose to let in?
> 
> You try to make your life all about what you believe with this garden variety of questions like when did you quit beating your wife.  What you need to do is step back and examine the issue from the perspective of others.  The left and the right have appealed to each other.  I'm on the outside, looking in.  BOTH of you are going to the same destination, just by different routes.  So, let me dumb this down for you.
> 
> There was a time in America when we respected the constitutional Rights of individuals and the federal government had *some* modicum of respect for states rights.
> 
> Back then employers hired whomever they chose.  Since that was the case, they relied on what neighbors and former employers had to say with respect to a job candidate.  Today, people like you want to "_vet_" potential workers.  Part of your religion says that government is God.  And so, you want to take the word of liars in government.  Adding insult to injury, you are naive enough to think that a foreign government that lies to us and disagrees with us is going to give us the straight skinny about some individual they want to pawn off on us OR an individual that is going to do us harm.
> 
> When employers were required to hire X number of blacks, Y number of women, Z number of gays / transgender, etc. it took away the private property Rights of Americans.  An American owns the job as much as a writer owns the words to the music or manuscript they wrote.  When *ANY* law puts those Rights into jeopardy, they are unconstitutional.  When you limit the private sector's ability to get government records about an individual, then you have to rely on people who actually *KNOW* the person you want to do business with.
> 
> There are times when it is applicable to have information on potential workers: you don't want pedophiles watching your kids and you don't want a bank robber to work in a bank.  But, in your world, those people cannot find *ANY* job since *ANY* criminal act precludes those people from finding *ANY* job.  Employers are able to access records that are irrelevant to their needs.  Americans get locked out of jobs due to these background checks and MILLIONS wind up on welfare.
> 
> I might be wrong, but I don't think you're so stupid that you don't realize that a background check cannot be limited to people you don't like and just of the purpose of delving into their immigration status (and yes, those laws *are* unconstitutional.)  The background check, as applied by employers, is a clear cut violation of the Fourth Amendment.  We may try to make bogus arguments that the limitation applies to the government; however, what you want is for the employer to an agent of law enforcement for federal officials.  THAT is what makes it unconstitutional.
> 
> As to federal law, the federal government has *NO* jurisdiction in who may or may not be invited into a state. This bogus B.S. about "_vetting_" foreigners is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog.  What you are advocating is pure socialism.  Background checks did not stop the parents of Nidal Hasan from brainwashing their son with Muslim crap that led him to kill 13 of his fellow soldiers and injure 30 more.  It did not stop the Boston Marathon Bombers; had no effect on stopping the son of a Muslim politician from killing 49 people in a bar in Florida.  It did not stop the San Bernadino shooters.   Even the 9 / 11 attackers were background checked.  Bottom line: background checks are ineffective AND *there are better ways*.
> 
> If you still do not understand why I'm against background checks, I will do yet another long winded diatribe on the effects they've had on the Bill of Rights.  Quit asking rhetorical questions suggesting you have the only answer - you don't.  Quit being a liar and suggesting that those who disagree with your solutions want to flood this country with foreigners.  Your strategies are going to fail; you're going to make enemies when some day you might need the support of constitutionalists.
> 
> 
> 
> Kewl...anyone who harbors illegals is not objective.
> Your state is merely a corridor to states that don’t want them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If / when communities and states in particular are left to act in their own best interests AND when the government is limited as to how much money they can waste under any pretext to influence the people, the situation balances itself out.  IF Trump cuts off federal funds to Sanctuary Cities for harboring undocumented foreigners, you get to see where Pelosi's real beliefs are.  Either she wants them and can afford them or she can't.  Her attitude will be adjusted accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Save your bullshit for yourself.
> Pelosi changes her mind every time MSNBC criticizes her.
> When you can contain illegals in your border, get back to us minus your bleeding heart nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
> 
> There are no "_illegals_" since we have a presumption of innocence.
> 
> You are a cancer on the face of humanity; you're a traitor; worse you are a political propaganda prostitute and a hate monger.  You didn't impress me one damn bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The legal "presumption of innocence" is not a reason to claim that we have no illegal aliens living among US.
> 
> It is not propaganda nor hate to have a problem with that.
> 
> 
> Your position makes no sense.
Click to expand...


If the United States Supreme Court says it is not a crime, who are YOU to argue with them?  Additionally, do you have any inkling what kind of dangerous precedent that you are creating?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
> 
> There are no "_illegals_" since we have a presumption of innocence.
> 
> You are a cancer on the face of humanity; you're a traitor; worse you are a political propaganda prostitute and a hate monger.  You didn't impress me one damn bit.
> 
> 
> 
> Ad hominem coming from someone as dignified as yourself.
> Color me shocked.
> I’d appreciate your paying my property taxes to pay for their shelter, clothing, food and hospital emergency room use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jewish communist wannabe wants to use words he don't know the definition of... you don't impress me Groucho.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Groucho had a way of cutting to the truth.
> The ramifications of off-shoring, Business Visas and illegals are destructive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believe in communism so your opinions don't count to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weak dodge.
Click to expand...


I don't dodge a damn thing.  I just didn't come here to trade barbs with morons.  The thread is about a right wing militia.  Personal shit belongs in PMs.


----------



## Correll

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOur rhetoric apes that of the far right, but your position on the issues, is that of the far left,
> 
> 
> ie unlimited unvetted Third World immigration.
> 
> 
> That will, no, that IS destroying America and you are supporting it.
> 
> 
> All your pretense of caring about American institutions, or culture or even "whites" is irrelevant window dressing to try to hide that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> He is all over the lot. The bottom line is he seems to want what's not good for the country, and says we have no business telling states who they can let enter their borders. That's obviously and manifestly a lie.
Click to expand...



WHile pretending to be of the far right and caring about "whites".


I'm thinking possibly a dishonest far lefty thinking he can trick the "less educated" to support anti-American policies,


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kewl...anyone who harbors illegals is not objective.
> Your state is merely a corridor to states that don’t want them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If / when communities and states in particular are left to act in their own best interests AND when the government is limited as to how much money they can waste under any pretext to influence the people, the situation balances itself out.  IF Trump cuts off federal funds to Sanctuary Cities for harboring undocumented foreigners, you get to see where Pelosi's real beliefs are.  Either she wants them and can afford them or she can't.  Her attitude will be adjusted accordingly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Save your bullshit for yourself.
> Pelosi changes her mind every time MSNBC criticizes her.
> When you can contain illegals in your border, get back to us minus your bleeding heart nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
> 
> There are no "_illegals_" since we have a presumption of innocence.
> 
> You are a cancer on the face of humanity; you're a traitor; worse you are a political propaganda prostitute and a hate monger.  You didn't impress me one damn bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The legal "presumption of innocence" is not a reason to claim that we have no illegal aliens living among US.
> 
> It is not propaganda nor hate to have a problem with that.
> 
> 
> Your position makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the United States Supreme Court says it is not a crime, who are YOU to argue with them?  Additionally, do you have any inkling what kind of dangerous precedent that you are creating?
Click to expand...



Someone who can look at tens of millions of foreign nationals living in this country in violation of our laws, and see that the emperor has no clothes on.


I don't care how many Supreme Court Justices you cite, nor how smart or even you are.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ad hominem coming from someone as dignified as yourself.
> Color me shocked.
> I’d appreciate your paying my property taxes to pay for their shelter, clothing, food and hospital emergency room use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish communist wannabe wants to use words he don't know the definition of... you don't impress me Groucho.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Groucho had a way of cutting to the truth.
> The ramifications of off-shoring, Business Visas and illegals are destructive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believe in communism so your opinions don't count to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weak dodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't dodge a damn thing.  I just didn't come here to trade barbs with morons.  The thread is about a right wing militia.  Personal shit belongs in PMs.
Click to expand...




Calling some one a "communist",  is not a rebuttal of his point(s). 


Using a name calling as a substitute for addressing his point, is a form of a dodge.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your avatar pretty well told me that you were a liberal. But, unfortunately your mental disorder is not the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> George Orwell? He was an anti fascist, anti authoritarian and anti Communist. Yes...a real genuine leftist. You should be so "liberal".
> Scan my posts and point out all the liberal ones you can find, dimwit.
> 
> Your carefully crafted personae is now being gutted by your own ad hom idiocy. If you let dumb people talk enough they will always tell you who they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The real issue is that the civilian militias got hoodwinked by the far left and now the whole militia concept is being ridiculed because of the wallists willingness to violate the Constitution they pretend to care about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your fear of barriers seems stupid, absurd and pointless. How 65 countries have erected security walls on their borders | Daily Mail Online
> 
> Your imbecilic view of the Constitution seems to be states can bring into the country whoever and however many people they wish. I don't know why any rational person would think that but you seem to really believe it.
> 
> The Federal Government, not California or New Mexico or New York, controls who gets in. Fuck off!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more you post, the more you show your lack of maturity and your lack of a solid knowledge base.
> 
> You cannot cite one, single, solitary sentence in the entire Constitution that supports your xenophobia.  Apparently, you were a member in the militia the OP began this thread about.
> 
> My "_fear of barriers_" as you call it brings me to the point of educating your dumb ass since trying to be civil didn't work.  In order for a wall to be effective, it relies on the background checks you thrive on.  You are simply too stupid to understand that *we cannot devise a background check system that applies to undocumented foreigners only*.
> 
> That being the case, Americans are subject to endless background checks that have been employed for ulterior motives (i.e. locking millions of white Americans out of the job market.)  Today, 97 percent of the public wants to have a background check in order to buy a firearm.  However, in order for the background check to be worth a shit, that means National Gun Registration.  The background check to purchase weapons is worthless without the National Gun Registration.
> 
> Registration is the precursor to weapon confiscation.  The fact that you cannot follow your own line of reasoning says more about you than all the name calling I can engage in here on USM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOur rhetoric apes that of the far right, but your position on the issues, is that of the far left,
> 
> 
> ie unlimited unvetted Third World immigration.
> 
> 
> That will, no, that IS destroying America and you are supporting it.
> 
> 
> All your pretense of caring about American institutions, or culture or even "whites" is irrelevant window dressing to try to hide that fact.
Click to expand...


No sir.  You like being dishonest because you've been outed for the nazi that you are.  Let's dumb this stuff down for the masses:

America was founded as Republic by white Christians.  *ALL* of our legal institutions and our system of jurisprudence is predicated on Anglo Saxon law.  The de jure / lawful / constitutional government is a Republican form of government wherein the Bill of Rights is an absolute guarantee that the government will not infringe on the Rights of the people.

The Declaration of Independence, which is a statement of our foundational principles states:

"_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain* unalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."

The bottom line here is that either all men are created equal OR they are not.  Correll's position is that all men are NOT created equal.  He's yet to express an opinion about a Creator.  IF he supports a democracy, then his Creator would be mob rule since man is his own idiot God, the majority deciding what privileges they can dole out to their fellow man.

The non-whites, well aware of this dynamic, want to eradicate the white race off the face of the earth.  That they are doing so subtly is a testament to their more than adequate strategizing. 

The difference between what the wallists want and what constitutionalists want boils down to the reality:

Those who make the pretentious argument that only a wall / militarized border is the solution are living in a delusional world.  For it has been shown that, by a ratio of 4 to 1, new immigrants are siding with Democrats over Republicans and are slowly voting the wallists into the pages of history.

There is no window dressing on my side.  I'm offering to be specific as to the names and affiliations of the nazis that originated the talking points that Correll relies on.  And, I'm not insecure in trusting the rest of you to understand that Correll cannot put a single sentence from the Constitution before you that supports his National Socialist viewpoint.

There is no realistic way of vetting foreigners whose country of birth would lie like Hell for them.  The ONLY people being affected by endless background checks are Americans.  Many of them are being denied jobs, credit, housing, etc. - many times over insignificant crap that doesn't amount to a hill of beans.  Correll does not trust his fellow man.  If he did, he might understand that if many mom and pop companies were not weighted down by endless regulations and laws, they would probably hire people that looked like the owners and shared their values.  There is more to it than that, but at the end of the day, if you don't have any Rights left, thank people Correll.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOur rhetoric apes that of the far right, but your position on the issues, is that of the far left,
> 
> 
> ie unlimited unvetted Third World immigration.
> 
> 
> That will, no, that IS destroying America and you are supporting it.
> 
> 
> All your pretense of caring about American institutions, or culture or even "whites" is irrelevant window dressing to try to hide that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> He is all over the lot. The bottom line is he seems to want what's not good for the country, and says we have no business telling states who they can let enter their borders. That's obviously and manifestly a lie.
Click to expand...


No sir.  I did not lie.  And you have *NO* facts to back up your position.  The next time you make a personal post about me I will report it and it can be deleted.  Your post must have something relative to the OP.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOur rhetoric apes that of the far right, but your position on the issues, is that of the far left,
> 
> 
> ie unlimited unvetted Third World immigration.
> 
> 
> That will, no, that IS destroying America and you are supporting it.
> 
> 
> All your pretense of caring about American institutions, or culture or even "whites" is irrelevant window dressing to try to hide that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> He is all over the lot. The bottom line is he seems to want what's not good for the country, and says we have no business telling states who they can let enter their borders. That's obviously and manifestly a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WHile pretending to be of the far right and caring about "whites".
> 
> 
> I'm thinking possibly a dishonest far lefty thinking he can trick the "less educated" to support anti-American policies,
Click to expand...


I'm thinking *YOU* are the real lefty.  Isn't THIS what you want to hear?


Just cause you drank the Kool Aid doesn't mean I'm going to.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If / when communities and states in particular are left to act in their own best interests AND when the government is limited as to how much money they can waste under any pretext to influence the people, the situation balances itself out.  IF Trump cuts off federal funds to Sanctuary Cities for harboring undocumented foreigners, you get to see where Pelosi's real beliefs are.  Either she wants them and can afford them or she can't.  Her attitude will be adjusted accordingly.
> 
> 
> 
> Save your bullshit for yourself.
> Pelosi changes her mind every time MSNBC criticizes her.
> When you can contain illegals in your border, get back to us minus your bleeding heart nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
> 
> There are no "_illegals_" since we have a presumption of innocence.
> 
> You are a cancer on the face of humanity; you're a traitor; worse you are a political propaganda prostitute and a hate monger.  You didn't impress me one damn bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The legal "presumption of innocence" is not a reason to claim that we have no illegal aliens living among US.
> 
> It is not propaganda nor hate to have a problem with that.
> 
> 
> Your position makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the United States Supreme Court says it is not a crime, who are YOU to argue with them?  Additionally, do you have any inkling what kind of dangerous precedent that you are creating?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Someone who can look at tens of millions of foreign nationals living in this country in violation of our laws, and see that the emperor has no clothes on.
> 
> 
> I don't care how many Supreme Court Justices you cite, nor how smart or even you are.
Click to expand...


The reality is, whether right or wrong, the United States Supreme Court cannot be over-ruled by we the sheeple unless we're willing to go to war.  It's obvious to me that you don't pack the gear.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your avatar pretty well told me that you were a liberal. But, unfortunately your mental disorder is not the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> George Orwell? He was an anti fascist, anti authoritarian and anti Communist. Yes...a real genuine leftist. You should be so "liberal".
> Scan my posts and point out all the liberal ones you can find, dimwit.
> 
> Your carefully crafted personae is now being gutted by your own ad hom idiocy. If you let dumb people talk enough they will always tell you who they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The real issue is that the civilian militias got hoodwinked by the far left and now the whole militia concept is being ridiculed because of the wallists willingness to violate the Constitution they pretend to care about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your fear of barriers seems stupid, absurd and pointless. How 65 countries have erected security walls on their borders | Daily Mail Online
> 
> Your imbecilic view of the Constitution seems to be states can bring into the country whoever and however many people they wish. I don't know why any rational person would think that but you seem to really believe it.
> 
> The Federal Government, not California or New Mexico or New York, controls who gets in. Fuck off!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more you post, the more you show your lack of maturity and your lack of a solid knowledge base.
> 
> You cannot cite one, single, solitary sentence in the entire Constitution that supports your xenophobia.  Apparently, you were a member in the militia the OP began this thread about.
> 
> My "_fear of barriers_" as you call it brings me to the point of educating your dumb ass since trying to be civil didn't work.  In order for a wall to be effective, it relies on the background checks you thrive on.  You are simply too stupid to understand that *we cannot devise a background check system that applies to undocumented foreigners only*.
> 
> That being the case, Americans are subject to endless background checks that have been employed for ulterior motives (i.e. locking millions of white Americans out of the job market.)  Today, 97 percent of the public wants to have a background check in order to buy a firearm.  However, in order for the background check to be worth a shit, that means National Gun Registration.  The background check to purchase weapons is worthless without the National Gun Registration.
> 
> Registration is the precursor to weapon confiscation.  The fact that you cannot follow your own line of reasoning says more about you than all the name calling I can engage in here on USM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOur rhetoric apes that of the far right, but your position on the issues, is that of the far left,
> 
> 
> ie unlimited unvetted Third World immigration.
> 
> 
> That will, no, that IS destroying America and you are supporting it.
> 
> 
> All your pretense of caring about American institutions, or culture or even "whites" is irrelevant window dressing to try to hide that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir.  You like being dishonest because you've been outed for the nazi that you are.  Let's dumb this stuff down for the masses:
> 
> America was founded as Republic by white Christians.  *ALL* of our legal institutions and our system of jurisprudence is predicated on Anglo Saxon law.  The de jure / lawful / constitutional government is a Republican form of government wherein the Bill of Rights is an absolute guarantee that the government will not infringe on the Rights of the people.
> 
> The Declaration of Independence, which is a statement of our foundational principles states:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain* unalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> The bottom line here is that either all men are created equal OR they are not.  Correll's position is that all men are NOT created equal.  He's yet to express an opinion about a Creator.  IF he supports a democracy, then his Creator would be mob rule since man is his own idiot God, the majority deciding what privileges they can dole out to their fellow man.
> 
> The non-whites, well aware of this dynamic, want to eradicate the white race off the face of the earth.  That they are doing so subtly is a testament to their more than adequate strategizing.
> 
> The difference between what the wallists want and what constitutionalists want boils down to the reality:
> 
> Those who make the pretentious argument that only a wall / militarized border is the solution are living in a delusional world.  For it has been shown that, by a ratio of 4 to 1, new immigrants are siding with Democrats over Republicans and are slowly voting the wallists into the pages of history.
> 
> There is no window dressing on my side.  I'm offering to be specific as to the names and affiliations of the nazis that originated the talking points that Correll relies on.  And, I'm not insecure in trusting the rest of you to understand that Correll cannot put a single sentence from the Constitution before you that supports his National Socialist viewpoint.
> 
> There is no realistic way of vetting foreigners whose country of birth would lie like Hell for them.  The ONLY people being affected by endless background checks are Americans.  Many of them are being denied jobs, credit, housing, etc. - many times over insignificant crap that doesn't amount to a hill of beans.  Correll does not trust his fellow man.  If he did, he might understand that if many mom and pop companies were not weighted down by endless regulations and laws, they would probably hire people that looked like the owners and shared their values.  There is more to it than that, but at the end of the day, if you don't have any Rights left, thank people Correll.
Click to expand...





1. You can shove your Godwins, back up your ass where you pulled them from.

2. Your pretense that you care about the institution of America and/or "white Christians" is proved to be false, by your support of polices that, you yourself admit are existential threats to them. 

3. Most of the above post was unneeded filler. The only purpose it served was to take up additional time of mine to wade though to find your actual points. Please stop that.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jewish communist wannabe wants to use words he don't know the definition of... you don't impress me Groucho.
> 
> 
> 
> Groucho had a way of cutting to the truth.
> The ramifications of off-shoring, Business Visas and illegals are destructive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believe in communism so your opinions don't count to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weak dodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't dodge a damn thing.  I just didn't come here to trade barbs with morons.  The thread is about a right wing militia.  Personal shit belongs in PMs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling some one a "communist",  is not a rebuttal of his point(s).
> 
> 
> Using a name calling as a substitute for addressing his point, is a form of a dodge.
Click to expand...


When someone comes here, makes an allegation, and avoids the OP, they are *NOT* due any response. Giving someone what they dish out is called self defense.  Even you should be able to figure that one out.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your little cartoon isn't a reply of any sort to all the points I made about the arrested militia leader. It's a cowardly brainless cop out. You've identified yourself as a gutless shitbag.
> I'm hardly surprised.
Click to expand...



Now, now, Eric, that is downright unneighborly….


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your avatar pretty well told me that you were a liberal. But, unfortunately your mental disorder is not the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> George Orwell? He was an anti fascist, anti authoritarian and anti Communist. Yes...a real genuine leftist. You should be so "liberal".
> Scan my posts and point out all the liberal ones you can find, dimwit.
> 
> Your carefully crafted personae is now being gutted by your own ad hom idiocy. If you let dumb people talk enough they will always tell you who they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The real issue is that the civilian militias got hoodwinked by the far left and now the whole militia concept is being ridiculed because of the wallists willingness to violate the Constitution they pretend to care about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your fear of barriers seems stupid, absurd and pointless. How 65 countries have erected security walls on their borders | Daily Mail Online
> 
> Your imbecilic view of the Constitution seems to be states can bring into the country whoever and however many people they wish. I don't know why any rational person would think that but you seem to really believe it.
> 
> The Federal Government, not California or New Mexico or New York, controls who gets in. Fuck off!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The more you post, the more you show your lack of maturity and your lack of a solid knowledge base.
> 
> You cannot cite one, single, solitary sentence in the entire Constitution that supports your xenophobia.  Apparently, you were a member in the militia the OP began this thread about.
> 
> My "_fear of barriers_" as you call it brings me to the point of educating your dumb ass since trying to be civil didn't work.  In order for a wall to be effective, it relies on the background checks you thrive on.  You are simply too stupid to understand that *we cannot devise a background check system that applies to undocumented foreigners only*.
> 
> That being the case, Americans are subject to endless background checks that have been employed for ulterior motives (i.e. locking millions of white Americans out of the job market.)  Today, 97 percent of the public wants to have a background check in order to buy a firearm.  However, in order for the background check to be worth a shit, that means National Gun Registration.  The background check to purchase weapons is worthless without the National Gun Registration.
> 
> Registration is the precursor to weapon confiscation.  The fact that you cannot follow your own line of reasoning says more about you than all the name calling I can engage in here on USM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOur rhetoric apes that of the far right, but your position on the issues, is that of the far left,
> 
> 
> ie unlimited unvetted Third World immigration.
> 
> 
> That will, no, that IS destroying America and you are supporting it.
> 
> 
> All your pretense of caring about American institutions, or culture or even "whites" is irrelevant window dressing to try to hide that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir.  You like being dishonest because you've been outed for the nazi that you are.  Let's dumb this stuff down for the masses:
> 
> America was founded as Republic by white Christians.  *ALL* of our legal institutions and our system of jurisprudence is predicated on Anglo Saxon law.  The de jure / lawful / constitutional government is a Republican form of government wherein the Bill of Rights is an absolute guarantee that the government will not infringe on the Rights of the people.
> 
> The Declaration of Independence, which is a statement of our foundational principles states:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain* unalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> The bottom line here is that either all men are created equal OR they are not.  Correll's position is that all men are NOT created equal.  He's yet to express an opinion about a Creator.  IF he supports a democracy, then his Creator would be mob rule since man is his own idiot God, the majority deciding what privileges they can dole out to their fellow man.
> 
> The non-whites, well aware of this dynamic, want to eradicate the white race off the face of the earth.  That they are doing so subtly is a testament to their more than adequate strategizing.
> 
> The difference between what the wallists want and what constitutionalists want boils down to the reality:
> 
> Those who make the pretentious argument that only a wall / militarized border is the solution are living in a delusional world.  For it has been shown that, by a ratio of 4 to 1, new immigrants are siding with Democrats over Republicans and are slowly voting the wallists into the pages of history.
> 
> There is no window dressing on my side.  I'm offering to be specific as to the names and affiliations of the nazis that originated the talking points that Correll relies on.  And, I'm not insecure in trusting the rest of you to understand that Correll cannot put a single sentence from the Constitution before you that supports his National Socialist viewpoint.
> 
> There is no realistic way of vetting foreigners whose country of birth would lie like Hell for them.  The ONLY people being affected by endless background checks are Americans.  Many of them are being denied jobs, credit, housing, etc. - many times over insignificant crap that doesn't amount to a hill of beans.  Correll does not trust his fellow man.  If he did, he might understand that if many mom and pop companies were not weighted down by endless regulations and laws, they would probably hire people that looked like the owners and shared their values.  There is more to it than that, but at the end of the day, if you don't have any Rights left, thank people Correll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You can shove your Godwins, back up your ass where you pulled them from.
> 
> 2. Your pretense that you care about the institution of America and/or "white Christians" is proved to be false, by your support of polices that, you yourself admit are existential threats to them.
> 
> 3. Most of the above post was unneeded filler. The only purpose it served was to take up additional time of mine to wade though to find your actual points. Please stop that.
Click to expand...


I've bled more blood for this country than you've said words in defense of it.  I stand for the principles our forefathers fought and died for and you stupid mother fucker - I manned that border before you were a gleam in your daddy's eyes.  And you don't have what it takes to shove a damn thing up my ass.  If you disagree, PM me.  I'd give my front seat in HELL to give you that opportunity.  

You should be wary of who you threaten.  I just called your bluff snowflake.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOur rhetoric apes that of the far right, but your position on the issues, is that of the far left,
> 
> 
> ie unlimited unvetted Third World immigration.
> 
> 
> That will, no, that IS destroying America and you are supporting it.
> 
> 
> All your pretense of caring about American institutions, or culture or even "whites" is irrelevant window dressing to try to hide that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> He is all over the lot. The bottom line is he seems to want what's not good for the country, and says we have no business telling states who they can let enter their borders. That's obviously and manifestly a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WHile pretending to be of the far right and caring about "whites".
> 
> 
> I'm thinking possibly a dishonest far lefty thinking he can trick the "less educated" to support anti-American policies,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm thinking *YOU* are the real lefty.  Isn't THIS what you want to hear?
> 
> 
> Just cause you drank the Kool Aid doesn't mean I'm going to.
Click to expand...




1. THe bit where you slander me as a kool aid drinker? That is just you being afraid to debate me on the issue, based on the merits or lack there of, of YOUR position vs mine.

2. That bit where you use Bill CLinton to try to cause an emotional reaction from people on the right? That is you playing a emotional game, instead of defending your position on it's merits, or honestly addressing our position.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Save your bullshit for yourself.
> Pelosi changes her mind every time MSNBC criticizes her.
> When you can contain illegals in your border, get back to us minus your bleeding heart nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
> 
> There are no "_illegals_" since we have a presumption of innocence.
> 
> You are a cancer on the face of humanity; you're a traitor; worse you are a political propaganda prostitute and a hate monger.  You didn't impress me one damn bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The legal "presumption of innocence" is not a reason to claim that we have no illegal aliens living among US.
> 
> It is not propaganda nor hate to have a problem with that.
> 
> 
> Your position makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the United States Supreme Court says it is not a crime, who are YOU to argue with them?  Additionally, do you have any inkling what kind of dangerous precedent that you are creating?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Someone who can look at tens of millions of foreign nationals living in this country in violation of our laws, and see that the emperor has no clothes on.
> 
> 
> I don't care how many Supreme Court Justices you cite, nor how smart or even you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reality is, whether right or wrong, the United States Supreme Court cannot be over-ruled by we the sheeple unless we're willing to go to war.  It's obvious to me that you don't pack the gear.
Click to expand...




Sure we can. Re-elect Trump and he'll remake the court in his image for a generation.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Correll said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Totally false. They simply do not hold people in their jails for violating federal law. In short, if the feds are not there to do their job and take them into custody when the county releases them, the county is not going to do their job for them. You are a virtual encyclopedia of misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> And you are a virtual encyclopedia of imagination.
> Everyone knows a dump like San Francisco won't hold prisoners for the feds. *But if the feds happen to call the county sheriff and just inquire about a certain prisoner being held and a release date the policy is to tell him to fuck off (but perhaps not in those exact words). *
> 
> Yes. Simply releasing information to federal agents is considered "doing the job of the federal government" and they are ordered not to comply.
> That is going far beyond simply not doing the work ICE should be doing to actual hostile proactive non cooperation that intentionally violates federal immigration law. So in a very real sense sanctuary cities and counties are intentionally and
> diligently breaking the law when they are sworn to uphold it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am still waiting for a link of the above embolden part of your post. In the meantime, I am trying to visualize this:
> 
> Caller" "Is Garcia getting out of jail today?"
> San Francisco County cop: "Who is asking"
> Caller, "Immigration"
> San Francisco County cop, "Fuck off" (Click)
> 
> Yeah, I am sure that is exactly what is happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is what Sanctuary City MEANS. That is what the stated policy of these cities and local governments ARE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. That is Rush Limbaugh's imaginary definition of "Sanctuary city"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ordering the people in the city government to not cooperate with the feds, that is not Rush Limbaugh's imagination, that is what the sanctuary cities are doing.
Click to expand...



Then, I am sure that you can post a link that contains such exact order to municipal or county employees stating that. After all, everything don by county or city governments regarding policy is public.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> George Orwell? He was an anti fascist, anti authoritarian and anti Communist. Yes...a real genuine leftist. You should be so "liberal".
> Scan my posts and point out all the liberal ones you can find, dimwit.
> 
> Your carefully crafted personae is now being gutted by your own ad hom idiocy. If you let dumb people talk enough they will always tell you who they are.
> 
> Your fear of barriers seems stupid, absurd and pointless. How 65 countries have erected security walls on their borders | Daily Mail Online
> 
> Your imbecilic view of the Constitution seems to be states can bring into the country whoever and however many people they wish. I don't know why any rational person would think that but you seem to really believe it.
> 
> The Federal Government, not California or New Mexico or New York, controls who gets in. Fuck off!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more you post, the more you show your lack of maturity and your lack of a solid knowledge base.
> 
> You cannot cite one, single, solitary sentence in the entire Constitution that supports your xenophobia.  Apparently, you were a member in the militia the OP began this thread about.
> 
> My "_fear of barriers_" as you call it brings me to the point of educating your dumb ass since trying to be civil didn't work.  In order for a wall to be effective, it relies on the background checks you thrive on.  You are simply too stupid to understand that *we cannot devise a background check system that applies to undocumented foreigners only*.
> 
> That being the case, Americans are subject to endless background checks that have been employed for ulterior motives (i.e. locking millions of white Americans out of the job market.)  Today, 97 percent of the public wants to have a background check in order to buy a firearm.  However, in order for the background check to be worth a shit, that means National Gun Registration.  The background check to purchase weapons is worthless without the National Gun Registration.
> 
> Registration is the precursor to weapon confiscation.  The fact that you cannot follow your own line of reasoning says more about you than all the name calling I can engage in here on USM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOur rhetoric apes that of the far right, but your position on the issues, is that of the far left,
> 
> 
> ie unlimited unvetted Third World immigration.
> 
> 
> That will, no, that IS destroying America and you are supporting it.
> 
> 
> All your pretense of caring about American institutions, or culture or even "whites" is irrelevant window dressing to try to hide that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir.  You like being dishonest because you've been outed for the nazi that you are.  Let's dumb this stuff down for the masses:
> 
> America was founded as Republic by white Christians.  *ALL* of our legal institutions and our system of jurisprudence is predicated on Anglo Saxon law.  The de jure / lawful / constitutional government is a Republican form of government wherein the Bill of Rights is an absolute guarantee that the government will not infringe on the Rights of the people.
> 
> The Declaration of Independence, which is a statement of our foundational principles states:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain* unalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> The bottom line here is that either all men are created equal OR they are not.  Correll's position is that all men are NOT created equal.  He's yet to express an opinion about a Creator.  IF he supports a democracy, then his Creator would be mob rule since man is his own idiot God, the majority deciding what privileges they can dole out to their fellow man.
> 
> The non-whites, well aware of this dynamic, want to eradicate the white race off the face of the earth.  That they are doing so subtly is a testament to their more than adequate strategizing.
> 
> The difference between what the wallists want and what constitutionalists want boils down to the reality:
> 
> Those who make the pretentious argument that only a wall / militarized border is the solution are living in a delusional world.  For it has been shown that, by a ratio of 4 to 1, new immigrants are siding with Democrats over Republicans and are slowly voting the wallists into the pages of history.
> 
> There is no window dressing on my side.  I'm offering to be specific as to the names and affiliations of the nazis that originated the talking points that Correll relies on.  And, I'm not insecure in trusting the rest of you to understand that Correll cannot put a single sentence from the Constitution before you that supports his National Socialist viewpoint.
> 
> There is no realistic way of vetting foreigners whose country of birth would lie like Hell for them.  The ONLY people being affected by endless background checks are Americans.  Many of them are being denied jobs, credit, housing, etc. - many times over insignificant crap that doesn't amount to a hill of beans.  Correll does not trust his fellow man.  If he did, he might understand that if many mom and pop companies were not weighted down by endless regulations and laws, they would probably hire people that looked like the owners and shared their values.  There is more to it than that, but at the end of the day, if you don't have any Rights left, thank people Correll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You can shove your Godwins, back up your ass where you pulled them from.
> 
> 2. Your pretense that you care about the institution of America and/or "white Christians" is proved to be false, by your support of polices that, you yourself admit are existential threats to them.
> 
> 3. Most of the above post was unneeded filler. The only purpose it served was to take up additional time of mine to wade though to find your actual points. Please stop that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've bled more blood for this country than you've said words in defense of it.  I stand for the principles our forefathers fought and died for and you stupid mother fucker - I manned that border before you were a gleam in your daddy's eyes.  And you don't have what it takes to shove a damn thing up my ass.  If you disagree, PM me.  I'd give my front seat in HELL to give you that opportunity.
> 
> You should be wary of who you threaten.  I just called your bluff snowflake.
Click to expand...



1. You call me a nazi, you don't get to whine about me using harsh language on you in return, old man.

2. Your claim to stand for those principles. But your position on them is self defeating to say the least.


----------



## Correll

Vandalshandle said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are a virtual encyclopedia of imagination.
> Everyone knows a dump like San Francisco won't hold prisoners for the feds. *But if the feds happen to call the county sheriff and just inquire about a certain prisoner being held and a release date the policy is to tell him to fuck off (but perhaps not in those exact words). *
> 
> Yes. Simply releasing information to federal agents is considered "doing the job of the federal government" and they are ordered not to comply.
> That is going far beyond simply not doing the work ICE should be doing to actual hostile proactive non cooperation that intentionally violates federal immigration law. So in a very real sense sanctuary cities and counties are intentionally and
> diligently breaking the law when they are sworn to uphold it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am still waiting for a link of the above embolden part of your post. In the meantime, I am trying to visualize this:
> 
> Caller" "Is Garcia getting out of jail today?"
> San Francisco County cop: "Who is asking"
> Caller, "Immigration"
> San Francisco County cop, "Fuck off" (Click)
> 
> Yeah, I am sure that is exactly what is happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is what Sanctuary City MEANS. That is what the stated policy of these cities and local governments ARE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. That is Rush Limbaugh's imaginary definition of "Sanctuary city"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ordering the people in the city government to not cooperate with the feds, that is not Rush Limbaugh's imagination, that is what the sanctuary cities are doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then, I am sure that you can post a link that contains such exact order to municipal or county employees stating that. After all, everything don by county or city governments regarding policy is public.
Click to expand...



It is? I'm sure that is news to the thousands of girls raped in Rotherham. THe city government did not have a stated policy of allowing the sexual slavery of young white girls, but they did have actual de facto policy of doing so.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Groucho had a way of cutting to the truth.
> The ramifications of off-shoring, Business Visas and illegals are destructive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You believe in communism so your opinions don't count to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weak dodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't dodge a damn thing.  I just didn't come here to trade barbs with morons.  The thread is about a right wing militia.  Personal shit belongs in PMs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling some one a "communist",  is not a rebuttal of his point(s).
> 
> 
> Using a name calling as a substitute for addressing his point, is a form of a dodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When someone comes here, makes an allegation, and avoids the OP, they are *NOT* due any response. Giving someone what they dish out is called self defense.  Even you should be able to figure that one out.
Click to expand...

Translation: your opinion is to be accepted as fact.


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> George Orwell? He was an anti fascist, anti authoritarian and anti Communist. Yes...a real genuine leftist. You should be so "liberal".
> Scan my posts and point out all the liberal ones you can find, dimwit.
> 
> Your carefully crafted personae is now being gutted by your own ad hom idiocy. If you let dumb people talk enough they will always tell you who they are.
> 
> Your fear of barriers seems stupid, absurd and pointless. How 65 countries have erected security walls on their borders | Daily Mail Online
> 
> Your imbecilic view of the Constitution seems to be states can bring into the country whoever and however many people they wish. I don't know why any rational person would think that but you seem to really believe it.
> 
> The Federal Government, not California or New Mexico or New York, controls who gets in. Fuck off!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more you post, the more you show your lack of maturity and your lack of a solid knowledge base.
> 
> You cannot cite one, single, solitary sentence in the entire Constitution that supports your xenophobia.  Apparently, you were a member in the militia the OP began this thread about.
> 
> My "_fear of barriers_" as you call it brings me to the point of educating your dumb ass since trying to be civil didn't work.  In order for a wall to be effective, it relies on the background checks you thrive on.  You are simply too stupid to understand that *we cannot devise a background check system that applies to undocumented foreigners only*.
> 
> That being the case, Americans are subject to endless background checks that have been employed for ulterior motives (i.e. locking millions of white Americans out of the job market.)  Today, 97 percent of the public wants to have a background check in order to buy a firearm.  However, in order for the background check to be worth a shit, that means National Gun Registration.  The background check to purchase weapons is worthless without the National Gun Registration.
> 
> Registration is the precursor to weapon confiscation.  The fact that you cannot follow your own line of reasoning says more about you than all the name calling I can engage in here on USM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOur rhetoric apes that of the far right, but your position on the issues, is that of the far left,
> 
> 
> ie unlimited unvetted Third World immigration.
> 
> 
> That will, no, that IS destroying America and you are supporting it.
> 
> 
> All your pretense of caring about American institutions, or culture or even "whites" is irrelevant window dressing to try to hide that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir.  You like being dishonest because you've been outed for the nazi that you are.  Let's dumb this stuff down for the masses:
> 
> America was founded as Republic by white Christians.  *ALL* of our legal institutions and our system of jurisprudence is predicated on Anglo Saxon law.  The de jure / lawful / constitutional government is a Republican form of government wherein the Bill of Rights is an absolute guarantee that the government will not infringe on the Rights of the people.
> 
> The Declaration of Independence, which is a statement of our foundational principles states:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain* unalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> The bottom line here is that either all men are created equal OR they are not.  Correll's position is that all men are NOT created equal.  He's yet to express an opinion about a Creator.  IF he supports a democracy, then his Creator would be mob rule since man is his own idiot God, the majority deciding what privileges they can dole out to their fellow man.
> 
> The non-whites, well aware of this dynamic, want to eradicate the white race off the face of the earth.  That they are doing so subtly is a testament to their more than adequate strategizing.
> 
> The difference between what the wallists want and what constitutionalists want boils down to the reality:
> 
> Those who make the pretentious argument that only a wall / militarized border is the solution are living in a delusional world.  For it has been shown that, by a ratio of 4 to 1, new immigrants are siding with Democrats over Republicans and are slowly voting the wallists into the pages of history.
> 
> There is no window dressing on my side.  I'm offering to be specific as to the names and affiliations of the nazis that originated the talking points that Correll relies on.  And, I'm not insecure in trusting the rest of you to understand that Correll cannot put a single sentence from the Constitution before you that supports his National Socialist viewpoint.
> 
> There is no realistic way of vetting foreigners whose country of birth would lie like Hell for them.  The ONLY people being affected by endless background checks are Americans.  Many of them are being denied jobs, credit, housing, etc. - many times over insignificant crap that doesn't amount to a hill of beans.  Correll does not trust his fellow man.  If he did, he might understand that if many mom and pop companies were not weighted down by endless regulations and laws, they would probably hire people that looked like the owners and shared their values.  There is more to it than that, but at the end of the day, if you don't have any Rights left, thank people Correll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You can shove your Godwins, back up your ass where you pulled them from.
> 
> 2. Your pretense that you care about the institution of America and/or "white Christians" is proved to be false, by your support of polices that, you yourself admit are existential threats to them.
> 
> 3. Most of the above post was unneeded filler. The only purpose it served was to take up additional time of mine to wade though to find your actual points. Please stop that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've bled more blood for this country than you've said words in defense of it.  I stand for the principles our forefathers fought and died for and you stupid mother fucker - I manned that border before you were a gleam in your daddy's eyes.  And you don't have what it takes to shove a damn thing up my ass.  If you disagree, PM me.  I'd give my front seat in HELL to give you that opportunity.
> 
> You should be wary of who you threaten.  I just called your bluff snowflake.
Click to expand...

Aw shucks, yet another of your arguments in the toilet...
I know hundreds of people who have served and heartily disagree with your stance on this issue.


----------



## Dr Grump

Jitss617 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol hmmm funny how many signed the constitution oppppppps
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny. How many were allowed to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many weren’t?? There were none lol America was all white haha
Click to expand...


I'm talking women. Blacks. Non land owning men...


----------



## Jitss617

Dr Grump said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol hmmm funny how many signed the constitution oppppppps
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny. How many were allowed to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many weren’t?? There were none lol America was all white haha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm talking women. Blacks. Non land owning men...
Click to expand...

Woman blacks and other races couldn’t keep up with what whites were doing.. if you didn’t assimilate you didn’t last long. Like it should be today


----------



## Dr Grump

Jitss617 said:


> Woman blacks and other races couldn’t keep up with what whites were doing.. if you didn’t assimilate you didn’t last long. Like it should be today



Yeah, that's it...


----------



## Dr Grump

Correll said:


> Only a fucktard would say a lie like that.
> 
> 
> You ever say that to a republican's face, or are you only a complete asshole online?



I would say that it is more correct to state that bigots and racists are more attracted to the Republicans than they are Dems. Most GoPers aren't like that.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Correll said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am still waiting for a link of the above embolden part of your post. In the meantime, I am trying to visualize this:
> 
> Caller" "Is Garcia getting out of jail today?"
> San Francisco County cop: "Who is asking"
> Caller, "Immigration"
> San Francisco County cop, "Fuck off" (Click)
> 
> Yeah, I am sure that is exactly what is happening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what Sanctuary City MEANS. That is what the stated policy of these cities and local governments ARE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. That is Rush Limbaugh's imaginary definition of "Sanctuary city"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ordering the people in the city government to not cooperate with the feds, that is not Rush Limbaugh's imagination, that is what the sanctuary cities are doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then, I am sure that you can post a link that contains such exact order to municipal or county employees stating that. After all, everything don by county or city governments regarding policy is public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is? I'm sure that is news to the thousands of girls raped in Rotherham. THe city government did not have a stated policy of allowing the sexual slavery of young white girls, but they did have actual de facto policy of doing so.
Click to expand...


I thought not.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOur rhetoric apes that of the far right, but your position on the issues, is that of the far left,
> 
> 
> ie unlimited unvetted Third World immigration.
> 
> 
> That will, no, that IS destroying America and you are supporting it.
> 
> 
> All your pretense of caring about American institutions, or culture or even "whites" is irrelevant window dressing to try to hide that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> He is all over the lot. The bottom line is he seems to want what's not good for the country, and says we have no business telling states who they can let enter their borders. That's obviously and manifestly a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WHile pretending to be of the far right and caring about "whites".
> 
> 
> I'm thinking possibly a dishonest far lefty thinking he can trick the "less educated" to support anti-American policies,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm thinking *YOU* are the real lefty.  Isn't THIS what you want to hear?
> 
> 
> Just cause you drank the Kool Aid doesn't mean I'm going to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe bit where you slander me as a kool aid drinker? That is just you being afraid to debate me on the issue, based on the merits or lack there of, of YOUR position vs mine.
> 
> 2. That bit where you use Bill CLinton to try to cause an emotional reaction from people on the right? That is you playing a emotional game, instead of defending your position on it's merits, or honestly addressing our position.
Click to expand...


You don't have a position.  You lost the debate when you failed to cite a single sentence from the Constitution to support your claim.


----------



## Ame®icano

Meet the newest Democrat voters.

*1,600 Migrants Dumped In New Mexico; City Forced To Spend $75K For "Humanitarian Assistance"*


----------



## Indeependent

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOur rhetoric apes that of the far right, but your position on the issues, is that of the far left,
> 
> 
> ie unlimited unvetted Third World immigration.
> 
> 
> That will, no, that IS destroying America and you are supporting it.
> 
> 
> All your pretense of caring about American institutions, or culture or even "whites" is irrelevant window dressing to try to hide that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> He is all over the lot. The bottom line is he seems to want what's not good for the country, and says we have no business telling states who they can let enter their borders. That's obviously and manifestly a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WHile pretending to be of the far right and caring about "whites".
> 
> 
> I'm thinking possibly a dishonest far lefty thinking he can trick the "less educated" to support anti-American policies,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm thinking *YOU* are the real lefty.  Isn't THIS what you want to hear?
> 
> 
> Just cause you drank the Kool Aid doesn't mean I'm going to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe bit where you slander me as a kool aid drinker? That is just you being afraid to debate me on the issue, based on the merits or lack there of, of YOUR position vs mine.
> 
> 2. That bit where you use Bill CLinton to try to cause an emotional reaction from people on the right? That is you playing a emotional game, instead of defending your position on it's merits, or honestly addressing our position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have a position.  You lost the debate when you failed to cite a single sentence from the Constitution to support your claim.
Click to expand...

Fascinating...
Who cites the US Constitution in court to determine a verdict?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more you post, the more you show your lack of maturity and your lack of a solid knowledge base.
> 
> You cannot cite one, single, solitary sentence in the entire Constitution that supports your xenophobia.  Apparently, you were a member in the militia the OP began this thread about.
> 
> My "_fear of barriers_" as you call it brings me to the point of educating your dumb ass since trying to be civil didn't work.  In order for a wall to be effective, it relies on the background checks you thrive on.  You are simply too stupid to understand that *we cannot devise a background check system that applies to undocumented foreigners only*.
> 
> That being the case, Americans are subject to endless background checks that have been employed for ulterior motives (i.e. locking millions of white Americans out of the job market.)  Today, 97 percent of the public wants to have a background check in order to buy a firearm.  However, in order for the background check to be worth a shit, that means National Gun Registration.  The background check to purchase weapons is worthless without the National Gun Registration.
> 
> Registration is the precursor to weapon confiscation.  The fact that you cannot follow your own line of reasoning says more about you than all the name calling I can engage in here on USM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur rhetoric apes that of the far right, but your position on the issues, is that of the far left,
> 
> 
> ie unlimited unvetted Third World immigration.
> 
> 
> That will, no, that IS destroying America and you are supporting it.
> 
> 
> All your pretense of caring about American institutions, or culture or even "whites" is irrelevant window dressing to try to hide that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir.  You like being dishonest because you've been outed for the nazi that you are.  Let's dumb this stuff down for the masses:
> 
> America was founded as Republic by white Christians.  *ALL* of our legal institutions and our system of jurisprudence is predicated on Anglo Saxon law.  The de jure / lawful / constitutional government is a Republican form of government wherein the Bill of Rights is an absolute guarantee that the government will not infringe on the Rights of the people.
> 
> The Declaration of Independence, which is a statement of our foundational principles states:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain* unalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> The bottom line here is that either all men are created equal OR they are not.  Correll's position is that all men are NOT created equal.  He's yet to express an opinion about a Creator.  IF he supports a democracy, then his Creator would be mob rule since man is his own idiot God, the majority deciding what privileges they can dole out to their fellow man.
> 
> The non-whites, well aware of this dynamic, want to eradicate the white race off the face of the earth.  That they are doing so subtly is a testament to their more than adequate strategizing.
> 
> The difference between what the wallists want and what constitutionalists want boils down to the reality:
> 
> Those who make the pretentious argument that only a wall / militarized border is the solution are living in a delusional world.  For it has been shown that, by a ratio of 4 to 1, new immigrants are siding with Democrats over Republicans and are slowly voting the wallists into the pages of history.
> 
> There is no window dressing on my side.  I'm offering to be specific as to the names and affiliations of the nazis that originated the talking points that Correll relies on.  And, I'm not insecure in trusting the rest of you to understand that Correll cannot put a single sentence from the Constitution before you that supports his National Socialist viewpoint.
> 
> There is no realistic way of vetting foreigners whose country of birth would lie like Hell for them.  The ONLY people being affected by endless background checks are Americans.  Many of them are being denied jobs, credit, housing, etc. - many times over insignificant crap that doesn't amount to a hill of beans.  Correll does not trust his fellow man.  If he did, he might understand that if many mom and pop companies were not weighted down by endless regulations and laws, they would probably hire people that looked like the owners and shared their values.  There is more to it than that, but at the end of the day, if you don't have any Rights left, thank people Correll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You can shove your Godwins, back up your ass where you pulled them from.
> 
> 2. Your pretense that you care about the institution of America and/or "white Christians" is proved to be false, by your support of polices that, you yourself admit are existential threats to them.
> 
> 3. Most of the above post was unneeded filler. The only purpose it served was to take up additional time of mine to wade though to find your actual points. Please stop that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've bled more blood for this country than you've said words in defense of it.  I stand for the principles our forefathers fought and died for and you stupid mother fucker - I manned that border before you were a gleam in your daddy's eyes.  And you don't have what it takes to shove a damn thing up my ass.  If you disagree, PM me.  I'd give my front seat in HELL to give you that opportunity.
> 
> You should be wary of who you threaten.  I just called your bluff snowflake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You call me a nazi, you don't get to whine about me using harsh language on you in return, old man.
> 
> 2. Your claim to stand for those principles. But your position on them is self defeating to say the least.
Click to expand...



1)  You asked for the debate; you just lost it.

2)  Don't ever question my stand unless you say it to my face.  Otherwise you are a coward.  And now, ladies and gentlemen, let us proceed to prove Correll the wannabe militiaman is exactly what I claimed he is:

Let us re-quote post #810:

The primary way I reached my conclusions came back in the early 2000s when a group of Salvadorans tried to enter the United States by trespassing over private property. They were met by Ranch Rescue, a civilian border group protecting property at the behest of the property owner, Jack Foote. An altercation took place and the Salvadorans came out second best in round one.

In round two, the matter ended up in court with Ranch Rescue members ending up in prison and the property owner losing his home and land to the Salvadorans. The judge ruled that the civilian border patrol had violated the "_civil rights_" of the Salvadorans. Those "_civil rights_" obviously trumped the private property Rights of land owners (thanks to the illegally ratified 14th Amendment.)

Leiva v. Ranch Rescue

Bear in mind I was with the legal team that begged Foote and Ranch Rescue to appeal that decision. They refused. So, when the wallists tell you about your property Rights and duty to protect borders, they are feeding you a load of pure horse shit. It was not the left or Democrats; liberals or "_open border_" types; it wasn't even Nancy Pelosi supporters that insured the foreigners would have "_civil rights" _regardless of whether they had papers or not. That ruling was made possible by the neo nazis that developed the wall worship idea. 

In 2004, the border patrols were organized by neo nazis (honest to God real nazis) into an organization called the Minutemen. Ever since, these people have worked day and night to screw you out of your *unalienable* Rights. They lie to you (yes, due to the actions of the wallists, undocumented foreigners DO have rights.) They propose solutions that are calculated so as to deprive you of your Rights and dismantle the Constitution. While you are focused on foreigners - who are *economically profitable* for business,*your* Rights and *your* culture are disappearing from right under your nose. In the case of that background check argument, you are helping destroy the militia, the Right to Privacy, the ability of free men to revolt against tyranny, and you are nullifying the Fourth Amendment. Now, do you require proof of what I just said?

(END OF THAT POST)

Now, let us continue:

*When *Ranch Rescue  lost and decided to ignore the advice of U.S. Militias and the Militia of Georgia, suddenly the so - called _Minutemen_ popped up  Started in 2004, the_ Minutemen_ tried to use the regurgitated *Border Watch* idea that* David Duke of the KKK*  in the 1970s.  Correll parrots their talking points and you are invited to Google all the names and positions of the following principal players to see whether or not I told you the truth.

Other than David Duke, you will find no other border watch group advocating what Gilchrist  and Chris Simcox made famous.  So, let me introduce you to the players:

*Jim Gilchrist* and* Chris Simcox* were the founders of the so - called Minutemen.  According to one liberal site (largely because Correll and his ilk like to hide their past):

"J_im Gilchrist truly believes he's an American hero. Gilchrist—a co-founder of the Minutemen Project, a now-defunct civilian border militia—insists it was his group's actions that led to the conservative fervor over cracking down on illegal immigration. He traces the current Republican discourse on the issue—Donald Trump's infamous wall, the renewed interest in revoking birthright citizenship, and the calls for mass deportations back to his movement, which mobilized hundreds of armed vigilantes to fend off migrants at the US-Mexico border back in the spring of 2005_."

Whatever Happened to Arizona's Minutemen?

Minuteman Project

Jim Gilchrist who was so screwed up, nazis kicked him out of his own organization. Let's learn a little about the pioneers of this effort:

"In addition to border watching, the project (The Minutemen) created a political action committee lobbying for representatives supporting proactive immigration law enforcement and border security issues. Members believe government officials have failed to protect the country from foreign enemy invasion.[4] They strongly support building a wall and placing additional border patrol agents or involving the military to curb free movement across the Mexico-United States border."

Minuteman Project - Wikipedia

If you access that article, you find that Gilchrist's co founder was Chris Simcox. Chris Simcox was both a pedophile AND a neo-nazi:

Alleged Pedophile Chris Simcox Drops Bid to Personally Cross-Examine Child Victims

Minuteman Co-Founder Sentenced to 19½ Years for Molesting 5-Year-Old

Simcox would recruit fellow neo nazi sympathizer, J.T. Ready (who became a mass murderer) to join him in the build the wall effort.

Neo-Nazi Killed Family During 911 Call



Jim Gilchrist also recruited Shawna Forde and she was convicted of a double murder:



Notice she is ALSO a FAIR spokesperson

Minuteman Leader Jim Gilchrist's Ties To Shawna Forde's Gang Of Killers Finally Catch Up With Him

State's Rights -

New Mexico governor orders withdrawal of National Guard border troops, citing no "national security crisis"

At a national level, John Tanton, who founded and funds FAIR, CIS, NumbersUSA and about a dozen anti immigrant non-profits combined has some questionable ties:

American Renaissance (magazine) - Wikipedia

* Note in the article that the Pioneer Fund was generous to David Duke and "_eugenicists_."    According to Wikipedia:

"_Under Tanton's leadership FAIR was criticized for taking funding for many years from the Pioneer Fund, a non-profit foundation dedicated to "improving the character of the American people" by, among other things, promoting the practice of eugenics, or selective breeding_."

John Tanton - Wikipedia

Walter Kistler financed the Pioneer Fund out his own pocket.   

Pioneer Fund - RationalWiki

A little more about who the Pioneer Fund has financed:

"_I know you guys don't want to misrepresent the Pioneer Fund, but prioritizing positions that they don't actually hold anymore over their actual positions does this and functions as a straw man logical fallacy.--Nectarflowed T 23:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Giving over a million dollar to the Nazist Roger Pearson in the eighties and nineties should clarify that this is a current issue. As well as having Rushton as head, his R/K theory for human races and his use of sources has been rejected as at best gross misrepresentation by every independent researcher_. "

Talk:Pioneer Fund/Archive 1 - Wikipedia

No matter how many rocks you flip over, you continue to find *nazis* within the organizations that Correll is being a lap dog for.


----------



## Vandalshandle

It just keeps getting better. The militia in New Mexico has been camping on Union Pacific Railroad land, and they were just been given 30 minutes to vacate.


----------



## Correll

Dr Grump said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fucktard would say a lie like that.
> 
> 
> You ever say that to a republican's face, or are you only a complete asshole online?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that it is more correct to state that bigots and racists are more attracted to the Republicans than they are Dems. Most GoPers aren't like that.
Click to expand...



With the examples of IM2, and Paul on this very site you can say that? LOL!!!!!


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOur rhetoric apes that of the far right, but your position on the issues, is that of the far left,
> 
> 
> ie unlimited unvetted Third World immigration.
> 
> 
> That will, no, that IS destroying America and you are supporting it.
> 
> 
> All your pretense of caring about American institutions, or culture or even "whites" is irrelevant window dressing to try to hide that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> He is all over the lot. The bottom line is he seems to want what's not good for the country, and says we have no business telling states who they can let enter their borders. That's obviously and manifestly a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WHile pretending to be of the far right and caring about "whites".
> 
> 
> I'm thinking possibly a dishonest far lefty thinking he can trick the "less educated" to support anti-American policies,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm thinking *YOU* are the real lefty.  Isn't THIS what you want to hear?
> 
> 
> Just cause you drank the Kool Aid doesn't mean I'm going to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe bit where you slander me as a kool aid drinker? That is just you being afraid to debate me on the issue, based on the merits or lack there of, of YOUR position vs mine.
> 
> 2. That bit where you use Bill CLinton to try to cause an emotional reaction from people on the right? That is you playing a emotional game, instead of defending your position on it's merits, or honestly addressing our position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have a position.  You lost the debate when you failed to cite a single sentence from the Constitution to support your claim.
Click to expand...




If you truly thought that, you would not play a the emotional card of citing Bill Clinton.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Vandalshandle said:


> Now, now, Eric, that is downright unneighborly….


And all downright true.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is all over the lot. The bottom line is he seems to want what's not good for the country, and says we have no business telling states who they can let enter their borders. That's obviously and manifestly a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHile pretending to be of the far right and caring about "whites".
> 
> 
> I'm thinking possibly a dishonest far lefty thinking he can trick the "less educated" to support anti-American policies,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm thinking *YOU* are the real lefty.  Isn't THIS what you want to hear?
> 
> 
> Just cause you drank the Kool Aid doesn't mean I'm going to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe bit where you slander me as a kool aid drinker? That is just you being afraid to debate me on the issue, based on the merits or lack there of, of YOUR position vs mine.
> 
> 2. That bit where you use Bill CLinton to try to cause an emotional reaction from people on the right? That is you playing a emotional game, instead of defending your position on it's merits, or honestly addressing our position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have a position.  You lost the debate when you failed to cite a single sentence from the Constitution to support your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you truly thought that, you would not play a the emotional card of citing Bill Clinton.
Click to expand...


Do you make this shit up as you go along?

Correll, you are much like Larry Hopkins of the United Constitutional Patriots who, BTW, is the subject of this thread, not me.  

I'm not playing any emotional card.  I'm telling the people that the *solutions and strategies* you use are based upon *SOCIALISM*.  Karl Marx is credited with being the father of socialism. His particular brand of socialism became communism, but the commonalities are really unmistakable.  In essence, you have a government - god wherein the government controls labor and production.  There is no Right to private property.  I've addressed that in the origins of the leadership whose strategies and proposed solutions you embrace.

National Socialism embraces a white culture, but it is still socialism.  You would have people believe that one cannot abhor this new version of National Socialism AND care about the posterity of the founding fathers who are the beneficiaries of the Constitution.  

You make this pretentious and silly argument that you are not against immigration; you just want it done all "_legal_" like.  This strategy fools nobody except those of your ilk.  The foreigners aren't buying the lie.  When they run for public office (and Kamala Harris, a second generation foreigner is an example) they run as Democrats.

The primary difference between your argument and mine is that I would *shut the doors of citizenship* that you have no problem with.  I would allow employers to hire whomever they want and I would *restore the constitutional Liberties* you shit-canned in order to enforce your version of National Socialism.  I would give the MILLIONS of Americans you locked out of society a second chance and give them the tools and encouragement they need to return as citizens.  

Restoring the Second Amendment and the Fourth Amendment to which you have nothing but disdain for would become primary objectives.  Revisiting the constitutionality of the 14th and 16th Amendments (which exacerbate this issue with foreigners) and repealing / nullifying them would become top priorities.  Calling a halt to citizenship and doing a year without doling out ANY citizenship while we hammer out a viable solution would get the public's attention and give them a reason to resolve this issue once and for all.


----------



## Vandalshandle

My, oh my! The head of the militia who is in jail awaiting trial for violation of firearm charges, was attacked by other inmates, and is now in the hospital with several broken ribs. This, after the Union Pacific Railroad threw the rest of the militia off of their land. 

Generally speaking, it would appear that this vigilantly group has failed in their mission to save America. We will somehow have to muddle along without them.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Vandalshandle said:


> My, oh my! The head of the militia who is in jail awaiting trial for violation of firearm charges, was attacked by other inmates, and is now in the hospital with several broken ribs. This, after the Union Pacific Railroad threw the rest of the militia off of their land.
> 
> Generally speaking, it would appear that this vigilantly group has failed in their mission to save America. We will somehow have to muddle along without them.


Thank God the nation is safe from that existential threat! We really dodged a bullet when they put away Larry Mitchell Hopkins. 
The Southern border, not so much. More Chaos At The Southern Border


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> My, oh my! The head of the militia who is in jail awaiting trial for violation of firearm charges, was attacked by other inmates, and is now in the hospital with several broken ribs. This, after the Union Pacific Railroad threw the rest of the militia off of their land.
> 
> Generally speaking, it would appear that this vigilantly group has failed in their mission to save America. We will somehow have to muddle along without them.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God the nation is safe from that existential threat! We really dodged a bullet when they put away Larry Mitchell Hopkins.
> The Southern border, not so much. More Chaos At The Southern Border
Click to expand...


Those kinds of staged antics remind me of professional wrestling on tv.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOur rhetoric apes that of the far right, but your position on the issues, is that of the far left,
> 
> 
> ie unlimited unvetted Third World immigration.
> 
> 
> That will, no, that IS destroying America and you are supporting it.
> 
> 
> All your pretense of caring about American institutions, or culture or even "whites" is irrelevant window dressing to try to hide that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No sir.  You like being dishonest because you've been outed for the nazi that you are.  Let's dumb this stuff down for the masses:
> 
> America was founded as Republic by white Christians.  *ALL* of our legal institutions and our system of jurisprudence is predicated on Anglo Saxon law.  The de jure / lawful / constitutional government is a Republican form of government wherein the Bill of Rights is an absolute guarantee that the government will not infringe on the Rights of the people.
> 
> The Declaration of Independence, which is a statement of our foundational principles states:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain* unalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> The bottom line here is that either all men are created equal OR they are not.  Correll's position is that all men are NOT created equal.  He's yet to express an opinion about a Creator.  IF he supports a democracy, then his Creator would be mob rule since man is his own idiot God, the majority deciding what privileges they can dole out to their fellow man.
> 
> The non-whites, well aware of this dynamic, want to eradicate the white race off the face of the earth.  That they are doing so subtly is a testament to their more than adequate strategizing.
> 
> The difference between what the wallists want and what constitutionalists want boils down to the reality:
> 
> Those who make the pretentious argument that only a wall / militarized border is the solution are living in a delusional world.  For it has been shown that, by a ratio of 4 to 1, new immigrants are siding with Democrats over Republicans and are slowly voting the wallists into the pages of history.
> 
> There is no window dressing on my side.  I'm offering to be specific as to the names and affiliations of the nazis that originated the talking points that Correll relies on.  And, I'm not insecure in trusting the rest of you to understand that Correll cannot put a single sentence from the Constitution before you that supports his National Socialist viewpoint.
> 
> There is no realistic way of vetting foreigners whose country of birth would lie like Hell for them.  The ONLY people being affected by endless background checks are Americans.  Many of them are being denied jobs, credit, housing, etc. - many times over insignificant crap that doesn't amount to a hill of beans.  Correll does not trust his fellow man.  If he did, he might understand that if many mom and pop companies were not weighted down by endless regulations and laws, they would probably hire people that looked like the owners and shared their values.  There is more to it than that, but at the end of the day, if you don't have any Rights left, thank people Correll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You can shove your Godwins, back up your ass where you pulled them from.
> 
> 2. Your pretense that you care about the institution of America and/or "white Christians" is proved to be false, by your support of polices that, you yourself admit are existential threats to them.
> 
> 3. Most of the above post was unneeded filler. The only purpose it served was to take up additional time of mine to wade though to find your actual points. Please stop that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've bled more blood for this country than you've said words in defense of it.  I stand for the principles our forefathers fought and died for and you stupid mother fucker - I manned that border before you were a gleam in your daddy's eyes.  And you don't have what it takes to shove a damn thing up my ass.  If you disagree, PM me.  I'd give my front seat in HELL to give you that opportunity.
> 
> You should be wary of who you threaten.  I just called your bluff snowflake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You call me a nazi, you don't get to whine about me using harsh language on you in return, old man.
> 
> 2. Your claim to stand for those principles. But your position on them is self defeating to say the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> The primary way I reached my conclusions came back in the early 2000s when a group of Salvadorans tried to enter the United States by trespassing over private property. They were met by Ranch Rescue, a civilian border group protecting property at the behest of the property owner, Jack Foote. An altercation took place and the Salvadorans came out second best in round one.
> 
> In round two, the matter ended up in court with Ranch Rescue members ending up in prison and the property owner losing his home and land to the Salvadorans. The judge ruled that the civilian border patrol had violated the "_civil rights_" of the Salvadorans. Those "_civil rights_" obviously trumped the private property Rights of land owners (thanks to the illegally ratified 14th Amendment.)
> 
> Leiva v. Ranch Rescue
> 
> Bear in mind I was with the legal team that begged Foote and Ranch Rescue to appeal that decision. They refused. So, when the wallists tell you about your property Rights and duty to protect borders, they are feeding you a load of pure horse shit. It was not the left or Democrats; liberals or "_open border_" types; it wasn't even Nancy Pelosi supporters that insured the foreigners would have "_civil rights" _regardless of whether they had papers or not. That ruling was made possible by the neo nazis that developed the wall worship idea.
Click to expand...



"The ruling was made possible by the "neo nazis"?


The people being arrested are not responsible for the ruling against them.

 That  you take that, as a given, and then build on it, is just one of the many flaws in your reasoning.






> In 2004, the border patrols were organized by neo nazis (honest to God real nazis) into an organization called the Minutemen.



So you claim, and sorry, I don't care. All you are doing here is attacking the messenger, instead of addressing the message. 


That is a logical fallacy and not a valid argument.





> Ever since, these people have worked day and night to screw you out of your *unalienable* Rights. They lie to you (yes, due to the actions of the wallists, undocumented foreigners DO have rights.) They propose solutions that are calculated so as to deprive you of your Rights and dismantle the Constitution.



THat sounds like your opinion of other people's motives. 




> While you are focused on foreigners - who are *economically profitable* for business,




Those business's desire for profit does not give them the right to ignore the law, nor does it trump the rights of Americans to have economic and trade policies designed to serve their interests.


*



			your
		
Click to expand...

*


> Rights and *your* culture are disappearing from right under your nose. In the case of that background check argument, you are helping destroy the militia, the Right to Privacy, the ability of free men to revolt against tyranny, and you are nullifying the Fourth Amendment. Now, do you require proof of what I just said?




None of that is caused by my desire for immigration policies that serve my interests. That you try to put that on me, because I want immigration policy that serves my interests is confusing at best.




> '''
> 
> Now, let us continue:
> 
> *When *Ranch Rescue  lost and decided to ignore the advice of U.S. Militias and the Militia of Georgia, suddenly the so - called _Minutemen_ popped up  Started in 2004, the_ Minutemen_ tried to use the regurgitated *Border Watch* idea that* David Duke of the KKK*  in the 1970s.  Correll parrots their talking points and you are invited to Google all the names and positions of the following principal players to see whether or not I told you the truth.



Logical Fallacy of attacking the messenger, and Logical Fallacy of Guilt by Association. As weak association at that.

Both invalid arguments.




> Other than David Duke, you will find no other border watch group advocating what Gilchrist  and Chris Simcox made famous.  So, let me introduce you to the players:
> 
> *Jim Gilchrist* and* Chris Simcox* were the founders of the so - called Minutemen.  According to one liberal site (largely because Correll and his ilk like to hide their past):
> 
> "J_im Gilchrist truly believes he's an American hero. Gilchrist—a co-founder of the Minutemen Project, a now-defunct civilian border militia—insists it was his group's actions that led to the conservative fervor over cracking down on illegal immigration. He traces the current Republican discourse on the issue—Donald Trump's infamous wall, the renewed interest in revoking birthright citizenship, and the calls for mass deportations back to his movement, which mobilized hundreds of armed vigilantes to fend off migrants at the US-Mexico border back in the spring of 2005_."
> 
> Whatever Happened to Arizona's Minutemen?
> 
> Minuteman Project
> 
> Jim Gilchrist who was so screwed up, nazis kicked him out of his own organization. Let's learn a little about the pioneers of this effort:
> 
> "In addition to border watching, the project (The Minutemen) created a political action committee lobbying for representatives supporting proactive immigration law enforcement and border security issues. Members believe government officials have failed to protect the country from foreign enemy invasion.[4] They strongly support building a wall and placing additional border patrol agents or involving the military to curb free movement across the Mexico-United States border."
> 
> Minuteman Project - Wikipedia
> 
> If you access that article, you find that Gilchrist's co founder was Chris Simcox. Chris Simcox was both a pedophile AND a neo-nazi:
> 
> Alleged Pedophile Chris Simcox Drops Bid to Personally Cross-Examine Child Victims
> 
> Minuteman Co-Founder Sentenced to 19½ Years for Molesting 5-Year-Old
> 
> Simcox would recruit fellow neo nazi sympathizer, J.T. Ready (who became a mass murderer) to join him in the build the wall effort.
> 
> Neo-Nazi Killed Family During 911 Call
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Gilchrist also recruited Shawna Forde and she was convicted of a double murder:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice she is ALSO a FAIR spokesperson
> 
> Minuteman Leader Jim Gilchrist's Ties To Shawna Forde's Gang Of Killers Finally Catch Up With Him
> 
> State's Rights -
> 
> New Mexico governor orders withdrawal of National Guard border troops, citing no "national security crisis"
> 
> At a national level, John Tanton, who founded and funds FAIR, CIS, NumbersUSA and about a dozen anti immigrant non-profits combined has some questionable ties:
> 
> American Renaissance (magazine) - Wikipedia
> 
> * Note in the article that the Pioneer Fund was generous to David Duke and "_eugenicists_."    According to Wikipedia:
> 
> "_Under Tanton's leadership FAIR was criticized for taking funding for many years from the Pioneer Fund, a non-profit foundation dedicated to "improving the character of the American people" by, among other things, promoting the practice of eugenics, or selective breeding_."
> 
> John Tanton - Wikipedia
> 
> Walter Kistler financed the Pioneer Fund out his own pocket.
> 
> Pioneer Fund - RationalWiki
> 
> A little more about who the Pioneer Fund has financed:
> 
> "_I know you guys don't want to misrepresent the Pioneer Fund, but prioritizing positions that they don't actually hold anymore over their actual positions does this and functions as a straw man logical fallacy.--Nectarflowed T 23:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Giving over a million dollar to the Nazist Roger Pearson in the eighties and nineties should clarify that this is a current issue. As well as having Rushton as head, his R/K theory for human races and his use of sources has been rejected as at best gross misrepresentation by every independent researcher_. "
> 
> Talk:Pioneer Fund/Archive 1 - Wikipedia
> 
> No matter how many rocks you flip over, you continue to find *nazis* within the organizations that Correll is being a lap dog for.







All irrelevant  and logical fallacies, even if true, which I am NOT granting.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHile pretending to be of the far right and caring about "whites".
> 
> 
> I'm thinking possibly a dishonest far lefty thinking he can trick the "less educated" to support anti-American policies,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm thinking *YOU* are the real lefty.  Isn't THIS what you want to hear?
> 
> 
> Just cause you drank the Kool Aid doesn't mean I'm going to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe bit where you slander me as a kool aid drinker? That is just you being afraid to debate me on the issue, based on the merits or lack there of, of YOUR position vs mine.
> 
> 2. That bit where you use Bill CLinton to try to cause an emotional reaction from people on the right? That is you playing a emotional game, instead of defending your position on it's merits, or honestly addressing our position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have a position.  You lost the debate when you failed to cite a single sentence from the Constitution to support your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you truly thought that, you would not play a the emotional card of citing Bill Clinton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you make this shit up as you go along?
> 
> Correll, you are much like Larry Hopkins of the United Constitutional Patriots who, BTW, is the subject of this thread, not me.
> 
> I'm not playing any emotional card.  I'm telling the people that the *solutions and strategies* you use are based upon *SOCIALISM*.  Karl Marx is credited with being the father of socialism. ....
Click to expand...




You posted a video of Bill Clinton stating a policy similar to what I want, to support your claim that what I want is "socialism".


The thing is, that Bill Clinton was lying his ass off in that clip and his policies were the exact opposite. He did not secure the border, nor did he deport the illegals. 


Having an immigration policy is not socialism. Talking a lot about Karl Marx or other people does not change that. It is irrelevant.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> No sir.  You like being dishonest because you've been outed for the nazi that you are.  Let's dumb this stuff down for the masses:
> 
> America was founded as Republic by white Christians.  *ALL* of our legal institutions and our system of jurisprudence is predicated on Anglo Saxon law.  The de jure / lawful / constitutional government is a Republican form of government wherein the Bill of Rights is an absolute guarantee that the government will not infringe on the Rights of the people.
> 
> The Declaration of Independence, which is a statement of our foundational principles states:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain* unalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> The bottom line here is that either all men are created equal OR they are not.  Correll's position is that all men are NOT created equal.  He's yet to express an opinion about a Creator.  IF he supports a democracy, then his Creator would be mob rule since man is his own idiot God, the majority deciding what privileges they can dole out to their fellow man.
> 
> The non-whites, well aware of this dynamic, want to eradicate the white race off the face of the earth.  That they are doing so subtly is a testament to their more than adequate strategizing.
> 
> The difference between what the wallists want and what constitutionalists want boils down to the reality:
> 
> Those who make the pretentious argument that only a wall / militarized border is the solution are living in a delusional world.  For it has been shown that, by a ratio of 4 to 1, new immigrants are siding with Democrats over Republicans and are slowly voting the wallists into the pages of history.
> 
> There is no window dressing on my side.  I'm offering to be specific as to the names and affiliations of the nazis that originated the talking points that Correll relies on.  And, I'm not insecure in trusting the rest of you to understand that Correll cannot put a single sentence from the Constitution before you that supports his National Socialist viewpoint.
> 
> There is no realistic way of vetting foreigners whose country of birth would lie like Hell for them.  The ONLY people being affected by endless background checks are Americans.  Many of them are being denied jobs, credit, housing, etc. - many times over insignificant crap that doesn't amount to a hill of beans.  Correll does not trust his fellow man.  If he did, he might understand that if many mom and pop companies were not weighted down by endless regulations and laws, they would probably hire people that looked like the owners and shared their values.  There is more to it than that, but at the end of the day, if you don't have any Rights left, thank people Correll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You can shove your Godwins, back up your ass where you pulled them from.
> 
> 2. Your pretense that you care about the institution of America and/or "white Christians" is proved to be false, by your support of polices that, you yourself admit are existential threats to them.
> 
> 3. Most of the above post was unneeded filler. The only purpose it served was to take up additional time of mine to wade though to find your actual points. Please stop that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've bled more blood for this country than you've said words in defense of it.  I stand for the principles our forefathers fought and died for and you stupid mother fucker - I manned that border before you were a gleam in your daddy's eyes.  And you don't have what it takes to shove a damn thing up my ass.  If you disagree, PM me.  I'd give my front seat in HELL to give you that opportunity.
> 
> You should be wary of who you threaten.  I just called your bluff snowflake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You call me a nazi, you don't get to whine about me using harsh language on you in return, old man.
> 
> 2. Your claim to stand for those principles. But your position on them is self defeating to say the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> The primary way I reached my conclusions came back in the early 2000s when a group of Salvadorans tried to enter the United States by trespassing over private property. They were met by Ranch Rescue, a civilian border group protecting property at the behest of the property owner, Jack Foote. An altercation took place and the Salvadorans came out second best in round one.
> 
> In round two, the matter ended up in court with Ranch Rescue members ending up in prison and the property owner losing his home and land to the Salvadorans. The judge ruled that the civilian border patrol had violated the "_civil rights_" of the Salvadorans. Those "_civil rights_" obviously trumped the private property Rights of land owners (thanks to the illegally ratified 14th Amendment.)
> 
> Leiva v. Ranch Rescue
> 
> Bear in mind I was with the legal team that begged Foote and Ranch Rescue to appeal that decision. They refused. So, when the wallists tell you about your property Rights and duty to protect borders, they are feeding you a load of pure horse shit. It was not the left or Democrats; liberals or "_open border_" types; it wasn't even Nancy Pelosi supporters that insured the foreigners would have "_civil rights" _regardless of whether they had papers or not. That ruling was made possible by the neo nazis that developed the wall worship idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "The ruling was made possible by the "neo nazis"?
> 
> 
> The people being arrested are not responsible for the ruling against them.
> 
> That  you take that, as a given, and then build on it, is just one of the many flaws in your reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2004, the border patrols were organized by neo nazis (honest to God real nazis) into an organization called the Minutemen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you claim, and sorry, I don't care. All you are doing here is attacking the messenger, instead of addressing the message.
> 
> 
> That is a logical fallacy and not a valid argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever since, these people have worked day and night to screw you out of your *unalienable* Rights. They lie to you (yes, due to the actions of the wallists, undocumented foreigners DO have rights.) They propose solutions that are calculated so as to deprive you of your Rights and dismantle the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THat sounds like your opinion of other people's motives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While you are focused on foreigners - who are *economically profitable* for business,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Those business's desire for profit does not give them the right to ignore the law, nor does it trump the rights of Americans to have economic and trade policies designed to serve their interests.
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> your
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Rights and *your* culture are disappearing from right under your nose. In the case of that background check argument, you are helping destroy the militia, the Right to Privacy, the ability of free men to revolt against tyranny, and you are nullifying the Fourth Amendment. Now, do you require proof of what I just said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> None of that is caused by my desire for immigration policies that serve my interests. That you try to put that on me, because I want immigration policy that serves my interests is confusing at best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> '''
> 
> Now, let us continue:
> 
> *When *Ranch Rescue  lost and decided to ignore the advice of U.S. Militias and the Militia of Georgia, suddenly the so - called _Minutemen_ popped up  Started in 2004, the_ Minutemen_ tried to use the regurgitated *Border Watch* idea that* David Duke of the KKK*  in the 1970s.  Correll parrots their talking points and you are invited to Google all the names and positions of the following principal players to see whether or not I told you the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Logical Fallacy of attacking the messenger, and Logical Fallacy of Guilt by Association. As weak association at that.
> 
> Both invalid arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other than David Duke, you will find no other border watch group advocating what Gilchrist  and Chris Simcox made famous.  So, let me introduce you to the players:
> 
> *Jim Gilchrist* and* Chris Simcox* were the founders of the so - called Minutemen.  According to one liberal site (largely because Correll and his ilk like to hide their past):
> 
> "J_im Gilchrist truly believes he's an American hero. Gilchrist—a co-founder of the Minutemen Project, a now-defunct civilian border militia—insists it was his group's actions that led to the conservative fervor over cracking down on illegal immigration. He traces the current Republican discourse on the issue—Donald Trump's infamous wall, the renewed interest in revoking birthright citizenship, and the calls for mass deportations back to his movement, which mobilized hundreds of armed vigilantes to fend off migrants at the US-Mexico border back in the spring of 2005_."
> 
> Whatever Happened to Arizona's Minutemen?
> 
> Minuteman Project
> 
> Jim Gilchrist who was so screwed up, nazis kicked him out of his own organization. Let's learn a little about the pioneers of this effort:
> 
> "In addition to border watching, the project (The Minutemen) created a political action committee lobbying for representatives supporting proactive immigration law enforcement and border security issues. Members believe government officials have failed to protect the country from foreign enemy invasion.[4] They strongly support building a wall and placing additional border patrol agents or involving the military to curb free movement across the Mexico-United States border."
> 
> Minuteman Project - Wikipedia
> 
> If you access that article, you find that Gilchrist's co founder was Chris Simcox. Chris Simcox was both a pedophile AND a neo-nazi:
> 
> Alleged Pedophile Chris Simcox Drops Bid to Personally Cross-Examine Child Victims
> 
> Minuteman Co-Founder Sentenced to 19½ Years for Molesting 5-Year-Old
> 
> Simcox would recruit fellow neo nazi sympathizer, J.T. Ready (who became a mass murderer) to join him in the build the wall effort.
> 
> Neo-Nazi Killed Family During 911 Call
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Gilchrist also recruited Shawna Forde and she was convicted of a double murder:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice she is ALSO a FAIR spokesperson
> 
> Minuteman Leader Jim Gilchrist's Ties To Shawna Forde's Gang Of Killers Finally Catch Up With Him
> 
> State's Rights -
> 
> New Mexico governor orders withdrawal of National Guard border troops, citing no "national security crisis"
> 
> At a national level, John Tanton, who founded and funds FAIR, CIS, NumbersUSA and about a dozen anti immigrant non-profits combined has some questionable ties:
> 
> American Renaissance (magazine) - Wikipedia
> 
> * Note in the article that the Pioneer Fund was generous to David Duke and "_eugenicists_."    According to Wikipedia:
> 
> "_Under Tanton's leadership FAIR was criticized for taking funding for many years from the Pioneer Fund, a non-profit foundation dedicated to "improving the character of the American people" by, among other things, promoting the practice of eugenics, or selective breeding_."
> 
> John Tanton - Wikipedia
> 
> Walter Kistler financed the Pioneer Fund out his own pocket.
> 
> Pioneer Fund - RationalWiki
> 
> A little more about who the Pioneer Fund has financed:
> 
> "_I know you guys don't want to misrepresent the Pioneer Fund, but prioritizing positions that they don't actually hold anymore over their actual positions does this and functions as a straw man logical fallacy.--Nectarflowed T 23:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Giving over a million dollar to the Nazist Roger Pearson in the eighties and nineties should clarify that this is a current issue. As well as having Rushton as head, his R/K theory for human races and his use of sources has been rejected as at best gross misrepresentation by every independent researcher_. "
> 
> Talk:Pioneer Fund/Archive 1 - Wikipedia
> 
> No matter how many rocks you flip over, you continue to find *nazis* within the organizations that Correll is being a lap dog for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All irrelevant  and logical fallacies, even if true, which I am NOT granting.
Click to expand...


I don't normally do replies to multi - quotes.  It only says you are stupid and have NOTHING but logical fallacies upon which to build your case.  I'm going to do a few responses.  Afterward, if you have AN issue, we can discuss it.

1)  Ranch Rescue *IS* responsible for the ruling against them.  When you get involved in legal matters, you are responsible for the outcome.  In this case Ranch Rescue is MORE responsible since a ruling was made that affects YOU too and they *failed to appeal the decision*. Therefore, the ruling STANDS

2)   You're using the term logical fallacy without a damn clue as to what it means so no response necessary except to say that birds of a feather flock together.  You parrot the nazi party line - you're a nazi

3)  I am not judging peoples motives.  I am *observing their outcomes*.  The Orwellian National ID legislation and warrant less searches and seizures are what your buddies lobbied for - fact is INTRODUCED into Congress

4)  If one employer can avail themselves of foreign labor and another employer cannot due to a quota system wherein it is not allowable under the de jure interpretation of the Constitution, they have a duty, a Right and an obligation to ignore those laws.

Until you can show us the provision in the Constitution that allows for treating some employers differently than others, you don't have shit except that irrelevant and repetitive nonsense of "_logical fallacy_."  

5)  Your lobbying efforts have only hurt the posterity of the founders.  That is a plain and simple fact.  Being repetitive with irrelevant references to the same objection and being redundant do* NOT* give your case any credibility

6)  The balance of your criticisms are acts of desperation.  You see, you wanted a debate.  You cannot moderate your own debate, so you're assuming that others reading the debate are too freaking stupid to read the points and counter points in order to come to their own conclusions.

Correll, if you lied down with dogs, you wind up with fleas.  The neo-nazis pioneered the talking points to which you attach yourself.  Sadly, those people do* NOT* hold a monopoly on potential solutions.  You, instead of trying to find some credible and logical way to get people to see your point of view, rely on nothing more than mob rule.  Unless everybody sees the infallibility of your position, they are idiots, fools, morons; they are "_open border types_" and every utterance they make is a logical fallacy.  How absolutely arrogant of you!

To draw you an applicable analogy, if my neighbor waves a Confederate flag and is seen in public advocating shipping black people to Africa, it would not be a logical fallacy to say he was, at a bare minimum,  influenced by the Ku Klux Klan.  When anyone like Larry Hopkins gets exposed for what he is and you come here to defend him and parrot the party line - which any dumb ass can trace back to its original source, then I trust the posters here to draw their own conclusions.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm thinking *YOU* are the real lefty.  Isn't THIS what you want to hear?
> 
> 
> Just cause you drank the Kool Aid doesn't mean I'm going to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe bit where you slander me as a kool aid drinker? That is just you being afraid to debate me on the issue, based on the merits or lack there of, of YOUR position vs mine.
> 
> 2. That bit where you use Bill CLinton to try to cause an emotional reaction from people on the right? That is you playing a emotional game, instead of defending your position on it's merits, or honestly addressing our position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have a position.  You lost the debate when you failed to cite a single sentence from the Constitution to support your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you truly thought that, you would not play a the emotional card of citing Bill Clinton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you make this shit up as you go along?
> 
> Correll, you are much like Larry Hopkins of the United Constitutional Patriots who, BTW, is the subject of this thread, not me.
> 
> I'm not playing any emotional card.  I'm telling the people that the *solutions and strategies* you use are based upon *SOCIALISM*.  Karl Marx is credited with being the father of socialism. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You posted a video of Bill Clinton stating a policy similar to what I want, to support your claim that what I want is "socialism".
> 
> 
> The thing is, that Bill Clinton was lying his ass off in that clip and his policies were the exact opposite. He did not secure the border, nor did he deport the illegals.
> 
> 
> Having an immigration policy is not socialism. Talking a lot about Karl Marx or other people does not change that. It is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Are you really that freaking stupid?

Donald Trump is talking trash that *HE* don't believe.  How can you tell when a politician is lying?  His lips are moving.  

Trump has lost more times in court selling you B.S. that simply cannot pass constitutional muster than he's won.  Furthermore, when anybody changes their mind, they are moving to the far left.  Trump has caused politicians to switch parties.  News flash:  It happened again just this week!!!!

I don't hold out much hope for you.  In order to understand politics and legal actions, the most important thing you can consider is the Cost / Benefits Analysis equation.  That you do not do.  You don't look at the long term ramifications of your actions; don't consider their impact of your Liberty; don't understand that empowering a government the way you do means that when *YOU* become the hunted, you will not have the ability or resources to resist tyranny.  

What the courts don't over-turn, rest assured the masses WILL change when the liberals come back to power.  The challenge is to come up with ideas to get America back to America without losing on all these bass ackward Art of the Deal negotiations wherein the American people lose more times than they win... and what little they win is insignificant in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm thinking *YOU* are the real lefty.  Isn't THIS what you want to hear?
> 
> 
> Just cause you drank the Kool Aid doesn't mean I'm going to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe bit where you slander me as a kool aid drinker? That is just you being afraid to debate me on the issue, based on the merits or lack there of, of YOUR position vs mine.
> 
> 2. That bit where you use Bill CLinton to try to cause an emotional reaction from people on the right? That is you playing a emotional game, instead of defending your position on it's merits, or honestly addressing our position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have a position.  You lost the debate when you failed to cite a single sentence from the Constitution to support your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you truly thought that, you would not play a the emotional card of citing Bill Clinton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you make this shit up as you go along?
> 
> Correll, you are much like Larry Hopkins of the United Constitutional Patriots who, BTW, is the subject of this thread, not me.
> 
> I'm not playing any emotional card.  I'm telling the people that the *solutions and strategies* you use are based upon *SOCIALISM*.  Karl Marx is credited with being the father of socialism. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You posted a video of Bill Clinton stating a policy similar to what I want, to support your claim that what I want is "socialism".
> 
> 
> The thing is, that Bill Clinton was lying his ass off in that clip and his policies were the exact opposite. He did not secure the border, nor did he deport the illegals.
> 
> 
> Having an immigration policy is not socialism. Talking a lot about Karl Marx or other people does not change that. It is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


What* IS* relevant is that your proposed solutions are rooted in textbook socialism.  Period.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You can shove your Godwins, back up your ass where you pulled them from.
> 
> 2. Your pretense that you care about the institution of America and/or "white Christians" is proved to be false, by your support of polices that, you yourself admit are existential threats to them.
> 
> 3. Most of the above post was unneeded filler. The only purpose it served was to take up additional time of mine to wade though to find your actual points. Please stop that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've bled more blood for this country than you've said words in defense of it.  I stand for the principles our forefathers fought and died for and you stupid mother fucker - I manned that border before you were a gleam in your daddy's eyes.  And you don't have what it takes to shove a damn thing up my ass.  If you disagree, PM me.  I'd give my front seat in HELL to give you that opportunity.
> 
> You should be wary of who you threaten.  I just called your bluff snowflake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You call me a nazi, you don't get to whine about me using harsh language on you in return, old man.
> 
> 2. Your claim to stand for those principles. But your position on them is self defeating to say the least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> The primary way I reached my conclusions came back in the early 2000s when a group of Salvadorans tried to enter the United States by trespassing over private property. They were met by Ranch Rescue, a civilian border group protecting property at the behest of the property owner, Jack Foote. An altercation took place and the Salvadorans came out second best in round one.
> 
> In round two, the matter ended up in court with Ranch Rescue members ending up in prison and the property owner losing his home and land to the Salvadorans. The judge ruled that the civilian border patrol had violated the "_civil rights_" of the Salvadorans. Those "_civil rights_" obviously trumped the private property Rights of land owners (thanks to the illegally ratified 14th Amendment.)
> 
> Leiva v. Ranch Rescue
> 
> Bear in mind I was with the legal team that begged Foote and Ranch Rescue to appeal that decision. They refused. So, when the wallists tell you about your property Rights and duty to protect borders, they are feeding you a load of pure horse shit. It was not the left or Democrats; liberals or "_open border_" types; it wasn't even Nancy Pelosi supporters that insured the foreigners would have "_civil rights" _regardless of whether they had papers or not. That ruling was made possible by the neo nazis that developed the wall worship idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "The ruling was made possible by the "neo nazis"?
> 
> 
> The people being arrested are not responsible for the ruling against them.
> 
> That  you take that, as a given, and then build on it, is just one of the many flaws in your reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2004, the border patrols were organized by neo nazis (honest to God real nazis) into an organization called the Minutemen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you claim, and sorry, I don't care. All you are doing here is attacking the messenger, instead of addressing the message.
> 
> 
> That is a logical fallacy and not a valid argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever since, these people have worked day and night to screw you out of your *unalienable* Rights. They lie to you (yes, due to the actions of the wallists, undocumented foreigners DO have rights.) They propose solutions that are calculated so as to deprive you of your Rights and dismantle the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THat sounds like your opinion of other people's motives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While you are focused on foreigners - who are *economically profitable* for business,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Those business's desire for profit does not give them the right to ignore the law, nor does it trump the rights of Americans to have economic and trade policies designed to serve their interests.
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> your
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Rights and *your* culture are disappearing from right under your nose. In the case of that background check argument, you are helping destroy the militia, the Right to Privacy, the ability of free men to revolt against tyranny, and you are nullifying the Fourth Amendment. Now, do you require proof of what I just said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> None of that is caused by my desire for immigration policies that serve my interests. That you try to put that on me, because I want immigration policy that serves my interests is confusing at best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> '''
> 
> Now, let us continue:
> 
> *When *Ranch Rescue  lost and decided to ignore the advice of U.S. Militias and the Militia of Georgia, suddenly the so - called _Minutemen_ popped up  Started in 2004, the_ Minutemen_ tried to use the regurgitated *Border Watch* idea that* David Duke of the KKK*  in the 1970s.  Correll parrots their talking points and you are invited to Google all the names and positions of the following principal players to see whether or not I told you the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Logical Fallacy of attacking the messenger, and Logical Fallacy of Guilt by Association. As weak association at that.
> 
> Both invalid arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other than David Duke, you will find no other border watch group advocating what Gilchrist  and Chris Simcox made famous.  So, let me introduce you to the players:
> 
> *Jim Gilchrist* and* Chris Simcox* were the founders of the so - called Minutemen.  According to one liberal site (largely because Correll and his ilk like to hide their past):
> 
> "J_im Gilchrist truly believes he's an American hero. Gilchrist—a co-founder of the Minutemen Project, a now-defunct civilian border militia—insists it was his group's actions that led to the conservative fervor over cracking down on illegal immigration. He traces the current Republican discourse on the issue—Donald Trump's infamous wall, the renewed interest in revoking birthright citizenship, and the calls for mass deportations back to his movement, which mobilized hundreds of armed vigilantes to fend off migrants at the US-Mexico border back in the spring of 2005_."
> 
> Whatever Happened to Arizona's Minutemen?
> 
> Minuteman Project
> 
> Jim Gilchrist who was so screwed up, nazis kicked him out of his own organization. Let's learn a little about the pioneers of this effort:
> 
> "In addition to border watching, the project (The Minutemen) created a political action committee lobbying for representatives supporting proactive immigration law enforcement and border security issues. Members believe government officials have failed to protect the country from foreign enemy invasion.[4] They strongly support building a wall and placing additional border patrol agents or involving the military to curb free movement across the Mexico-United States border."
> 
> Minuteman Project - Wikipedia
> 
> If you access that article, you find that Gilchrist's co founder was Chris Simcox. Chris Simcox was both a pedophile AND a neo-nazi:
> 
> Alleged Pedophile Chris Simcox Drops Bid to Personally Cross-Examine Child Victims
> 
> Minuteman Co-Founder Sentenced to 19½ Years for Molesting 5-Year-Old
> 
> Simcox would recruit fellow neo nazi sympathizer, J.T. Ready (who became a mass murderer) to join him in the build the wall effort.
> 
> Neo-Nazi Killed Family During 911 Call
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Gilchrist also recruited Shawna Forde and she was convicted of a double murder:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice she is ALSO a FAIR spokesperson
> 
> Minuteman Leader Jim Gilchrist's Ties To Shawna Forde's Gang Of Killers Finally Catch Up With Him
> 
> State's Rights -
> 
> New Mexico governor orders withdrawal of National Guard border troops, citing no "national security crisis"
> 
> At a national level, John Tanton, who founded and funds FAIR, CIS, NumbersUSA and about a dozen anti immigrant non-profits combined has some questionable ties:
> 
> American Renaissance (magazine) - Wikipedia
> 
> * Note in the article that the Pioneer Fund was generous to David Duke and "_eugenicists_."    According to Wikipedia:
> 
> "_Under Tanton's leadership FAIR was criticized for taking funding for many years from the Pioneer Fund, a non-profit foundation dedicated to "improving the character of the American people" by, among other things, promoting the practice of eugenics, or selective breeding_."
> 
> John Tanton - Wikipedia
> 
> Walter Kistler financed the Pioneer Fund out his own pocket.
> 
> Pioneer Fund - RationalWiki
> 
> A little more about who the Pioneer Fund has financed:
> 
> "_I know you guys don't want to misrepresent the Pioneer Fund, but prioritizing positions that they don't actually hold anymore over their actual positions does this and functions as a straw man logical fallacy.--Nectarflowed T 23:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Giving over a million dollar to the Nazist Roger Pearson in the eighties and nineties should clarify that this is a current issue. As well as having Rushton as head, his R/K theory for human races and his use of sources has been rejected as at best gross misrepresentation by every independent researcher_. "
> 
> Talk:Pioneer Fund/Archive 1 - Wikipedia
> 
> No matter how many rocks you flip over, you continue to find *nazis* within the organizations that Correll is being a lap dog for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All irrelevant  and logical fallacies, even if true, which I am NOT granting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't normally do replies to multi - quotes.  It only says you are stupid and have NOTHING but logical fallacies upon which to build your case.  I'm going to do a few responses.  Afterward, if you have AN issue, we can discuss it.
Click to expand...



That is an odd and unsupported claim coming from someone who's primary forms of attack are the logical fallacies of  Attacking the messenger, Guilt by Association and Shotgun argument. 




> 1)  Ranch Rescue *IS* responsible for the ruling against them.  When you get involved in legal matters, you are responsible for the outcome.  In this case Ranch Rescue is MORE responsible since a ruling was made that affects YOU too and they *failed to appeal the decision*. Therefore, the ruling STANDS




Nope. The judges are responsible for their actions and their ruling.




> 2)   You're using the term logical fallacy without a damn clue as to what it means so no response necessary except to say that birds of a feather flock together.  You parrot the nazi party line - you're a nazi



Oh, the irony of you claiming I don't know what a logical fallacy is, and then using the logical fallacy of guild by association. 



[





> 3)  I am not judging peoples motives.  I am *observing their outcomes*.  The Orwellian National ID legislation and warrant less searches and seizures are what your buddies lobbied for - fact is INTRODUCED into Congress



[/QUOTE]

Making a claim about an outcome is one thing. Saying they did it FOR that reason, is mind reading. Unless you can show them stating that was their goal.




> 4)  If one employer can avail themselves of foreign labor and another employer cannot due to a quota system wherein it is not allowable under the de jure interpretation of the Constitution, they have a duty, a Right and an obligation to ignore those laws.




No, they do not. 




> Until you can show us the provision in the Constitution that allows for treating some employers differently than others, you don't have shit except that irrelevant and repetitive nonsense of "_logical fallacy_."




I'm not sure of the legal basis for treating different fields differently, but certainly, it makes sense to treat different fields differently. A farmer asking for labor to get food crops in, is a different matter than a strip club asking for fresh dancers. Treating them differently seems completely reasonable.





> 5)  Your lobbying efforts have only hurt the posterity of the founders.  That is a plain and simple fact.  Being repetitive with irrelevant references to the same objection and being redundant do* NOT* give your case any credibility




Calling something a fact, does not make it a fact. The "posterity of our founders" is taking a beating from several fronts, not the least of which is high levels of Third World Immigration, which I oppose and you are attacking me for opposing.




> 6)  The balance of your criticisms are acts of desperation.  You see, you wanted a debate.  You cannot moderate your own debate, so you're assuming that others reading the debate are too freaking stupid to read the points and counter points in order to come to their own conclusions.




Logical fallacy of argument by ridicule. Invalid and meaningless.




> Correll, if you lied down with dogs, you wind up with fleas.  The neo-nazis pioneered the talking points to which you attach yourself.



Logical fallacy of guilt by association and attacking the messenger.




> Sadly, those people do* NOT* hold a monopoly on potential solutions.




That bit where you insult me by pretending that my arguments are not my own? That is the logical fallacy of attacking the messenger and argument by ridicule.





> You, instead of trying to find some credible and logical way to get people to see your point of view, rely on nothing more than mob rule.




a. I'm happy to argue the merits of my case. DO so all the time. You are the one that wants to play 7 degrees of separation games.

b. Your comment of mob rule I take it is an attack on my citing of democracy as a form of legitimacy? What form of legitimacy do you support then, and does it include respect for the Right of Self Determination?





> Unless everybody sees the infallibility of your position, they are idiots, fools, morons; they are "_open border types_" and every utterance they make is a logical fallacy.  How absolutely arrogant of you!




We have tens of millions of illegal aliens living in this country. Those that support the status quo, of which you seem to be, are in effect supporting an effectively open border. 

Just looking at the outcomes of polices. To coin a phrase...




> To draw you an applicable analogy, if my neighbor waves a Confederate flag and is seen in public advocating shipping black people to Africa, it would not be a logical fallacy to say he was, at a bare minimum,  influenced by the Ku Klux Klan.  When anyone like Larry Hopkins gets exposed for what he is and you come here to defend him and parrot the party line - which any dumb ass can trace back to its original source, then I trust the posters here to draw their own conclusions.




To address your analogy, if your neighbor was pushing a policy of shipping black people back to Africa, would you be able to argue against his policy BASED ON IT MERITS OR LACK THERE OF, or would all you have to fight is, is the logical fallacy of guild by association?


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe bit where you slander me as a kool aid drinker? That is just you being afraid to debate me on the issue, based on the merits or lack there of, of YOUR position vs mine.
> 
> 2. That bit where you use Bill CLinton to try to cause an emotional reaction from people on the right? That is you playing a emotional game, instead of defending your position on it's merits, or honestly addressing our position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have a position.  You lost the debate when you failed to cite a single sentence from the Constitution to support your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you truly thought that, you would not play a the emotional card of citing Bill Clinton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you make this shit up as you go along?
> 
> Correll, you are much like Larry Hopkins of the United Constitutional Patriots who, BTW, is the subject of this thread, not me.
> 
> I'm not playing any emotional card.  I'm telling the people that the *solutions and strategies* you use are based upon *SOCIALISM*.  Karl Marx is credited with being the father of socialism. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You posted a video of Bill Clinton stating a policy similar to what I want, to support your claim that what I want is "socialism".
> 
> 
> The thing is, that Bill Clinton was lying his ass off in that clip and his policies were the exact opposite. He did not secure the border, nor did he deport the illegals.
> 
> 
> Having an immigration policy is not socialism. Talking a lot about Karl Marx or other people does not change that. It is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really that freaking stupid?
> 
> Donald Trump is talking trash that *HE* don't believe.  How can you tell when a politician is lying?  His lips are moving.
> 
> Trump has lost more times in court selling you B.S. that simply cannot pass constitutional muster than he's won.  Furthermore, when anybody changes their mind, they are moving to the far left.  Trump has caused politicians to switch parties.  News flash:  It happened again just this week!!!!
> 
> I don't hold out much hope for you.  In order to understand politics and legal actions, the most important thing you can consider is the Cost / Benefits Analysis equation.  That you do not do.  You don't look at the long term ramifications of your actions; don't consider their impact of your Liberty; don't understand that empowering a government the way you do means that when *YOU* become the hunted, you will not have the ability or resources to resist tyranny.
> 
> What the courts don't over-turn, rest assured the masses WILL change when the liberals come back to power.  The challenge is to come up with ideas to get America back to America without losing on all these bass ackward Art of the Deal negotiations wherein the American people lose more times than they win... and what little they win is insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
Click to expand...




We could have supported Trump, who might try to serve our interests on immigration, or we could have voted for Hillary who we knew was actively hostile to our interests, including on immigration.


So, how was it "Stupid" to go with Trump, a maybe, instead of a sure fire negative?


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe bit where you slander me as a kool aid drinker? That is just you being afraid to debate me on the issue, based on the merits or lack there of, of YOUR position vs mine.
> 
> 2. That bit where you use Bill CLinton to try to cause an emotional reaction from people on the right? That is you playing a emotional game, instead of defending your position on it's merits, or honestly addressing our position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have a position.  You lost the debate when you failed to cite a single sentence from the Constitution to support your claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you truly thought that, you would not play a the emotional card of citing Bill Clinton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you make this shit up as you go along?
> 
> Correll, you are much like Larry Hopkins of the United Constitutional Patriots who, BTW, is the subject of this thread, not me.
> 
> I'm not playing any emotional card.  I'm telling the people that the *solutions and strategies* you use are based upon *SOCIALISM*.  Karl Marx is credited with being the father of socialism. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You posted a video of Bill Clinton stating a policy similar to what I want, to support your claim that what I want is "socialism".
> 
> 
> The thing is, that Bill Clinton was lying his ass off in that clip and his policies were the exact opposite. He did not secure the border, nor did he deport the illegals.
> 
> 
> Having an immigration policy is not socialism. Talking a lot about Karl Marx or other people does not change that. It is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What* IS* relevant is that your proposed solutions are rooted in textbook socialism.  Period.
Click to expand...



Socialism is the government ownership of the means of production.


Controlling the border, and the flow of people across it, is not that. 


Saying "socialism" at me, especially when it is not true, will not shake me and make me make a mistake, if that is what you are hoping.


----------



## danielpalos

Jitss617 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> you mean like the _infidel_, _protestant_, or _renegade_ kind?
> 
> 
> 
> The ones that restore limited government, freedom and liberty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dallas County Texas, needs you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are every where.. currently holding illegals hostage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> American citizens need you more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are everywhere
Click to expand...

Dallas County needs militia to help lower their property crime rate.  That takes priority.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have a position.  You lost the debate when you failed to cite a single sentence from the Constitution to support your claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you truly thought that, you would not play a the emotional card of citing Bill Clinton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you make this shit up as you go along?
> 
> Correll, you are much like Larry Hopkins of the United Constitutional Patriots who, BTW, is the subject of this thread, not me.
> 
> I'm not playing any emotional card.  I'm telling the people that the *solutions and strategies* you use are based upon *SOCIALISM*.  Karl Marx is credited with being the father of socialism. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You posted a video of Bill Clinton stating a policy similar to what I want, to support your claim that what I want is "socialism".
> 
> 
> The thing is, that Bill Clinton was lying his ass off in that clip and his policies were the exact opposite. He did not secure the border, nor did he deport the illegals.
> 
> 
> Having an immigration policy is not socialism. Talking a lot about Karl Marx or other people does not change that. It is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really that freaking stupid?
> 
> Donald Trump is talking trash that *HE* don't believe.  How can you tell when a politician is lying?  His lips are moving.
> 
> Trump has lost more times in court selling you B.S. that simply cannot pass constitutional muster than he's won.  Furthermore, when anybody changes their mind, they are moving to the far left.  Trump has caused politicians to switch parties.  News flash:  It happened again just this week!!!!
> 
> I don't hold out much hope for you.  In order to understand politics and legal actions, the most important thing you can consider is the Cost / Benefits Analysis equation.  That you do not do.  You don't look at the long term ramifications of your actions; don't consider their impact of your Liberty; don't understand that empowering a government the way you do means that when *YOU* become the hunted, you will not have the ability or resources to resist tyranny.
> 
> What the courts don't over-turn, rest assured the masses WILL change when the liberals come back to power.  The challenge is to come up with ideas to get America back to America without losing on all these bass ackward Art of the Deal negotiations wherein the American people lose more times than they win... and what little they win is insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could have supported Trump, who might try to serve our interests on immigration, or we could have voted for Hillary who we knew was actively hostile to our interests, including on immigration.
> 
> 
> So, how was it "Stupid" to go with Trump, a maybe, instead of a sure fire negative?
Click to expand...


Irrelevant straw man argument.  I thought you wanted a debate.  What's wrong snowflake?  Can't deal with the facts?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have a position.  You lost the debate when you failed to cite a single sentence from the Constitution to support your claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you truly thought that, you would not play a the emotional card of citing Bill Clinton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you make this shit up as you go along?
> 
> Correll, you are much like Larry Hopkins of the United Constitutional Patriots who, BTW, is the subject of this thread, not me.
> 
> I'm not playing any emotional card.  I'm telling the people that the *solutions and strategies* you use are based upon *SOCIALISM*.  Karl Marx is credited with being the father of socialism. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You posted a video of Bill Clinton stating a policy similar to what I want, to support your claim that what I want is "socialism".
> 
> 
> The thing is, that Bill Clinton was lying his ass off in that clip and his policies were the exact opposite. He did not secure the border, nor did he deport the illegals.
> 
> 
> Having an immigration policy is not socialism. Talking a lot about Karl Marx or other people does not change that. It is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What* IS* relevant is that your proposed solutions are rooted in textbook socialism.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism is the government ownership of the means of production.
> 
> 
> Controlling the border, and the flow of people across it, is not that.
> 
> 
> Saying "socialism" at me, especially when it is not true, will not shake me and make me make a mistake, if that is what you are hoping.
Click to expand...


You sir, are a pathological liar.


Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have a position.  You lost the debate when you failed to cite a single sentence from the Constitution to support your claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you truly thought that, you would not play a the emotional card of citing Bill Clinton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you make this shit up as you go along?
> 
> Correll, you are much like Larry Hopkins of the United Constitutional Patriots who, BTW, is the subject of this thread, not me.
> 
> I'm not playing any emotional card.  I'm telling the people that the *solutions and strategies* you use are based upon *SOCIALISM*.  Karl Marx is credited with being the father of socialism. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You posted a video of Bill Clinton stating a policy similar to what I want, to support your claim that what I want is "socialism".
> 
> 
> The thing is, that Bill Clinton was lying his ass off in that clip and his policies were the exact opposite. He did not secure the border, nor did he deport the illegals.
> 
> 
> Having an immigration policy is not socialism. Talking a lot about Karl Marx or other people does not change that. It is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What* IS* relevant is that your proposed solutions are rooted in textbook socialism.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism is the government ownership of the means of production.
> 
> 
> Controlling the border, and the flow of people across it, is not that.
> 
> 
> Saying "socialism" at me, especially when it is not true, will not shake me and make me make a mistake, if that is what you are hoping.
Click to expand...



I don't hope for anything.  You're just another poster on a board with NO knowledge of the Constitution,* NO* legal experience (see posts # 867 as an example) and damn little intelligence.

This thread is about Larry Hopkins of the United Constitutional Patriots.  You seem not to understand that.  So, *THAT* goes to* YOUR *intelligence.  You discount the road by which Hopkins and the groups who pioneered the wall idea go down.  In real life, it don't work that way.

*ALL* of the groups in wallist theology are united on the notion that foreigners are "_stealing jobs_."  To that end they demand harsh sentences for employers who hire undocumented foreigners.  Herein is the reality:

An employer who creates a job owns that job he or she creates.  The *only* way an undocumented foreigner can steal a job is if the job belonged to someone else other than the employer.  If the job belongs to the government, then even you, Correll, have admitted that when the government controls labor and production, that is socialism.

So, a foreigner comes into the United States.  If they were not caught coming in, their presence here is *NOT* a crime.  For you to deny that Correll is pure ignorance.  I believe the 14th Amendment to be illegally ratified.  But, it guarantees even undocumented foreigners the "_equal protection of the laws_."  So, when I advocate a strategy, I have to acknowledge the reality of what will work and what won't.  You lack that maturity.

For you to call those people "_illegal_" any damn thing is a lie.  It is the principle that makes me defend the foreigners.  Unless it's been *YOUR* ass being called a criminal with no Due Process applied, then you're obviously too stupid to get it. One of the founders, Thomas Paine, put it this way:

"_He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."

The difference, Correll, between you and I, is that I have something you don't:  EXPERIENCE.  I did not spend my ever waking moment trying to fuck with people on the Internet over topics I don't know squat about.  I never provoked anyone that I was not willing to spew shit to unless it was face to face.  I got my hands dirty, bled a little, went to court a few times, and God saw to it that I was protected.  By protecting the Rights of people I don't particularly care for, I protect my own ass - a concept lost on you since you will *never, under any circumstances*, put your ass on the line for what you claim to believe in.  What I'm advocating is not for the foreigner.  I have one ulterior motive - to save my own ass from being called a criminal for doing something I had a Right to do.  The principle will probably be lost on Larry Hopkins as well.

Back to reality now:

So, a foreigner who is caught without papers (and presuming Uncle Scam has nothing on him) he goes through a civil process and is deported.  Yet you advocate criminal charges for your fellow man just because some guy doesn't have human registration papers.  WTF dude?  Employers are not and should not be required to be agents for BICE.  Furthermore, the Constitution guarantees *everyone* the equal protection of the laws.  Laws that force people to become citizens and laws that allow one employer to hire a foreigner while denying another employer the same luxury denies to other employers the "_equal protection of the laws_" *UNLESS* the federal government owns and controls labor and production which - bottom line is SOCIALISM.  Even if the quota system (which was put into place by liberal Democrats) is enforced under the color of law, it is unconstitutional.  

*YOU* would take away the Americans Rights to civil disobedience, passive resistance, and non-compliance with unconstitutional laws.  You hate the Constitution and you embrace socialism.  So, if you have anything related to that topic, spit it out.  I won't pretend to be in a debate with a narcissist trying to have a personality contest.  So, unless you have something relevant, we're done here.


----------



## Vandalshandle

danielpalos said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ones that restore limited government, freedom and liberty
> 
> 
> 
> Dallas County Texas, needs you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are every where.. currently holding illegals hostage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> American citizens need you more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are everywhere
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dallas County needs militia to help lower their property crime rate.  That takes priority.
Click to expand...


Zimmerman needs a job....


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you truly thought that, you would not play a the emotional card of citing Bill Clinton.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you make this shit up as you go along?
> 
> Correll, you are much like Larry Hopkins of the United Constitutional Patriots who, BTW, is the subject of this thread, not me.
> 
> I'm not playing any emotional card.  I'm telling the people that the *solutions and strategies* you use are based upon *SOCIALISM*.  Karl Marx is credited with being the father of socialism. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You posted a video of Bill Clinton stating a policy similar to what I want, to support your claim that what I want is "socialism".
> 
> 
> The thing is, that Bill Clinton was lying his ass off in that clip and his policies were the exact opposite. He did not secure the border, nor did he deport the illegals.
> 
> 
> Having an immigration policy is not socialism. Talking a lot about Karl Marx or other people does not change that. It is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really that freaking stupid?
> 
> Donald Trump is talking trash that *HE* don't believe.  How can you tell when a politician is lying?  His lips are moving.
> 
> Trump has lost more times in court selling you B.S. that simply cannot pass constitutional muster than he's won.  Furthermore, when anybody changes their mind, they are moving to the far left.  Trump has caused politicians to switch parties.  News flash:  It happened again just this week!!!!
> 
> I don't hold out much hope for you.  In order to understand politics and legal actions, the most important thing you can consider is the Cost / Benefits Analysis equation.  That you do not do.  You don't look at the long term ramifications of your actions; don't consider their impact of your Liberty; don't understand that empowering a government the way you do means that when *YOU* become the hunted, you will not have the ability or resources to resist tyranny.
> 
> What the courts don't over-turn, rest assured the masses WILL change when the liberals come back to power.  The challenge is to come up with ideas to get America back to America without losing on all these bass ackward Art of the Deal negotiations wherein the American people lose more times than they win... and what little they win is insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could have supported Trump, who might try to serve our interests on immigration, or we could have voted for Hillary who we knew was actively hostile to our interests, including on immigration.
> 
> 
> So, how was it "Stupid" to go with Trump, a maybe, instead of a sure fire negative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant straw man argument.  I thought you wanted a debate.  What's wrong snowflake?  Can't deal with the facts?
Click to expand...




You accused Trump of being a liar, and me of being stupid for believing him.


My point, ie that he was the best choice, is not a strawman argument.


It was a very valid response to your point.



Your claim that it was not, is an obvious attempt to avoid admitting that my point was valid.




At this point, you should apologize to me for calling me stupid, and admit that my logic in supporting Trump was sound.


Seriously. You don't have to admit anything else, and we can continue the debate on immigration, and that admission will not undermine the rest of your position.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you truly thought that, you would not play a the emotional card of citing Bill Clinton.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you make this shit up as you go along?
> 
> Correll, you are much like Larry Hopkins of the United Constitutional Patriots who, BTW, is the subject of this thread, not me.
> 
> I'm not playing any emotional card.  I'm telling the people that the *solutions and strategies* you use are based upon *SOCIALISM*.  Karl Marx is credited with being the father of socialism. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You posted a video of Bill Clinton stating a policy similar to what I want, to support your claim that what I want is "socialism".
> 
> 
> The thing is, that Bill Clinton was lying his ass off in that clip and his policies were the exact opposite. He did not secure the border, nor did he deport the illegals.
> 
> 
> Having an immigration policy is not socialism. Talking a lot about Karl Marx or other people does not change that. It is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What* IS* relevant is that your proposed solutions are rooted in textbook socialism.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism is the government ownership of the means of production.
> 
> 
> Controlling the border, and the flow of people across it, is not that.
> 
> 
> Saying "socialism" at me, especially when it is not true, will not shake me and make me make a mistake, if that is what you are hoping.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sir, are a pathological liar.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you truly thought that, you would not play a the emotional card of citing Bill Clinton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you make this shit up as you go along?
> 
> Correll, you are much like Larry Hopkins of the United Constitutional Patriots who, BTW, is the subject of this thread, not me.
> 
> I'm not playing any emotional card.  I'm telling the people that the *solutions and strategies* you use are based upon *SOCIALISM*.  Karl Marx is credited with being the father of socialism. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You posted a video of Bill Clinton stating a policy similar to what I want, to support your claim that what I want is "socialism".
> 
> 
> The thing is, that Bill Clinton was lying his ass off in that clip and his policies were the exact opposite. He did not secure the border, nor did he deport the illegals.
> 
> 
> Having an immigration policy is not socialism. Talking a lot about Karl Marx or other people does not change that. It is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What* IS* relevant is that your proposed solutions are rooted in textbook socialism.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism is the government ownership of the means of production.
> 
> 
> Controlling the border, and the flow of people across it, is not that.
> 
> 
> Saying "socialism" at me, especially when it is not true, will not shake me and make me make a mistake, if that is what you are hoping.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hope for anything.  You're just another poster on a board with NO knowledge of the Constitution,* NO* legal experience (see posts # 867 as an example) and damn little intelligence.
> 
> This thread is about Larry Hopkins of the United Constitutional Patriots.  You seem not to understand that.  So, *THAT* goes to* YOUR *intelligence.  You discount the road by which Hopkins and the groups who pioneered the wall idea go down.  In real life, it don't work that way.
> 
> *ALL* of the groups in wallist theology are united on the notion that foreigners are "_stealing jobs_."  To that end they demand harsh sentences for employers who hire undocumented foreigners.  Herein is the reality:
> 
> An employer who creates a job owns that job he or she creates.  The *only* way an undocumented foreigner can steal a job is if the job belonged to someone else other than the employer.  If the job belongs to the government, then even you, Correll, have admitted that when the government controls labor and production, that is socialism.
> 
> So, a foreigner comes into the United States.  If they were not caught coming in, their presence here is *NOT* a crime.  For you to deny that Correll is pure ignorance.  I believe the 14th Amendment to be illegally ratified.  But, it guarantees even undocumented foreigners the "_equal protection of the laws_."  So, when I advocate a strategy, I have to acknowledge the reality of what will work and what won't.  You lack that maturity.
> 
> For you to call those people "_illegal_" any damn thing is a lie.  It is the principle that makes me defend the foreigners.  Unless it's been *YOUR* ass being called a criminal with no Due Process applied, then you're obviously too stupid to get it. One of the founders, Thomas Paine, put it this way:
> 
> "_He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."
> 
> The difference, Correll, between you and I, is that I have something you don't:  EXPERIENCE.  I did not spend my ever waking moment trying to fuck with people on the Internet over topics I don't know squat about.  I never provoked anyone that I was not willing to spew shit to unless it was face to face.  I got my hands dirty, bled a little, went to court a few times, and God saw to it that I was protected.  By protecting the Rights of people I don't particularly care for, I protect my own ass - a concept lost on you since you will *never, under any circumstances*, put your ass on the line for what you claim to believe in.  What I'm advocating is not for the foreigner.  I have one ulterior motive - to save my own ass from being called a criminal for doing something I had a Right to do.  The principle will probably be lost on Larry Hopkins as well.
> 
> Back to reality now:
> 
> So, a foreigner who is caught without papers (and presuming Uncle Scam has nothing on him) he goes through a civil process and is deported.  Yet you advocate criminal charges for your fellow man just because some guy doesn't have human registration papers.  WTF dude?  Employers are not and should not be required to be agents for BICE.  Furthermore, the Constitution guarantees *everyone* the equal protection of the laws.  Laws that force people to become citizens and laws that allow one employer to hire a foreigner while denying another employer the same luxury denies to other employers the "_equal protection of the laws_" *UNLESS* the federal government owns and controls labor and production which - bottom line is SOCIALISM.  Even if the quota system (which was put into place by liberal Democrats) is enforced under the color of law, it is unconstitutional.
> 
> *YOU* would take away the Americans Rights to civil disobedience, passive resistance, and non-compliance with unconstitutional laws.  You hate the Constitution and you embrace socialism.  So, if you have anything related to that topic, spit it out.  I won't pretend to be in a debate with a narcissist trying to have a personality contest.  So, unless you have something relevant, we're done here.
Click to expand...




Stripped of your logical fallacies and filler, this is two points you actually made.


"An eimployer who creates a job owns that job he or she creates.  The *only* way an undocumented foreigner can steal a job is if the job belonged to someone else other than the employer.  If the job belongs to the government, then even you, Correll, have admitted that when the government controls labor and production, that is socialism.

So, a foreigner comes into the United States.  If they were not caught coming in, their presence here is *NOT* a crime.  For you to deny that Correll is pure ignorance. "


1. This whole nation belongs to AMERICANS. The employer, when he posts a job offering, is offering it to the AMERICAN labor market, which is a creation of American workers, and rules and laws. When he hires someone who is not legally part of that market, he is breaking the law and betraying he fellow Americans. That is not socialism, that is part of the very idea of a nation.

2. NOt being caught, does not mean a crime was not committed. That is insanely twisted thinking, of the type normally caused by tying to make the logic support an conclusion your reached for other reasons.


3. And sir, consider please the universality of your points. ANY control that limits employing hiring is socialism? What about child labor laws? What about minimum wages? Safety regs? Health codes? Fire codes? Your position makes no sense.

4. And you consider it not a crime to illegally cross the border and then bitch when I suggest you are an Open Border type? LOL!!!


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you make this shit up as you go along?
> 
> Correll, you are much like Larry Hopkins of the United Constitutional Patriots who, BTW, is the subject of this thread, not me.
> 
> I'm not playing any emotional card.  I'm telling the people that the *solutions and strategies* you use are based upon *SOCIALISM*.  Karl Marx is credited with being the father of socialism. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You posted a video of Bill Clinton stating a policy similar to what I want, to support your claim that what I want is "socialism".
> 
> 
> The thing is, that Bill Clinton was lying his ass off in that clip and his policies were the exact opposite. He did not secure the border, nor did he deport the illegals.
> 
> 
> Having an immigration policy is not socialism. Talking a lot about Karl Marx or other people does not change that. It is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really that freaking stupid?
> 
> Donald Trump is talking trash that *HE* don't believe.  How can you tell when a politician is lying?  His lips are moving.
> 
> Trump has lost more times in court selling you B.S. that simply cannot pass constitutional muster than he's won.  Furthermore, when anybody changes their mind, they are moving to the far left.  Trump has caused politicians to switch parties.  News flash:  It happened again just this week!!!!
> 
> I don't hold out much hope for you.  In order to understand politics and legal actions, the most important thing you can consider is the Cost / Benefits Analysis equation.  That you do not do.  You don't look at the long term ramifications of your actions; don't consider their impact of your Liberty; don't understand that empowering a government the way you do means that when *YOU* become the hunted, you will not have the ability or resources to resist tyranny.
> 
> What the courts don't over-turn, rest assured the masses WILL change when the liberals come back to power.  The challenge is to come up with ideas to get America back to America without losing on all these bass ackward Art of the Deal negotiations wherein the American people lose more times than they win... and what little they win is insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could have supported Trump, who might try to serve our interests on immigration, or we could have voted for Hillary who we knew was actively hostile to our interests, including on immigration.
> 
> 
> So, how was it "Stupid" to go with Trump, a maybe, instead of a sure fire negative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant straw man argument.  I thought you wanted a debate.  What's wrong snowflake?  Can't deal with the facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You accused Trump of being a liar, and me of being stupid for believing him.
> 
> 
> My point, ie that he was the best choice, is not a strawman argument.
> 
> 
> It was a very valid response to your point.
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim that it was not, is an obvious attempt to avoid admitting that my point was valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this point, you should apologize to me for calling me stupid, and admit that my logic in supporting Trump was sound.
> 
> 
> Seriously. You don't have to admit anything else, and we can continue the debate on immigration, and that admission will not undermine the rest of your position.
Click to expand...


I'll tell you once more after this and then you will be wasting your time.  I do not like responding to multi quotes and will not do so past today.

Correll, you are either an idiot or a liar.  You cannot cite where I said you were stupid to vote for Donald Trump.  I voted for him as the lesser of two evils.  However, when he signed that Executive Order against bump stocks, he showed us he is no better than Hillary.  Knowing his stance on the Second Amendment, you'd be an idiot to vote for him again.

I'm not here to debate immigration with you on this thread.  My generation was winning that war until the National Socialists co-opted it and then allowed a new religion to pop up that revolves around wall worship.  Today, that is all people like you obsess over.  If you lose constitutional Liberties along the way and make resistance to tyranny impossible, you can live with that.  I can't.  There isn't much more to disagree with on that point.

This thread is about Larry Hopkins and whether or not civilian militias can run roughshod over border towns just because they disagree with the law.  The courts say you are wrong.  People who adopt your strategies will end up where Hopkins did.  You won't because you don't have the intestinal fortitude it takes to do anything more than anonymously spew shit on the Internet.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you make this shit up as you go along?
> 
> Correll, you are much like Larry Hopkins of the United Constitutional Patriots who, BTW, is the subject of this thread, not me.
> 
> I'm not playing any emotional card.  I'm telling the people that the *solutions and strategies* you use are based upon *SOCIALISM*.  Karl Marx is credited with being the father of socialism. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You posted a video of Bill Clinton stating a policy similar to what I want, to support your claim that what I want is "socialism".
> 
> 
> The thing is, that Bill Clinton was lying his ass off in that clip and his policies were the exact opposite. He did not secure the border, nor did he deport the illegals.
> 
> 
> Having an immigration policy is not socialism. Talking a lot about Karl Marx or other people does not change that. It is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What* IS* relevant is that your proposed solutions are rooted in textbook socialism.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism is the government ownership of the means of production.
> 
> 
> Controlling the border, and the flow of people across it, is not that.
> 
> 
> Saying "socialism" at me, especially when it is not true, will not shake me and make me make a mistake, if that is what you are hoping.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sir, are a pathological liar.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you make this shit up as you go along?
> 
> Correll, you are much like Larry Hopkins of the United Constitutional Patriots who, BTW, is the subject of this thread, not me.
> 
> I'm not playing any emotional card.  I'm telling the people that the *solutions and strategies* you use are based upon *SOCIALISM*.  Karl Marx is credited with being the father of socialism. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You posted a video of Bill Clinton stating a policy similar to what I want, to support your claim that what I want is "socialism".
> 
> 
> The thing is, that Bill Clinton was lying his ass off in that clip and his policies were the exact opposite. He did not secure the border, nor did he deport the illegals.
> 
> 
> Having an immigration policy is not socialism. Talking a lot about Karl Marx or other people does not change that. It is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What* IS* relevant is that your proposed solutions are rooted in textbook socialism.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism is the government ownership of the means of production.
> 
> 
> Controlling the border, and the flow of people across it, is not that.
> 
> 
> Saying "socialism" at me, especially when it is not true, will not shake me and make me make a mistake, if that is what you are hoping.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hope for anything.  You're just another poster on a board with NO knowledge of the Constitution,* NO* legal experience (see posts # 867 as an example) and damn little intelligence.
> 
> This thread is about Larry Hopkins of the United Constitutional Patriots.  You seem not to understand that.  So, *THAT* goes to* YOUR *intelligence.  You discount the road by which Hopkins and the groups who pioneered the wall idea go down.  In real life, it don't work that way.
> 
> *ALL* of the groups in wallist theology are united on the notion that foreigners are "_stealing jobs_."  To that end they demand harsh sentences for employers who hire undocumented foreigners.  Herein is the reality:
> 
> An employer who creates a job owns that job he or she creates.  The *only* way an undocumented foreigner can steal a job is if the job belonged to someone else other than the employer.  If the job belongs to the government, then even you, Correll, have admitted that when the government controls labor and production, that is socialism.
> 
> So, a foreigner comes into the United States.  If they were not caught coming in, their presence here is *NOT* a crime.  For you to deny that Correll is pure ignorance.  I believe the 14th Amendment to be illegally ratified.  But, it guarantees even undocumented foreigners the "_equal protection of the laws_."  So, when I advocate a strategy, I have to acknowledge the reality of what will work and what won't.  You lack that maturity.
> 
> For you to call those people "_illegal_" any damn thing is a lie.  It is the principle that makes me defend the foreigners.  Unless it's been *YOUR* ass being called a criminal with no Due Process applied, then you're obviously too stupid to get it. One of the founders, Thomas Paine, put it this way:
> 
> "_He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."
> 
> The difference, Correll, between you and I, is that I have something you don't:  EXPERIENCE.  I did not spend my ever waking moment trying to fuck with people on the Internet over topics I don't know squat about.  I never provoked anyone that I was not willing to spew shit to unless it was face to face.  I got my hands dirty, bled a little, went to court a few times, and God saw to it that I was protected.  By protecting the Rights of people I don't particularly care for, I protect my own ass - a concept lost on you since you will *never, under any circumstances*, put your ass on the line for what you claim to believe in.  What I'm advocating is not for the foreigner.  I have one ulterior motive - to save my own ass from being called a criminal for doing something I had a Right to do.  The principle will probably be lost on Larry Hopkins as well.
> 
> Back to reality now:
> 
> So, a foreigner who is caught without papers (and presuming Uncle Scam has nothing on him) he goes through a civil process and is deported.  Yet you advocate criminal charges for your fellow man just because some guy doesn't have human registration papers.  WTF dude?  Employers are not and should not be required to be agents for BICE.  Furthermore, the Constitution guarantees *everyone* the equal protection of the laws.  Laws that force people to become citizens and laws that allow one employer to hire a foreigner while denying another employer the same luxury denies to other employers the "_equal protection of the laws_" *UNLESS* the federal government owns and controls labor and production which - bottom line is SOCIALISM.  Even if the quota system (which was put into place by liberal Democrats) is enforced under the color of law, it is unconstitutional.
> 
> *YOU* would take away the Americans Rights to civil disobedience, passive resistance, and non-compliance with unconstitutional laws.  You hate the Constitution and you embrace socialism.  So, if you have anything related to that topic, spit it out.  I won't pretend to be in a debate with a narcissist trying to have a personality contest.  So, unless you have something relevant, we're done here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stripped of your logical fallacies and filler, this is two points you actually made.
> 
> 
> "An eimployer who creates a job owns that job he or she creates.  The *only* way an undocumented foreigner can steal a job is if the job belonged to someone else other than the employer.  If the job belongs to the government, then even you, Correll, have admitted that when the government controls labor and production, that is socialism.
> 
> So, a foreigner comes into the United States.  If they were not caught coming in, their presence here is *NOT* a crime.  For you to deny that Correll is pure ignorance. "
> 
> 
> 1. This whole nation belongs to AMERICANS. The employer, when he posts a job offering, is offering it to the AMERICAN labor market, which is a creation of American workers, and rules and laws. When he hires someone who is not legally part of that market, he is breaking the law and betraying he fellow Americans. That is not socialism, that is part of the very idea of a nation.
> 
> 2. NOt being caught, does not mean a crime was not committed. That is insanely twisted thinking, of the type normally caused by tying to make the logic support an conclusion your reached for other reasons.
> 
> 
> 3. And sir, consider please the universality of your points. ANY control that limits employing hiring is socialism? What about child labor laws? What about minimum wages? Safety regs? Health codes? Fire codes? Your position makes no sense.
> 
> 4. And you consider it not a crime to illegally cross the border and then bitch when I suggest you are an Open Border type? LOL!!!
Click to expand...


Dude you're all over the board with *bullshit lies* because you don't have a point.  Anybody that buys your assessment of me based upon what you post ought to sue their brains for non-support.

When you said that jobs belong to the American people, you identified yourself as a socialist.  The rest of your stuff is a mix of socialism and *irrelevant / inapplicable analogies* (something your dumb ass would call logical fallacies.)    Minimum wage laws are a form of socialism whereas safety regulations and so forth have *NOTHING* to do with ownership of property. 

In my opinion, a property owner could have you sign a document waiving any Rights you may have in exchange for being on their property.  You acknowledge that dangers exist.  Otherwise property owners can be held liable for dangerous conditions. 

I have Rights; the other guy has Rights.  Sometimes it is difficult to protect the Rights of both.  A complete infringement on either is unconstitutional.  As for me, I rely on precedent.  During the time of the founders, foreigners who were not and could not become citizens were allowed to come here and work, engaging in lawful activities.

The average American employed friends, relatives, and people from their respective neighborhood.  If a void were left, maybe a foreigner got a job.  Americans tended to associate with and support those who were more like them than a foreign ideology.  Government did not force people to hire X number of blacks Y number of women, Z number of gays / transexuals.  It worked.  That is why they liberals made the government change it.  Compounding the problem does not make anything better.  Sorry dude.  If you turned back the clock to the 1990s, we had this.  The ONE WORLDERS you idolize are the ones who mucked it up.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


> Those kinds of staged antics remind me of professional wrestling on tv.


No, seriously...you guys have your priorities straight. The nation will survive thanks to your vigilance.
What's happening to our Southern border pales next to the vile threat of Larry Mitchell Hopkins. Well done.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those kinds of staged antics remind me of professional wrestling on tv.
> 
> 
> 
> No, seriously...you guys have your priorities straight. The nation will survive thanks to your vigilance.
> What's happening to our Southern border pales next to the vile threat of Larry Mitchell Hopkins. Well done.
Click to expand...


Larry Hopkins is but one of a number of civilian militia leaders that started a private militia effort and allowed themselves to be taken over by the wallist theology.  After having done same, they neglected to observe, defend, protect and advance the Constitution.  Ultimately their leaders end up in prison where they are really effective in fighting for America (NOT.)

You wallists are so ignorant that you fail to see that constitutionalists want Freedom and Liberty, just not at the price of chains.  Your proposed solutions are a threat to both and require socialist solutions in order to enforce the nutty wall idea.  We had this war won before the wallists stepped in and began this campaign of deliberate genocide.  If you look down at the road at what you're saying and what you're doing, it ends in absolute defeat.  

Denying the trimmings of what you propose (be it the repeal of Due Process, ignoring the principle of a presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty, the National ID, trashing the Fourth Amendment, etc)  does not negate that your obsession with little brown people from south of the border is going to cost you everything.

The Bible says that a double minded man is unstable in all his ways.  Your side claims that they don't care about "_immigration_" (and bless your heart, you don't even know what immigration is), but you want it done _"legal_" (sic.)  Once those foreigners become "_legal_" as you mistakenly call it, they become Democrats and vote your ass into oblivion.  Sorry dude, I don't get it.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


> Larry Hopkins is but one of a number of civilian militia leaders that started a private militia effort and allowed themselves to be taken over by the wallist theology. After having done same, they neglected to observe, defend, protect and advance the Constitution. Ultimately their leaders end up in prison where they are really effective in fighting for America (NOT.)
> 
> You wallists are so ignorant that you fail to see that constitutionalists want Freedom and Liberty, just not at the price of chains. Your proposed solutions are a threat to both and require socialist solutions in order to enforce the nutty wall idea. We had this war won before the wallists stepped in and began this campaign of deliberate genocide. If you look down at the road at what you're saying and what you're doing, it ends in absolute defeat.
> 
> Denying the trimmings of what you propose (be it the repeal of Due Process, ignoring the principle of a presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty, the National ID, trashing the Fourth Amendment, etc) does not negate that your obsession with little brown people from south of the border is going to cost you everything.
> 
> The Bible says that a double minded man is unstable in all his ways. Your side claims that they don't care about "_immigration_" (and bless your heart, you don't even know what immigration is), but you want it done _"legal_" (sic.) Once those foreigners become "_legal_" as you mistakenly call it, they become Democrats and vote your ass into oblivion. Sorry dude, I don't get it.


Your obsessive objection to a physical barrier on the Southern border is inexplicable especially given your claim that you oppose immigration, of any sort, it seems.

I'm not interested in how you've justified your rantings to yourself. Illegal immigration costs the American taxpayer over a hundred billion dollars every single year and the public has consistently opposed it.
Hospitals, schools, court rooms, jails all fill up with illegals and my county in Northern California simply turned a blind eye to the numerous housing, zoning, municipal laws that were ignored in order to accommodate the horde of Mexican nationals living here contrary to the law. 

I  don't know what your particular problem is. Mine is with illegal immigration.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Larry Hopkins is but one of a number of civilian militia leaders that started a private militia effort and allowed themselves to be taken over by the wallist theology. After having done same, they neglected to observe, defend, protect and advance the Constitution. Ultimately their leaders end up in prison where they are really effective in fighting for America (NOT.)
> 
> You wallists are so ignorant that you fail to see that constitutionalists want Freedom and Liberty, just not at the price of chains. Your proposed solutions are a threat to both and require socialist solutions in order to enforce the nutty wall idea. We had this war won before the wallists stepped in and began this campaign of deliberate genocide. If you look down at the road at what you're saying and what you're doing, it ends in absolute defeat.
> 
> Denying the trimmings of what you propose (be it the repeal of Due Process, ignoring the principle of a presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty, the National ID, trashing the Fourth Amendment, etc) does not negate that your obsession with little brown people from south of the border is going to cost you everything.
> 
> The Bible says that a double minded man is unstable in all his ways. Your side claims that they don't care about "_immigration_" (and bless your heart, you don't even know what immigration is), but you want it done _"legal_" (sic.) Once those foreigners become "_legal_" as you mistakenly call it, they become Democrats and vote your ass into oblivion. Sorry dude, I don't get it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your obsessive objection to a physical barrier on the Southern border is inexplicable especially given your claim that you oppose immigration, of any sort, it seems.
> 
> I'm not interested in how you've justified your rantings to yourself. Illegal immigration costs the American taxpayer over a hundred billion dollars every single year and the public has consistently opposed it.
> Hospitals, schools, court rooms, jails all fill up with illegals and my county in Northern California simply turned a blind eye to the numerous housing, zoning, municipal laws that were ignored in order to accommodate the horde of Mexican nationals living here contrary to the law.
> 
> I  don't know what your particular problem is. Mine is with illegal immigration.
Click to expand...


You are trying to outdo Correll for dishonesty.  Let me say it to you again:

The nutty wall idea cannot be enforced without its trimmings.  Those trimmings nullify the Bill of Rights, property Rights, the presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty, etc.  As someone, unlike you, who has had to put his ass on the line within those parameters, I have been taught in the University of Hard Knocks and Screw U that what you want cannot be accomplished without submitting to a total *POLICE STATE*.

On the issues of economics you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.  It will be the primary reason you will ultimately lose this battle.  Foreign labor affects* both sides* of the accounting ledger.  That is why you make claims that omit the contributions undocumented foreigners make.

And here is the great mind fuck:

If I point out the reality, you will repeat that claim you dare not utter to a constitutionalist face to face.  You're going to say that to admit to what is true makes one "_for_" the foreigners.  Of course, you'd be a damn liar without the balls to back it up, but this is the Internet so you can spread manure and not be held accountable for it.

Attempts at deflection on your part - and those like you cannot cover up the truth forever.  If we implemented your ideas and then the trimmings it takes to enforce them, we would live in a *POLICE STATE* without the ability ever resist tyranny.  But, who knows, maybe one day you will quit banging a keyboard, grow a set and spew that shit in public... then you can play cards with Larry Hopkins at night, having rejected sound counsel.


----------



## WEATHER53

Sometimes people like Hopkins pay a price for doing the right thing. He is the MLK of border security.


----------



## skookerasbil

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those kinds of staged antics remind me of professional wrestling on tv.
> 
> 
> 
> No, seriously...you guys have your priorities straight. The nation will survive thanks to your vigilance.
> What's happening to our Southern border pales next to the vile threat of Larry Mitchell Hopkins. Well done.
Click to expand...



LOL.........over 70 million Americans think Larry is a hero!!Definitely a fuck the limpwristers moment!


----------



## Porter Rockwell

WEATHER53 said:


> Sometimes people like Hopkins pay a price for doing the right thing. He is the MLK of border security.



I'm waiting on someone to convince me that Hopkins did the "_right_" thing.  What he did, in my opinion was a stupid thing.  He was actually arrested on a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition.

In my opinion, the weapons charge is total *bullshit*.  While Hopkins supporters have condemned me on this principle of law, owning a firearm is an irrevocable, natural, inherent, *unalienable*, absolute, God given Right.  Once he had served his time for whatever crime he committed his Rights should have been automatically restored, but in reality, we no longer live under a de jure / legal / constitutional Republican form of government as guaranteed in the United States Constitution. I wonder why my critics here have not condemned Hopkins "_illegal"_ acts. 

While the United Constitutional Patriots were within their Area of Operations, According to the local media in New Mexico on January 11:

_"New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said she saw no immediate evidence Friday at the U.S. border with Mexico of the security crisis described by President Donald Trump._.."

Governor Lujan Grisham: No border crisis in New Mexico

Trump had no legal authority to unilaterally declare a National Emergency in a state where the Chief Executive said no emergency exists.  Presupposing Hopkins militia was not a select militia (and I don't know whether or not his militia was a legal one) his Commander in Chief as the head of the militia is the governor of the state.  

Next, BEFORE anyone can act outside the law (and even MLK pretty much kept to script) there is a proper method of doing so:

How do we effect change?

*  NOTE: that is a defunct site so leaving that link is within the accepted rules of this board.  You can no longer register to post there.

As a militia officer, Hopkins had no legitimate authority to be on the border, trying to enforce federal laws.  The militiaman owes his first duty to the Constitution, not the government.  Nobody on Hopkins side can cite you the section of the Constitution wherein the federal government can tell a state who may and may not come and go as guests within their state.  It wasn't until 1875 that the United States Supreme Court illegally changed the law and made up their own law - legislating from the bench that foreigners could not come here and work - even when they could *never* become citizens.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

skookerasbil said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those kinds of staged antics remind me of professional wrestling on tv.
> 
> 
> 
> No, seriously...you guys have your priorities straight. The nation will survive thanks to your vigilance.
> What's happening to our Southern border pales next to the vile threat of Larry Mitchell Hopkins. Well done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.........over 70 million Americans think Larry is a hero!!Definitely a fuck the limpwristers moment!
Click to expand...


Over 100 million Americans don't vote they are qualified.  So, without the rest of the qualified voters and that 100 million plus - AND YOU HAVE NO CITATION TO SUPPORT THAT FIGURE - I think you're talking out your ass while still not having that all important mob rule / majority vote to carry your argument to the implied conclusion.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


> You are trying to outdo Correll for dishonesty. Let me say it to you again:
> 
> The nutty wall idea cannot be enforced without its trimmings. Those trimmings nullify the Bill of Rights, property Rights, the presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty, etc. As someone, unlike you, who has had to put his ass on the line within those parameters, I have been taught in the University of Hard Knocks and Screw U that what you want cannot be accomplished without submitting to a total *POLICE STATE*.


Nutter garbage! The wall, or an equivalent barrier, has only to exist to enforce itself! 
It's a barrier that has worked very well in San Diego in funneling people that wish to enter the nation surreptitiously through regular channels. You are a fucking lunatic!


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are trying to outdo Correll for dishonesty. Let me say it to you again:
> 
> The nutty wall idea cannot be enforced without its trimmings. Those trimmings nullify the Bill of Rights, property Rights, the presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty, etc. As someone, unlike you, who has had to put his ass on the line within those parameters, I have been taught in the University of Hard Knocks and Screw U that what you want cannot be accomplished without submitting to a total *POLICE STATE*.
> 
> 
> 
> Nutter garbage! The wall, or an equivalent barrier, has only to exist to enforce itself!
> It's a barrier that has worked very well in San Diego in funneling people that wish to enter the nation surreptitiously through regular channels. You are a fucking lunatic!
Click to expand...


Leader of militia at US border boasted of training to kill Obama – FBI

Could this be why your "_hero_" gives the militia a bad name?

I'm not going to mince words with you, so pay attention:

You are an ignorant, stupid,uninformed, uneducated idiotic *gutless* son of a bitch.  You've never manned the border nor has it ever cost you a day or a dollar out of your life to put your beliefs into action because all you do is sit on your ass, pontificate and second guess the people who are *IN* the battle.

The reality is the LEO community vigorously enforces the *Constitution Free Zone* on the pretext of  enforcing immigration laws.  Been there - done that - seen it - know plenty of people who were denied their constitutional Rights.

It was a Tea Party Republican, James Sensenbrenner, that introduced the so called "*Patriot Act"* and the National ID /* REAL ID Act* making Americans carry around National ID in the spirit of the Orwellian nightmare.  Those same wallists then wanted people to be "_background checked_" (in a clear cut violation of the Fourth Amendment)  AND force private entities to enforce federal laws with *E Verify*.  It was those same National Socialist scumbags that proposed legislation that denied to people their Rights under *SB 1070 in Arizona.  *That bill, requiring people to carry ID had that provision struck down in the United States Supreme Court.

In order to make wall worship work, the *Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security* was created at a cost of more than $6 BILLION DOLLARS and *multi billions* each year to operate it.  Nazi Germany had the Fatherland; communist Russia had Motherland Security.  Since the wallists are socialists, we're to have Homeland Security.

In the course of the last fifteen years I have personally witnessed, knew people, and / or worked on cases wherein AMERICANS were

*  Denied Due Process

*  Threatened

*  Killed by LEOs

* Lost their homes, jobs, and / or families on trumped up charges

* Put out of the patriot business

*  Put into prison

*  Forced to become snitches for one of the alphabet agencies

In many of the cases, I either personally tried to warn many of those individuals; was part of the effort where sane militia leaders tried to save dumb asses a trip to prison, and worked within many legal teams to get a better legal result.  We had this thing won back in the 1990s before smart asses like you showed up.  Since then there has been a steady parade of Section 8s like you helping to send your fellow man to Hell or jail.  This ain't my first rodeo son.  Here are people I actually KNEW... and was even in the effort to support legitimate militia leaders to save those dumb asses from themselves:

Leiva v. Ranch Rescue

Waffle House Terrorists - Waffle House Terrorist Plot

https://www.outlookseries.com/A0993...tizens_arrest_warrents_Darren_Wesley_Huff.htm

If I begin naming all the ones in between those cases and those after, we'd be here a long time.  But, son, a cherry comes along wanting to call me names from afar just shows how chickenshit people like you really are.  You encourage acts that send well meaning people to prison; you give the militia a black eye; you act from afar and anonymously so you're well protected from accountability.  The laws you inspire will make it impossible for future generations to resist tyranny.  You are what the communists referred to as a useful idiot. 

The one thing that every poster needs to realize is that you would never talk that skeet to my face because I'm on the front lines and you cannot be* IN* the fight without running into me.  You will *NEVER *be on the front lines, so other posters here need to take your blather with a grain of salt and use a lot of caution.


----------



## Dr Grump

Correll said:


> With the examples of IM2, and Paul on this very site you can say that? LOL!!!!!



Yep


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You posted a video of Bill Clinton stating a policy similar to what I want, to support your claim that what I want is "socialism".
> 
> 
> The thing is, that Bill Clinton was lying his ass off in that clip and his policies were the exact opposite. He did not secure the border, nor did he deport the illegals.
> 
> 
> Having an immigration policy is not socialism. Talking a lot about Karl Marx or other people does not change that. It is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that freaking stupid?
> 
> Donald Trump is talking trash that *HE* don't believe.  How can you tell when a politician is lying?  His lips are moving.
> 
> Trump has lost more times in court selling you B.S. that simply cannot pass constitutional muster than he's won.  Furthermore, when anybody changes their mind, they are moving to the far left.  Trump has caused politicians to switch parties.  News flash:  It happened again just this week!!!!
> 
> I don't hold out much hope for you.  In order to understand politics and legal actions, the most important thing you can consider is the Cost / Benefits Analysis equation.  That you do not do.  You don't look at the long term ramifications of your actions; don't consider their impact of your Liberty; don't understand that empowering a government the way you do means that when *YOU* become the hunted, you will not have the ability or resources to resist tyranny.
> 
> What the courts don't over-turn, rest assured the masses WILL change when the liberals come back to power.  The challenge is to come up with ideas to get America back to America without losing on all these bass ackward Art of the Deal negotiations wherein the American people lose more times than they win... and what little they win is insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could have supported Trump, who might try to serve our interests on immigration, or we could have voted for Hillary who we knew was actively hostile to our interests, including on immigration.
> 
> 
> So, how was it "Stupid" to go with Trump, a maybe, instead of a sure fire negative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant straw man argument.  I thought you wanted a debate.  What's wrong snowflake?  Can't deal with the facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You accused Trump of being a liar, and me of being stupid for believing him.
> 
> 
> My point, ie that he was the best choice, is not a strawman argument.
> 
> 
> It was a very valid response to your point.
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim that it was not, is an obvious attempt to avoid admitting that my point was valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this point, you should apologize to me for calling me stupid, and admit that my logic in supporting Trump was sound.
> 
> 
> Seriously. You don't have to admit anything else, and we can continue the debate on immigration, and that admission will not undermine the rest of your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll tell you once more after this and then you will be wasting your time.  I do not like responding to multi quotes and will not do so past today.
> 
> Correll, you are either an idiot or a liar.  You cannot cite where I said you were stupid to vote for Donald Trump.  I voted for him as the lesser of two evils.  However, when he signed that Executive Order against bump stocks, he showed us he is no better than Hillary.  Knowing his stance on the Second Amendment, you'd be an idiot to vote for him again.
> 
> I'm not here to debate immigration with you on this thread.  My generation was winning that war until the National Socialists co-opted it and then allowed a new religion to pop up that revolves around wall worship.  Today, that is all people like you obsess over.  If you lose constitutional Liberties along the way and make resistance to tyranny impossible, you can live with that.  I can't.  There isn't much more to disagree with on that point.
> 
> This thread is about Larry Hopkins and whether or not civilian militias can run roughshod over border towns just because they disagree with the law.  The courts say you are wrong.  People who adopt your strategies will end up where Hopkins did.  You won't because you don't have the intestinal fortitude it takes to do anything more than anonymously spew shit on the Internet.
Click to expand...





1. You post long rambling posts, and I will respond as I need to, to make sure you can tell which point I am referring to.

2. Your words.

"Are you really that freaking stupid?

Donald Trump is"

Sounds to me like you were calling me stupid for supporting Trump or at least listening to what he was saying.


3. THe bump stock ban was bad. But Trump is still better than Hillary.

4. When and how was your generation supposedly winning the war on immigration? And try to be concise. Or you might get mulit-qoutes in response.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You posted a video of Bill Clinton stating a policy similar to what I want, to support your claim that what I want is "socialism".
> 
> 
> The thing is, that Bill Clinton was lying his ass off in that clip and his policies were the exact opposite. He did not secure the border, nor did he deport the illegals.
> 
> 
> Having an immigration policy is not socialism. Talking a lot about Karl Marx or other people does not change that. It is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What* IS* relevant is that your proposed solutions are rooted in textbook socialism.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism is the government ownership of the means of production.
> 
> 
> Controlling the border, and the flow of people across it, is not that.
> 
> 
> Saying "socialism" at me, especially when it is not true, will not shake me and make me make a mistake, if that is what you are hoping.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sir, are a pathological liar.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You posted a video of Bill Clinton stating a policy similar to what I want, to support your claim that what I want is "socialism".
> 
> 
> The thing is, that Bill Clinton was lying his ass off in that clip and his policies were the exact opposite. He did not secure the border, nor did he deport the illegals.
> 
> 
> Having an immigration policy is not socialism. Talking a lot about Karl Marx or other people does not change that. It is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What* IS* relevant is that your proposed solutions are rooted in textbook socialism.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism is the government ownership of the means of production.
> 
> 
> Controlling the border, and the flow of people across it, is not that.
> 
> 
> Saying "socialism" at me, especially when it is not true, will not shake me and make me make a mistake, if that is what you are hoping.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hope for anything.  You're just another poster on a board with NO knowledge of the Constitution,* NO* legal experience (see posts # 867 as an example) and damn little intelligence.
> 
> This thread is about Larry Hopkins of the United Constitutional Patriots.  You seem not to understand that.  So, *THAT* goes to* YOUR *intelligence.  You discount the road by which Hopkins and the groups who pioneered the wall idea go down.  In real life, it don't work that way.
> 
> *ALL* of the groups in wallist theology are united on the notion that foreigners are "_stealing jobs_."  To that end they demand harsh sentences for employers who hire undocumented foreigners.  Herein is the reality:
> 
> An employer who creates a job owns that job he or she creates.  The *only* way an undocumented foreigner can steal a job is if the job belonged to someone else other than the employer.  If the job belongs to the government, then even you, Correll, have admitted that when the government controls labor and production, that is socialism.
> 
> So, a foreigner comes into the United States.  If they were not caught coming in, their presence here is *NOT* a crime.  For you to deny that Correll is pure ignorance.  I believe the 14th Amendment to be illegally ratified.  But, it guarantees even undocumented foreigners the "_equal protection of the laws_."  So, when I advocate a strategy, I have to acknowledge the reality of what will work and what won't.  You lack that maturity.
> 
> For you to call those people "_illegal_" any damn thing is a lie.  It is the principle that makes me defend the foreigners.  Unless it's been *YOUR* ass being called a criminal with no Due Process applied, then you're obviously too stupid to get it. One of the founders, Thomas Paine, put it this way:
> 
> "_He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."
> 
> The difference, Correll, between you and I, is that I have something you don't:  EXPERIENCE.  I did not spend my ever waking moment trying to fuck with people on the Internet over topics I don't know squat about.  I never provoked anyone that I was not willing to spew shit to unless it was face to face.  I got my hands dirty, bled a little, went to court a few times, and God saw to it that I was protected.  By protecting the Rights of people I don't particularly care for, I protect my own ass - a concept lost on you since you will *never, under any circumstances*, put your ass on the line for what you claim to believe in.  What I'm advocating is not for the foreigner.  I have one ulterior motive - to save my own ass from being called a criminal for doing something I had a Right to do.  The principle will probably be lost on Larry Hopkins as well.
> 
> Back to reality now:
> 
> So, a foreigner who is caught without papers (and presuming Uncle Scam has nothing on him) he goes through a civil process and is deported.  Yet you advocate criminal charges for your fellow man just because some guy doesn't have human registration papers.  WTF dude?  Employers are not and should not be required to be agents for BICE.  Furthermore, the Constitution guarantees *everyone* the equal protection of the laws.  Laws that force people to become citizens and laws that allow one employer to hire a foreigner while denying another employer the same luxury denies to other employers the "_equal protection of the laws_" *UNLESS* the federal government owns and controls labor and production which - bottom line is SOCIALISM.  Even if the quota system (which was put into place by liberal Democrats) is enforced under the color of law, it is unconstitutional.
> 
> *YOU* would take away the Americans Rights to civil disobedience, passive resistance, and non-compliance with unconstitutional laws.  You hate the Constitution and you embrace socialism.  So, if you have anything related to that topic, spit it out.  I won't pretend to be in a debate with a narcissist trying to have a personality contest.  So, unless you have something relevant, we're done here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stripped of your logical fallacies and filler, this is two points you actually made.
> 
> 
> "An eimployer who creates a job owns that job he or she creates.  The *only* way an undocumented foreigner can steal a job is if the job belonged to someone else other than the employer.  If the job belongs to the government, then even you, Correll, have admitted that when the government controls labor and production, that is socialism.
> 
> So, a foreigner comes into the United States.  If they were not caught coming in, their presence here is *NOT* a crime.  For you to deny that Correll is pure ignorance. "
> 
> 
> 1. This whole nation belongs to AMERICANS. The employer, when he posts a job offering, is offering it to the AMERICAN labor market, which is a creation of American workers, and rules and laws. When he hires someone who is not legally part of that market, he is breaking the law and betraying he fellow Americans. That is not socialism, that is part of the very idea of a nation.
> 
> 2. NOt being caught, does not mean a crime was not committed. That is insanely twisted thinking, of the type normally caused by tying to make the logic support an conclusion your reached for other reasons.
> 
> 
> 3. And sir, consider please the universality of your points. ANY control that limits employing hiring is socialism? What about child labor laws? What about minimum wages? Safety regs? Health codes? Fire codes? Your position makes no sense.
> 
> 4. And you consider it not a crime to illegally cross the border and then bitch when I suggest you are an Open Border type? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude you're all over the board with *bullshit lies* because you don't have a point.  Anybody that buys your assessment of me based upon what you post ought to sue their brains for non-support.
> 
> When you said that jobs belong to the American people, you identified yourself as a socialist.  The rest of your stuff is a mix of socialism and *irrelevant / inapplicable analogies* (something your dumb ass would call logical fallacies.)    Minimum wage laws are a form of socialism whereas safety regulations and so forth have *NOTHING* to do with ownership of property.
> 
> In my opinion, a property owner could have you sign a document waiving any Rights you may have in exchange for being on their property.  You acknowledge that dangers exist.  Otherwise property owners can be held liable for dangerous conditions.
> 
> I have Rights; the other guy has Rights.  Sometimes it is difficult to protect the Rights of both.  A complete infringement on either is unconstitutional.  As for me, I rely on precedent.  During the time of the founders, foreigners who were not and could not become citizens were allowed to come here and work, engaging in lawful activities.
> 
> The average American employed friends, relatives, and people from their respective neighborhood.  If a void were left, maybe a foreigner got a job.  Americans tended to associate with and support those who were more like them than a foreign ideology.  Government did not force people to hire X number of blacks Y number of women, Z number of gays / transexuals.  It worked.  That is why they liberals made the government change it.  Compounding the problem does not make anything better.  Sorry dude.  If you turned back the clock to the 1990s, we had this.  The ONE WORLDERS you idolize are the ones who mucked it up.
Click to expand...




Any group is a balance of sacrifices to the group and benefits to the individuals.


If that employer's foreign workers decided that it would be more beneficial to murder him and take his shit, that employer would call on the community, his AMERICAN community to protect him, and it would.


It is completely reasonable for AMERICANS to want immigration policy that benefits AMERICANS. 


Any group that loses the concept of giving to the group, is a doomed group. 


A group where the members only selfishly take, and never give, is a group that is effectively dead, and just waiting for someone or something to take it's place.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


> Could this be why your "_hero_" gives the militia a bad name?


More and more personal insults and "wall worship" idiocy. Blather on, Rambo. I'm sorry I ever gave you the attention you crave to begin with. But I won't keep making that same mistake.


----------



## Correll

Dr Grump said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> With the examples of IM2, and Paul on this very site you can say that? LOL!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep
Click to expand...




That is insane of you. Such people are proof that both sides have their share of racists. For you to try to claim otherwise, is just you being a liar.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that freaking stupid?
> 
> Donald Trump is talking trash that *HE* don't believe.  How can you tell when a politician is lying?  His lips are moving.
> 
> Trump has lost more times in court selling you B.S. that simply cannot pass constitutional muster than he's won.  Furthermore, when anybody changes their mind, they are moving to the far left.  Trump has caused politicians to switch parties.  News flash:  It happened again just this week!!!!
> 
> I don't hold out much hope for you.  In order to understand politics and legal actions, the most important thing you can consider is the Cost / Benefits Analysis equation.  That you do not do.  You don't look at the long term ramifications of your actions; don't consider their impact of your Liberty; don't understand that empowering a government the way you do means that when *YOU* become the hunted, you will not have the ability or resources to resist tyranny.
> 
> What the courts don't over-turn, rest assured the masses WILL change when the liberals come back to power.  The challenge is to come up with ideas to get America back to America without losing on all these bass ackward Art of the Deal negotiations wherein the American people lose more times than they win... and what little they win is insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could have supported Trump, who might try to serve our interests on immigration, or we could have voted for Hillary who we knew was actively hostile to our interests, including on immigration.
> 
> 
> So, how was it "Stupid" to go with Trump, a maybe, instead of a sure fire negative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant straw man argument.  I thought you wanted a debate.  What's wrong snowflake?  Can't deal with the facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You accused Trump of being a liar, and me of being stupid for believing him.
> 
> 
> My point, ie that he was the best choice, is not a strawman argument.
> 
> 
> It was a very valid response to your point.
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim that it was not, is an obvious attempt to avoid admitting that my point was valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this point, you should apologize to me for calling me stupid, and admit that my logic in supporting Trump was sound.
> 
> 
> Seriously. You don't have to admit anything else, and we can continue the debate on immigration, and that admission will not undermine the rest of your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll tell you once more after this and then you will be wasting your time.  I do not like responding to multi quotes and will not do so past today.
> 
> Correll, you are either an idiot or a liar.  You cannot cite where I said you were stupid to vote for Donald Trump.  I voted for him as the lesser of two evils.  However, when he signed that Executive Order against bump stocks, he showed us he is no better than Hillary.  Knowing his stance on the Second Amendment, you'd be an idiot to vote for him again.
> 
> I'm not here to debate immigration with you on this thread.  My generation was winning that war until the National Socialists co-opted it and then allowed a new religion to pop up that revolves around wall worship.  Today, that is all people like you obsess over.  If you lose constitutional Liberties along the way and make resistance to tyranny impossible, you can live with that.  I can't.  There isn't much more to disagree with on that point.
> 
> This thread is about Larry Hopkins and whether or not civilian militias can run roughshod over border towns just because they disagree with the law.  The courts say you are wrong.  People who adopt your strategies will end up where Hopkins did.  You won't because you don't have the intestinal fortitude it takes to do anything more than anonymously spew shit on the Internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You post long rambling posts, and I will respond as I need to, to make sure you can tell which point I am referring to.
> 
> 2. Your words.
> 
> "Are you really that freaking stupid?
> 
> Donald Trump is"
> 
> Sounds to me like you were calling me stupid for supporting Trump or at least listening to what he was saying.
> 
> 
> 3. THe bump stock ban was bad. But Trump is still better than Hillary.
> 
> 4. When and how was your generation supposedly winning the war on immigration? And try to be concise. Or you might get mulit-qoutes in response.
Click to expand...


You give me four things to respond to and then bitch because the responses are over ten paragraphs.  That is why I don't normally respond to them.

Second point, your first post directed at me on this thread was to call me a moron.  What kind of response did you expect in return?

We all listened to Trump.  But Trump proved to be a liar.  Since he's really buddy buddy with the Clintons I'm not so sure now that he's the lesser of two evils, but in any event, none of us should extol the virtues of Trump when we know what he is.  Not that you should have known this, but *maybe* had Hillary won the Republicans would rebel against unconstitutional power grabs.

In the 1990s my generation almost got rid of the income tax, the IRS and the 16th Amendment.  There was no requirement that one get a Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops, "_Social Security Number_" and, without one, you could not be forced into the system and required to pay what was then a _voluntary_ tax.

My own U.S. Congressman introduced the most researched legislation in U.S. history which would have repealed the 16th Amendment and eliminate the income tax.  Had we done that, you could not say undocumented foreigners didn't pay the tax since the new system would have everybody paying a tax consistent with what they made - no loopholes, no  B.S.

The people of my generation were challenging and winning the effort to regain their status as freemen by rescinding their contracts with the government.  We knew the difference between a Preamble citizen and a 14th Amendment citizen.  By reclaiming our status as freemen, it was nullifying the 14th Amendment incrementally.  Your generation needed that Amendment to have something to bitch about (i.e. *mythical *"_anchor babies_.")  AND your generation wanted Orwellian National ID (Hitler's tattoo idea on steroids) based upon the Socialist Surveillance Number (SSN.)

We were making taxes a non-issue, taking the anchor baby argument out of the equation, dealing immigration in general  a heavy blow, restoring your Rights as individuals so that employers could hire whomever they wanted (which means that given a choice a lot of small companies - which should be the most representative in America - would be hiring their families, neighbors and people from the neighborhood.

I personally wrote a bill that would give businesses an opportunity to *earn* their tax breaks: a tax incentive for companies to hire an all American staff, another to bring jobs back to America, a tax incentive to have a pay scale with percentages above the poverty scale (the bigger the percentage, the greater the incentive.)  There would be additional tax write offs for employers to take people off unemployment, welfare, and disability.  There was more to it than that, but I'm just trying to fit all our efforts into a small enough post that you don't get confused by ten paragraphs.  Heaven forbid you don't get a history lesson in twenty words or less.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What* IS* relevant is that your proposed solutions are rooted in textbook socialism.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism is the government ownership of the means of production.
> 
> 
> Controlling the border, and the flow of people across it, is not that.
> 
> 
> Saying "socialism" at me, especially when it is not true, will not shake me and make me make a mistake, if that is what you are hoping.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sir, are a pathological liar.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What* IS* relevant is that your proposed solutions are rooted in textbook socialism.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism is the government ownership of the means of production.
> 
> 
> Controlling the border, and the flow of people across it, is not that.
> 
> 
> Saying "socialism" at me, especially when it is not true, will not shake me and make me make a mistake, if that is what you are hoping.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hope for anything.  You're just another poster on a board with NO knowledge of the Constitution,* NO* legal experience (see posts # 867 as an example) and damn little intelligence.
> 
> This thread is about Larry Hopkins of the United Constitutional Patriots.  You seem not to understand that.  So, *THAT* goes to* YOUR *intelligence.  You discount the road by which Hopkins and the groups who pioneered the wall idea go down.  In real life, it don't work that way.
> 
> *ALL* of the groups in wallist theology are united on the notion that foreigners are "_stealing jobs_."  To that end they demand harsh sentences for employers who hire undocumented foreigners.  Herein is the reality:
> 
> An employer who creates a job owns that job he or she creates.  The *only* way an undocumented foreigner can steal a job is if the job belonged to someone else other than the employer.  If the job belongs to the government, then even you, Correll, have admitted that when the government controls labor and production, that is socialism.
> 
> So, a foreigner comes into the United States.  If they were not caught coming in, their presence here is *NOT* a crime.  For you to deny that Correll is pure ignorance.  I believe the 14th Amendment to be illegally ratified.  But, it guarantees even undocumented foreigners the "_equal protection of the laws_."  So, when I advocate a strategy, I have to acknowledge the reality of what will work and what won't.  You lack that maturity.
> 
> For you to call those people "_illegal_" any damn thing is a lie.  It is the principle that makes me defend the foreigners.  Unless it's been *YOUR* ass being called a criminal with no Due Process applied, then you're obviously too stupid to get it. One of the founders, Thomas Paine, put it this way:
> 
> "_He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."
> 
> The difference, Correll, between you and I, is that I have something you don't:  EXPERIENCE.  I did not spend my ever waking moment trying to fuck with people on the Internet over topics I don't know squat about.  I never provoked anyone that I was not willing to spew shit to unless it was face to face.  I got my hands dirty, bled a little, went to court a few times, and God saw to it that I was protected.  By protecting the Rights of people I don't particularly care for, I protect my own ass - a concept lost on you since you will *never, under any circumstances*, put your ass on the line for what you claim to believe in.  What I'm advocating is not for the foreigner.  I have one ulterior motive - to save my own ass from being called a criminal for doing something I had a Right to do.  The principle will probably be lost on Larry Hopkins as well.
> 
> Back to reality now:
> 
> So, a foreigner who is caught without papers (and presuming Uncle Scam has nothing on him) he goes through a civil process and is deported.  Yet you advocate criminal charges for your fellow man just because some guy doesn't have human registration papers.  WTF dude?  Employers are not and should not be required to be agents for BICE.  Furthermore, the Constitution guarantees *everyone* the equal protection of the laws.  Laws that force people to become citizens and laws that allow one employer to hire a foreigner while denying another employer the same luxury denies to other employers the "_equal protection of the laws_" *UNLESS* the federal government owns and controls labor and production which - bottom line is SOCIALISM.  Even if the quota system (which was put into place by liberal Democrats) is enforced under the color of law, it is unconstitutional.
> 
> *YOU* would take away the Americans Rights to civil disobedience, passive resistance, and non-compliance with unconstitutional laws.  You hate the Constitution and you embrace socialism.  So, if you have anything related to that topic, spit it out.  I won't pretend to be in a debate with a narcissist trying to have a personality contest.  So, unless you have something relevant, we're done here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stripped of your logical fallacies and filler, this is two points you actually made.
> 
> 
> "An eimployer who creates a job owns that job he or she creates.  The *only* way an undocumented foreigner can steal a job is if the job belonged to someone else other than the employer.  If the job belongs to the government, then even you, Correll, have admitted that when the government controls labor and production, that is socialism.
> 
> So, a foreigner comes into the United States.  If they were not caught coming in, their presence here is *NOT* a crime.  For you to deny that Correll is pure ignorance. "
> 
> 
> 1. This whole nation belongs to AMERICANS. The employer, when he posts a job offering, is offering it to the AMERICAN labor market, which is a creation of American workers, and rules and laws. When he hires someone who is not legally part of that market, he is breaking the law and betraying he fellow Americans. That is not socialism, that is part of the very idea of a nation.
> 
> 2. NOt being caught, does not mean a crime was not committed. That is insanely twisted thinking, of the type normally caused by tying to make the logic support an conclusion your reached for other reasons.
> 
> 
> 3. And sir, consider please the universality of your points. ANY control that limits employing hiring is socialism? What about child labor laws? What about minimum wages? Safety regs? Health codes? Fire codes? Your position makes no sense.
> 
> 4. And you consider it not a crime to illegally cross the border and then bitch when I suggest you are an Open Border type? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude you're all over the board with *bullshit lies* because you don't have a point.  Anybody that buys your assessment of me based upon what you post ought to sue their brains for non-support.
> 
> When you said that jobs belong to the American people, you identified yourself as a socialist.  The rest of your stuff is a mix of socialism and *irrelevant / inapplicable analogies* (something your dumb ass would call logical fallacies.)    Minimum wage laws are a form of socialism whereas safety regulations and so forth have *NOTHING* to do with ownership of property.
> 
> In my opinion, a property owner could have you sign a document waiving any Rights you may have in exchange for being on their property.  You acknowledge that dangers exist.  Otherwise property owners can be held liable for dangerous conditions.
> 
> I have Rights; the other guy has Rights.  Sometimes it is difficult to protect the Rights of both.  A complete infringement on either is unconstitutional.  As for me, I rely on precedent.  During the time of the founders, foreigners who were not and could not become citizens were allowed to come here and work, engaging in lawful activities.
> 
> The average American employed friends, relatives, and people from their respective neighborhood.  If a void were left, maybe a foreigner got a job.  Americans tended to associate with and support those who were more like them than a foreign ideology.  Government did not force people to hire X number of blacks Y number of women, Z number of gays / transexuals.  It worked.  That is why they liberals made the government change it.  Compounding the problem does not make anything better.  Sorry dude.  If you turned back the clock to the 1990s, we had this.  The ONE WORLDERS you idolize are the ones who mucked it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any group is a balance of sacrifices to the group and benefits to the individuals.
> 
> 
> If that employer's foreign workers decided that it would be more beneficial to murder him and take his shit, that employer would call on the community, his AMERICAN community to protect him, and it would.
> 
> 
> It is completely reasonable for AMERICANS to want immigration policy that benefits AMERICANS.
> 
> 
> Any group that loses the concept of giving to the group, is a doomed group.
> 
> 
> A group where the members only selfishly take, and never give, is a group that is effectively dead, and just waiting for someone or something to take it's place.
Click to expand...


What a bunch of babbling idiocy.

You have never manned the border

You've never donated your time to the cause of saving a single white man and bringing them out of poverty

You obviously don't belong to a church and so you've never went into the neighborhood and offered to help your white American brethren.

You seem not to understand that the current immigration policy we have was put into place by Democrats and that policy was deliberately designed to be both anti - white AND to force this country to implode.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could this be why your "_hero_" gives the militia a bad name?
> 
> 
> 
> More and more personal insults and "wall worship" idiocy. Blather on, Rambo. I'm sorry I ever gave you the attention you crave to begin with. But I won't keep making that same mistake.
Click to expand...


No cherry, I was trying to have a civil conversation with you.  But, your shoe size is larger than your IQ so it's best we don't address each other.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could have supported Trump, who might try to serve our interests on immigration, or we could have voted for Hillary who we knew was actively hostile to our interests, including on immigration.
> 
> 
> So, how was it "Stupid" to go with Trump, a maybe, instead of a sure fire negative?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant straw man argument.  I thought you wanted a debate.  What's wrong snowflake?  Can't deal with the facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You accused Trump of being a liar, and me of being stupid for believing him.
> 
> 
> My point, ie that he was the best choice, is not a strawman argument.
> 
> 
> It was a very valid response to your point.
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim that it was not, is an obvious attempt to avoid admitting that my point was valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this point, you should apologize to me for calling me stupid, and admit that my logic in supporting Trump was sound.
> 
> 
> Seriously. You don't have to admit anything else, and we can continue the debate on immigration, and that admission will not undermine the rest of your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll tell you once more after this and then you will be wasting your time.  I do not like responding to multi quotes and will not do so past today.
> 
> Correll, you are either an idiot or a liar.  You cannot cite where I said you were stupid to vote for Donald Trump.  I voted for him as the lesser of two evils.  However, when he signed that Executive Order against bump stocks, he showed us he is no better than Hillary.  Knowing his stance on the Second Amendment, you'd be an idiot to vote for him again.
> 
> I'm not here to debate immigration with you on this thread.  My generation was winning that war until the National Socialists co-opted it and then allowed a new religion to pop up that revolves around wall worship.  Today, that is all people like you obsess over.  If you lose constitutional Liberties along the way and make resistance to tyranny impossible, you can live with that.  I can't.  There isn't much more to disagree with on that point.
> 
> This thread is about Larry Hopkins and whether or not civilian militias can run roughshod over border towns just because they disagree with the law.  The courts say you are wrong.  People who adopt your strategies will end up where Hopkins did.  You won't because you don't have the intestinal fortitude it takes to do anything more than anonymously spew shit on the Internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You post long rambling posts, and I will respond as I need to, to make sure you can tell which point I am referring to.
> 
> 2. Your words.
> 
> "Are you really that freaking stupid?
> 
> Donald Trump is"
> 
> Sounds to me like you were calling me stupid for supporting Trump or at least listening to what he was saying.
> 
> 
> 3. THe bump stock ban was bad. But Trump is still better than Hillary.
> 
> 4. When and how was your generation supposedly winning the war on immigration? And try to be concise. Or you might get mulit-qoutes in response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You give me four things to respond to and then bitch because the responses are over ten paragraphs.  That is why I don't normally respond to them.
> 
> Second point, your first post directed at me on this thread was to call me a moron.  What kind of response did you expect in return?
> 
> We all listened to Trump.  But Trump proved to be a liar.  Since he's really buddy buddy with the Clintons I'm not so sure now that he's the lesser of two evils, but in any event, none of us should extol the virtues of Trump when we know what he is.  Not that you should have known this, but *maybe* had Hillary won the Republicans would rebel against unconstitutional power grabs.
> 
> In the 1990s my generation almost got rid of the income tax, the IRS and the 16th Amendment.  There was no requirement that one get a Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops, "_Social Security Number_" and, without one, you could not be forced into the system and required to pay what was then a _voluntary_ tax.
> 
> My own U.S. Congressman introduced the most researched legislation in U.S. history which would have repealed the 16th Amendment and eliminate the income tax.  Had we done that, you could not say undocumented foreigners didn't pay the tax since the new system would have everybody paying a tax consistent with what they made - no loopholes, no  B.S.
> 
> The people of my generation were challenging and winning the effort to regain their status as freemen by rescinding their contracts with the government.  We knew the difference between a Preamble citizen and a 14th Amendment citizen.  By reclaiming our status as freemen, it was nullifying the 14th Amendment incrementally.  Your generation needed that Amendment to have something to bitch about (i.e. *mythical *"_anchor babies_.")  AND your generation wanted Orwellian National ID (Hitler's tattoo idea on steroids) based upon the Socialist Surveillance Number (SSN.)
> 
> We were making taxes a non-issue, taking the anchor baby argument out of the equation, dealing immigration in general  a heavy blow, restoring your Rights as individuals so that employers could hire whomever they wanted (which means that given a choice a lot of small companies - which should be the most representative in America - would be hiring their families, neighbors and people from the neighborhood.
> 
> I personally wrote a bill that would give businesses an opportunity to *earn* their tax breaks: a tax incentive for companies to hire an all American staff, another to bring jobs back to America, a tax incentive to have a pay scale with percentages above the poverty scale (the bigger the percentage, the greater the incentive.)  There would be additional tax write offs for employers to take people off unemployment, welfare, and disability.  There was more to it than that, but I'm just trying to fit all our efforts into a small enough post that you don't get confused by ten paragraphs.  Heaven forbid you don't get a history lesson in twenty words or less.
Click to expand...




1. I grant the many benefits of getting rid of the IRS. 

2. But how do you consider that winning the immigration issue?


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could this be why your "_hero_" gives the militia a bad name?
> 
> 
> 
> More and more personal insults and "wall worship" idiocy. Blather on, Rambo. I'm sorry I ever gave you the attention you crave to begin with. But I won't keep making that same mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No cherry, I was trying to have a civil conversation with you.  But, your shoe size is larger than your IQ so it's best we don't address each other.
Click to expand...



i don't think you realize how insulting your constant use of terms like "Nazi" or even "Wallist" is. 


Not to mention your overall style of dismissing the arguments of those who you are discussing with.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant straw man argument.  I thought you wanted a debate.  What's wrong snowflake?  Can't deal with the facts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You accused Trump of being a liar, and me of being stupid for believing him.
> 
> 
> My point, ie that he was the best choice, is not a strawman argument.
> 
> 
> It was a very valid response to your point.
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim that it was not, is an obvious attempt to avoid admitting that my point was valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this point, you should apologize to me for calling me stupid, and admit that my logic in supporting Trump was sound.
> 
> 
> Seriously. You don't have to admit anything else, and we can continue the debate on immigration, and that admission will not undermine the rest of your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll tell you once more after this and then you will be wasting your time.  I do not like responding to multi quotes and will not do so past today.
> 
> Correll, you are either an idiot or a liar.  You cannot cite where I said you were stupid to vote for Donald Trump.  I voted for him as the lesser of two evils.  However, when he signed that Executive Order against bump stocks, he showed us he is no better than Hillary.  Knowing his stance on the Second Amendment, you'd be an idiot to vote for him again.
> 
> I'm not here to debate immigration with you on this thread.  My generation was winning that war until the National Socialists co-opted it and then allowed a new religion to pop up that revolves around wall worship.  Today, that is all people like you obsess over.  If you lose constitutional Liberties along the way and make resistance to tyranny impossible, you can live with that.  I can't.  There isn't much more to disagree with on that point.
> 
> This thread is about Larry Hopkins and whether or not civilian militias can run roughshod over border towns just because they disagree with the law.  The courts say you are wrong.  People who adopt your strategies will end up where Hopkins did.  You won't because you don't have the intestinal fortitude it takes to do anything more than anonymously spew shit on the Internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You post long rambling posts, and I will respond as I need to, to make sure you can tell which point I am referring to.
> 
> 2. Your words.
> 
> "Are you really that freaking stupid?
> 
> Donald Trump is"
> 
> Sounds to me like you were calling me stupid for supporting Trump or at least listening to what he was saying.
> 
> 
> 3. THe bump stock ban was bad. But Trump is still better than Hillary.
> 
> 4. When and how was your generation supposedly winning the war on immigration? And try to be concise. Or you might get mulit-qoutes in response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You give me four things to respond to and then bitch because the responses are over ten paragraphs.  That is why I don't normally respond to them.
> 
> Second point, your first post directed at me on this thread was to call me a moron.  What kind of response did you expect in return?
> 
> We all listened to Trump.  But Trump proved to be a liar.  Since he's really buddy buddy with the Clintons I'm not so sure now that he's the lesser of two evils, but in any event, none of us should extol the virtues of Trump when we know what he is.  Not that you should have known this, but *maybe* had Hillary won the Republicans would rebel against unconstitutional power grabs.
> 
> In the 1990s my generation almost got rid of the income tax, the IRS and the 16th Amendment.  There was no requirement that one get a Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops, "_Social Security Number_" and, without one, you could not be forced into the system and required to pay what was then a _voluntary_ tax.
> 
> My own U.S. Congressman introduced the most researched legislation in U.S. history which would have repealed the 16th Amendment and eliminate the income tax.  Had we done that, you could not say undocumented foreigners didn't pay the tax since the new system would have everybody paying a tax consistent with what they made - no loopholes, no  B.S.
> 
> The people of my generation were challenging and winning the effort to regain their status as freemen by rescinding their contracts with the government.  We knew the difference between a Preamble citizen and a 14th Amendment citizen.  By reclaiming our status as freemen, it was nullifying the 14th Amendment incrementally.  Your generation needed that Amendment to have something to bitch about (i.e. *mythical *"_anchor babies_.")  AND your generation wanted Orwellian National ID (Hitler's tattoo idea on steroids) based upon the Socialist Surveillance Number (SSN.)
> 
> We were making taxes a non-issue, taking the anchor baby argument out of the equation, dealing immigration in general  a heavy blow, restoring your Rights as individuals so that employers could hire whomever they wanted (which means that given a choice a lot of small companies - which should be the most representative in America - would be hiring their families, neighbors and people from the neighborhood.
> 
> I personally wrote a bill that would give businesses an opportunity to *earn* their tax breaks: a tax incentive for companies to hire an all American staff, another to bring jobs back to America, a tax incentive to have a pay scale with percentages above the poverty scale (the bigger the percentage, the greater the incentive.)  There would be additional tax write offs for employers to take people off unemployment, welfare, and disability.  There was more to it than that, but I'm just trying to fit all our efforts into a small enough post that you don't get confused by ten paragraphs.  Heaven forbid you don't get a history lesson in twenty words or less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I grant the many benefits of getting rid of the IRS.
> 
> 2. But how do you consider that winning the immigration issue?
Click to expand...


And you wonder why I call you stupid!

Most of the pretexts used in wallist theology is that foreigners don't pay taxes.  You and me realize right now that is bullshit.  Otherwise, you would not have asked that.  

If you eliminate the pretext, if it has any merit, it deters foreigners from coming here.  You and I realize that is not the case.  I'm going to presume, for the moment, your IQ is at least a couple of digits higher than your shoe size.

So, if foreigners cannot avoid the income tax and Americans are being incentivized to hire their fellow Americans... and if you take the feds out of welfare, then you've removed most of the reasons your side claims the foreigners are coming here.  It ain't rocket science, bro.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could this be why your "_hero_" gives the militia a bad name?
> 
> 
> 
> More and more personal insults and "wall worship" idiocy. Blather on, Rambo. I'm sorry I ever gave you the attention you crave to begin with. But I won't keep making that same mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No cherry, I was trying to have a civil conversation with you.  But, your shoe size is larger than your IQ so it's best we don't address each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i don't think you realize how insulting your constant use of terms like "Nazi" or even "Wallist" is.
> 
> 
> Not to mention your overall style of dismissing the arguments of those who you are discussing with.
Click to expand...


Correll,

I spent the better part of *FOUR DECADES* learning what I know.  I manned the border, went into courtrooms, went to marches, spoke out publicly (was on tv, radio, newspapers, magazines); even organized groups and financed the meeting places to discuss this and related issues.

I worked in think tanks, went to school and studied law so as to be able to apply it to these situations.  I was elected as a Justice of the Peace and did research for the top names in wallist theology.  Not wanting to be accused of prejudice, racism, etc. I worked in immigration law for a few years.  So, I've been on* ALL* sides of the issue.

Now, when I sit at a table or go somewhere to speak, people either respect me and don't say silly shit like you and those of your ilk do OR they are genuinely afraid of me  (and that is entirely plausible. too - good reason for it.)  On the Internet, just like you, many wallists start out with a disrespectful tone AND, instead of asking questions, they make assumptions and start insulting people.  Then you have the unmitigated gall to think you are due something you were not willing to give.  I *earned* my spot in this discussion.   I've been beaten, shot, jailed, run through the criminal justice system, threatened by the most powerful agencies in the government AND the biggest names in political organizations.  I've been in court at least once for every year you've lived.

I'm not going to earn your respect on the Internet.  I can tell people that your philosophy gets people killed - maybe imprisoned if you're lucky.  But, I will continue to call you a wallist because it is a religion and if I don't chant the mantra, you will call me names that you would never do publicly.  In all your arrogance, you do not understand the law and how one action impacts another.  For example:

The wallists demanded the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify in order to find so - called "_illegal aliens_" and punish employers that hire these mythical _"illegal aliens_."    What you guys did pretty much fucked your own people - NOT the foreigners.  You cannot target foreigners with the National ID without targeting Americans.  So, the background checks you supported keep Americans unemployed.  Some poor sap got busted on a misdemeanor rap five years ago and now because he smoked a joint, he can't even work at Mickey Ds.  

Instead of owning up to the mistake  your side made, you start bullshit arguments about protecting kids from pedophiles in school - well Hell son, if an employer can show a relevancy to the job and info the government has, there has *NEVER* been a problem.  But, when everybody's information is out there for everybody else, then we could never mount a resistance to a tyrannical government.   Benjamin Franklin said that those who trade essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty nor Safety.  You simply don't understand the dynamics involved nor how one precedent will impact another.  

The simple minded answers are "well this country (insert the name) built a wall and it works."  Really?  Is that country racially / religiously homogeneous?   Does it have the influence we had?  Until you guys screwed America we were the the world's superpower.  Does that country guarantee foreigners the _equal protection of the laws_ as does our 14th Amendment?  I think the 14th Amendment is illegal, but I still have to work within its parameters.  In short, you cannot look past your wall to see the big picture and the dynamics at play.  You don't know how you're being conned by the left.  You want respect, start showing respect.  I believe that the government big enough to give you your daily bread is big enough to take it from you.  That does not mean I'm on the right or the left... but I've never been left and you have.  It might have been unintentional, but you are deaf, dumb, blind and stupid with regards as to how this system is letting the whites commit genocide.


----------



## danielpalos

Rigby5 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. But why? What's it have to do with the thread. I'd like to expand on it if you'd forward the courtesy of supporting your paste in some coherent sort of context. That's how functional debat works, daniel. So, again, explain, please. Thanks!
> 
> It's probably gonna be your last chance, btw. If you keep screwing around I'm gonna put you back on ignore and start new threads myself, that way I know it'll be discussed right. It's a win/win for me, daniel. Ya know? So quit fukin around and support yourself in a way that's relative to some point, any point, I don't even care, daniel. Just pick one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I simply understand the concepts.  Congress has power over the land and naval forces; there is no such Thing as "well regulated militia of Individuals, in our Republic", you are either well regulated or unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> The term "well regulated" means well practiced, familiar with weapons, and not in need of weapons training.
> The word regular means timely and well functioning, like a regulator clock or regular bowels.
> All militia is both well regulated AND unorganized initially.
> It is ONLY when the unorganized militia is called up for emergencies by the federal government, that is becomes the organized Militia.
> The whole point of the 2nd amendment is to ensure everyone is armed and practiced, so therefore is well regulated in arms.
> So everyone is well regulated as long as the 2nd amendment is followed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a simple appeal to ignorance.  I really am a federalist.  There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals of the People in our Republic under our federal doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then who is it you become when you stop a burglary in progress at your home?
> You can't be the police, and there were police back in the Founder's days.
> So the term militia must apply to anyone who upholds the law, and is not an official member of government.
Click to expand...

Only when called up for such service; otherwise it is merely a Citizen's arrest.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Where is the crisis?  We have statistical zero unemployment and a nation that does not revere its culture?  I'd fight to the death to protect your Right to believe anything you like; however, if the highest elected official in a state disagrees with you, I have to concede you are wrong in your opinion since perception is reality and that governor's perception is reality until he or she leaves office
> 
> 2)  Ruling by the United States Supreme Court:
> 
> "_§1227. Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all.
> 
> ...it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States."   _Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)
> 
> You are arguing with the United States Supreme Court, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Perception is not reality, and that governor is at best a fool and at worst a traitor.
> 
> 2. The Supreme Court has been wrong before, and it is wrong again. DEPORT THE FUCKING ILLEGALS. How hard is that to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Most psychologists would disagree with you:
> 
> 
> 2)  While I agree that the United States Supreme Court is wrong on a lot of issues, my perception as yours is NOT reality.  The fact that the high Court legislates from the bench IS reality.  It's not constitutional, but it is reality.  The United States Supreme Court says that undocumented foreigners being in the United States is *not *a crime.
> 
> Given that holding and working within the parameters of the law, the foreigner is in civil violation of the law, but an American that hires them is committing a criminal felony.  You want to uphold such B.S.?  Shame on you!
> 
> The employer owns the job he / she creates.  Under the Constitution, that employer has committed NO crime as the federal government has NO jurisdiction over who the state allows to stay within that state's respective border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I once  perceived an old oven mitt as not having a hole in it. When I picked up the hot tray, objective reality trumped my perception.
> "most psychologists" can go f**k themselves.
> 
> 2. I explained my reasoning, you cited an Authority. YOur claim that the state control their own immigration policy sounds insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll, you are not very intelligent.  Let's face it.  Let's talk reality.
> 
> From 1789 to 1875 the states DID determine who was welcome in their state and who was not.  First, however, let us answer a question.
> 
> What is immigration?  Immigration is defined as:
> 
> _The entrance into a country of foreigners for purposes of* permanent residence*. The correlative term _emigration _denotes the act of such persons in leaving their former country.
> 
> immigration_
> 
> So, if a person leaves a foreign country to become a *permanent resident*, they would be required to file papers with the federal government and become a citizen.  But, what happens when a person *does not *want to become a permanent resident?  The bottom line is that person *does not* fall under the purview of the Constitution.  So, how did Congress end up exercising control over all foreigners in all circumstances?
> 
> In 1875, in the case of Chy Lung v. Freeman, The United States Supreme Court granted_ plenary powers_ to Congress over all aspects of immigration when the Commissioner of Immigration failed to even mount a defense to a case in San Francisco.  Here is something that was quite telling about that case:
> 
> "_The court was also critical of the State of California, the Commissioner of Immigration, and the Sheriff of San Francisco, for not presenting any arguments on their behalf in the case.[2]
> 
> ...The court was also critical of the lack of due process governing the immigration commissioner's decisions to mark particular immigrants as lewd and debauched
> 
> ...Most recently, in Arizona v. United States (2012), the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional some sections of Arizona's SB 1070, a law that would lead states to devote law enforcement resources to enforce some aspects of federal immigration law. The ruling cited Chy Lung v. Freeman as a precedent._.."
> 
> Chy Lung v. Freeman - Wikipedia
> 
> Do I have to explain the irony of this case to you?  Or had you rather focus on the constitutionality of the real issue?  You see, you cannot show me any section of the Constitution where it gives the United States Supreme Court the* authority* to bestow upon any branch of government *any powers*.  That was unconstitutional legislating from the bench whether you benefited or not.  So, are you for screwing the Constitution if you benefit off the act?  See also:
> 
> Plenary power - Wikipedia
> 
> Whatcha gonna do when it's YOUR Rights that are given to some government agency and then YOUR Rights are gone?  You will have done it to yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want unlimited and unvetted Third World immigration?
Click to expand...

Abolish our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror to stop creating so many refugees.


----------



## Natural Citizen

danielpalos said:


> Abolish our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror to stop creating so many refugees.



There's truth there, man. And it extends across the board, so many other issues come as a consequence of those alleged wars.


----------



## Dr Grump

Correll said:


> That is insane of you. Such people are proof that both sides have their share of racists. For you to try to claim otherwise, is just you being a liar.



I think everybody has a little racism in them.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Dr Grump said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is insane of you. Such people are proof that both sides have their share of racists. For you to try to claim otherwise, is just you being a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think everybody has a little racism in them.
Click to expand...


IF I were a drinking man, I'd drink to that.  I'll substitute the drink with sweet tea.  You're absolutely right.  Even if we deny we have racist tendencies, we do.  And I think that trait is inherent at some level.

It doesn't mean everybody is a potential hard core racist, but it's natural.  It's just like the inherent ability to kill.  Most of us monitor it most don't abuse it.  You may never do a violent act in your life and one day someone tries to hurt you or a family member, then all bets are off.  Some things are there - regardless of the moral value we put on it.


----------



## busybee01

Correll said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Governor does not have the legal power to disregard the laws of this nation. That is not his job.
> 
> 
> 
> Leftist shitbags rationalize sanctuary policy by saying it's not their job to enforce federal law but that's not really the issue at all. No one is asking the governor of New Mexico to conduct ICE raids or check the status of suspected illegals.
> It's an absurd straw man lie.
> 
> When a state directly orders employees NOT to speak or communicate with federal immigration officers under any circumstances, for instance,  that crosses a line and sanctuary officials have gone from a hands off stance to actively
> opposing US federal law.
> 
> MIchelle Lujan Grisham doesn't get to decide which laws she wants to follow or not. That's what Jim Crow politicians did.
> She isn't entitled to pick and choose in an ala carte manner which laws she will deign to observe.
> 
> That's an absolute break down of law and order and the matter should be brought up to the Supreme Court. I can't believe it isn't illegal and improper to simply ignore the laws you don't wish to obey. Fucking leftists liars!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Local officials are under no obligation to enforce federal laws. The Supreme Court made it clear that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. It has nothing to do with Jim Crow laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They arrested people that were helping to enforce the laws. That is more than just NOT enforcing them, that is actively undermining them.
Click to expand...


No one says that these militias can enforce any laws. They are not trained in law enforcement and they are accountable to no one. Vigilantes should be arrested.


----------



## busybee01

Correll said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Militias need to be destroyed. Militia members blew up the federal building in OKC. Militias are a threat to this country.
> 
> Militias have been given no authority to enforce laws so detaining people is kidnapping. Even the Border Patrol says people should call rather than taking the law into their own hands.
> 
> 
> 
> Ya and democrats call BP  kidnappers..
> 
> At the end of the day we will be taking our country back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have been invaded by with supremacists and neo-nazis who have taken over the Republican Party.
> 
> If your kind left the country, the national IQ would double.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. Stupider than I thought.
> 
> 
> "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> To be clear, you are the lying asshole I was talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the lying little asshole., Filth like you is a national disgrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what would have made that post really powerful?
> 
> 
> If you had backed up your claim that I was lying, with a link proving that my claim,
> 
> ie, that  "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> to some study or something that proved that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you didn't do that....
> 
> 
> Almost as though you know that you CAN'T.
> 
> 
> To be clear, for the slower among us,
> 
> 
> I challenge you to back up your shit claim, that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America..
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to seeing whether you do the norm lib response, and dodge or deflect, or whether you are stupid enough to even TRY to back up this shit, and if so, what incredible shit you post to try to do so.
> 
> 
> FUn times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
> 2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
> Stephen King R-Iowa
> Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
> Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Proud Boys are not neo nazis.
> 
> 2. Trump did condemn the white supremacists and neo nazis in charlottesville repeatedly. That you lie about that, shows that you know you need to lie.
Click to expand...


1. They are a neo-Nazi group.

2. All you have to look at is then Chief of Staff General Kelly with his face buried in his hands. Trump tried to equate neo-nazis and white supremacists with peaceful protestors who were assaulted with 1 killed.


----------



## busybee01

Correll said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
> 2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
> Stephen King R-Iowa
> Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
> Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis
> 
> 
> 
> Why can’t white people talk about other races like black people talk about other races?? It’s a free country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to talk about other races, you have every Right to do so.  You will not gain majority sentiment; you may even have to defend your Rights, but if you want to say it then you have every Right to do so.
> 
> BTW, whether I agree with you or not, I will fight to the death to protect your Right to say it.  Will you do so for me?  Read some of the earlier posts here.  IIRC, it was on this thread that another poster threatened me with censorship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are a country of a culture built by white Americans blacks can assimilate or not, but I will make fun of there culture Perpetrated by whites or blacks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White America also introduced slavery for example. That is hardly anything to brag about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which does not contradict what he said. So, what is your point?
Click to expand...


Whites went along with slavery. The inquisitions were conducted by whites. White missionaries sometimes brutally tried to force people into becoming Christians. WW I and WWII were started by whites. Whites are the source of a lot of suffering that has gone on throughout history. They are no better or worse than any others.


----------



## busybee01

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Local officials are under no obligation to enforce federal laws. The Supreme Court made it clear that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. It has nothing to do with Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> It has _everything_ to do with Jim Crow laws! You can't choose which laws you will observe and which laws you will ignore.
> You have to be an absolute moron to deny that. No one is asking Libby Schaff or Gavin Newsom or Michelle Lujan-Grisham to conduct ICE raids themselves or track down the immigration status of the people they give cover to.
> 
> The very word "sanctuary" itself means a safe haven from the law. It means the law doesn't matter to sanctuary quislings in California or New Mexico or wherever it happens to be.
> 
> Can you let a rapist live in your home because you are under no obligation to help the police? You know damned well you would be arrested as an accessory to a crime if you did that. Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration shouldn't be an option
> and show me any other law that you can choose not to observe. Name one! Go ahead.
> 
> Your lies are tiresome and bullshit. They aren't even effective as rhetorical devices. You cannot selectively apply the law!
> Stop pretending, you ass!
Click to expand...


You are the only moron that I see except for your fellow Trump supporters. The Constitution does not require local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws. They can be deputized by the federal government only if they agree to do so. They cannot be forced to do so. A sanctuary city or state means that they do not cooperate with federal immigration authorities not that they hide illegals. 

It does not matter what they call themselves. They are doing nothing illegal. The Supreme Court stated that states have limited powers in enforcing immigration law. In the 1930's Dillinger robbed banks yet because he did it in 1 state, the FBI was unable to arrest him because he did not violate any federal laws only state laws.

You are the liar. You cannot stand the truth so you have to lie like the weasel that you are. You are3 the asshole and fascist pig.


----------



## satrebil

busybee01 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Governor does not have the legal power to disregard the laws of this nation. That is not his job.
> 
> 
> 
> Leftist shitbags rationalize sanctuary policy by saying it's not their job to enforce federal law but that's not really the issue at all. No one is asking the governor of New Mexico to conduct ICE raids or check the status of suspected illegals.
> It's an absurd straw man lie.
> 
> When a state directly orders employees NOT to speak or communicate with federal immigration officers under any circumstances, for instance,  that crosses a line and sanctuary officials have gone from a hands off stance to actively
> opposing US federal law.
> 
> MIchelle Lujan Grisham doesn't get to decide which laws she wants to follow or not. That's what Jim Crow politicians did.
> She isn't entitled to pick and choose in an ala carte manner which laws she will deign to observe.
> 
> That's an absolute break down of law and order and the matter should be brought up to the Supreme Court. I can't believe it isn't illegal and improper to simply ignore the laws you don't wish to obey. Fucking leftists liars!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Local officials are under no obligation to enforce federal laws. The Supreme Court made it clear that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. It has nothing to do with Jim Crow laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They arrested people that were helping to enforce the laws. That is more than just NOT enforcing them, that is actively undermining them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one says that these militias can enforce any laws. They are not trained in law enforcement and they are accountable to no one. Vigilantes should be arrested.
Click to expand...


I take it you've never heard of a "citizens arrest".


----------



## Jitss617

busybee01 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya and democrats call BP  kidnappers..
> 
> At the end of the day we will be taking our country back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Stupider than I thought.
> 
> 
> "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> To be clear, you are the lying asshole I was talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the lying little asshole., Filth like you is a national disgrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what would have made that post really powerful?
> 
> 
> If you had backed up your claim that I was lying, with a link proving that my claim,
> 
> ie, that  "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> to some study or something that proved that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you didn't do that....
> 
> 
> Almost as though you know that you CAN'T.
> 
> 
> To be clear, for the slower among us,
> 
> 
> I challenge you to back up your shit claim, that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America..
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to seeing whether you do the norm lib response, and dodge or deflect, or whether you are stupid enough to even TRY to back up this shit, and if so, what incredible shit you post to try to do so.
> 
> 
> FUn times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
> 2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
> Stephen King R-Iowa
> Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
> Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Proud Boys are not neo nazis.
> 
> 2. Trump did condemn the white supremacists and neo nazis in charlottesville repeatedly. That you lie about that, shows that you know you need to lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. They are a neo-Nazi group.
> 
> 2. All you have to look at is then Chief of Staff General Kelly with his face buried in his hands. Trump tried to equate neo-nazis and white supremacists with peaceful protestors who were assaulted with 1 killed.
Click to expand...

You are factually wrong.. it’s on video


----------



## Jitss617

busybee01 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can’t white people talk about other races like black people talk about other races?? It’s a free country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to talk about other races, you have every Right to do so.  You will not gain majority sentiment; you may even have to defend your Rights, but if you want to say it then you have every Right to do so.
> 
> BTW, whether I agree with you or not, I will fight to the death to protect your Right to say it.  Will you do so for me?  Read some of the earlier posts here.  IIRC, it was on this thread that another poster threatened me with censorship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are a country of a culture built by white Americans blacks can assimilate or not, but I will make fun of there culture Perpetrated by whites or blacks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White America also introduced slavery for example. That is hardly anything to brag about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which does not contradict what he said. So, what is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whites went along with slavery. The inquisitions were conducted by whites. White missionaries sometimes brutally tried to force people into becoming Christians. WW I and WWII were started by whites. Whites are the source of a lot of suffering that has gone on throughout history. They are no better or worse than any others.
Click to expand...

And we don’t forget about white democrats destroying black neighborhoods today


----------



## Porter Rockwell

busybee01 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya and democrats call BP  kidnappers..
> 
> At the end of the day we will be taking our country back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Stupider than I thought.
> 
> 
> "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> To be clear, you are the lying asshole I was talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the lying little asshole., Filth like you is a national disgrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what would have made that post really powerful?
> 
> 
> If you had backed up your claim that I was lying, with a link proving that my claim,
> 
> ie, that  "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> to some study or something that proved that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you didn't do that....
> 
> 
> Almost as though you know that you CAN'T.
> 
> 
> To be clear, for the slower among us,
> 
> 
> I challenge you to back up your shit claim, that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America..
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to seeing whether you do the norm lib response, and dodge or deflect, or whether you are stupid enough to even TRY to back up this shit, and if so, what incredible shit you post to try to do so.
> 
> 
> FUn times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
> 2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
> Stephen King R-Iowa
> Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
> Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Proud Boys are not neo nazis.
> 
> 2. Trump did condemn the white supremacists and neo nazis in charlottesville repeatedly. That you lie about that, shows that you know you need to lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. They are a neo-Nazi group.
> 
> 2. All you have to look at is then Chief of Staff General Kelly with his face buried in his hands. Trump tried to equate neo-nazis and white supremacists with peaceful protestors who were assaulted with 1 killed.
Click to expand...


I am not a Trump supporter, so don't go there when I tell you that you are wrong here.

The people who created the wallist religion (the whole wall worship thing) ARE nazis.  That is a fact beyond any dispute.  It is also a fact that the wallist religion predominates the effort that was made in Charlottesville.  

Not all of the whites who attended the Charlottesville rally were violent white supremacists.  That is made self evident that the Charlottesville rally was a one and done event.  Contrast that to when the black community has their people shot or beaten in the streets.  The outcry and rallies are constant.

We do have a problem with foreigners coming to this country.  It is, however, one of our making.  But, the people have a RIGHT to protest and seek out change.  For anyone to say that all the Charlottesville protesters were white supremacists and so forth would be to claim that all black people are homosexuals just because the gay community marches with blacks when the black people feel their civil rights are being trampled on.  

I wholly disagree with the neo nazis that are in charge of the nutty wall idea and I reject the principles of National Socialism.  At the same time, I care about my country, my race, my culture and the destiny of this nation.  I'm just not willing to step on the back of others to make my lot in life more pleasant.  Once you learn that, it will put us closer to sitting down and having a civil conversation that will lead to a solution all sides can live with.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

busybee01 said:


> You are the only moron that I see except for your fellow Trump supporters. The Constitution does not require local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws. They can be deputized by the federal government only if they agree to do so. They cannot be forced to do so. A sanctuary city or state means that they do not cooperate with federal immigration authorities not that they hide illegals.


Yeah, I've heard all that blullshit a hundred times now. It's a meme that justifies nothing.

Sanctuary cities knowingly assist people who are breaking the law. Let me know when you've figured out a way to square that with the law. By declaring themselves to be sanctuary destinations those cities, counties and states
are telling actual federal law breakers they will give them shelter and not rat these people out.
What would happen to a person who declared he was going to help out drug dealers by giving them a place to stay and he would not divulge their location to police?

You aren't bright enough to realize you've gone beyond simply not helping federal immigration officers to actively thwarting them by hiding out criminals in sanctuary cities.



> It does not matter what they call themselves. They are doing nothing illegal. The Supreme Court stated that states have limited powers in enforcing immigration law. In the 1930's Dillinger robbed banks yet because he did it in 1 state, the FBI was unable to arrest him because he did not violate any federal laws only state laws.


Aiding and abetting criminal activity is illegal no matter how dishonestly you rationalize things. Aiding and Abetting/Accessory - FindLaw
You are simply an updated Jim Crow advocate. You think you can pick and chose the laws you will support and not.
Only a dishonest imbecile thinks that's okay.


busybee01 said:


> You are the liar. You cannot stand the truth so you have to lie like the weasel that you are. You are3 the asshole and fascist pig.


If only you were half as smart and ethical as you are hate filled and vile you'd be almost right.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

satrebil said:


> I take it you've never heard of a "citizens arrest".


The militias are about as illegal as a citizen's neighborhood watch group. Citizen Corps | National Neighborhood Watch

Why are citizens helping police okay in a neighborhood but not on our border where our law enforcement forces are being overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of people wanting admission to our nation, through various legal and illegal ways?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only moron that I see except for your fellow Trump supporters. The Constitution does not require local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws. They can be deputized by the federal government only if they agree to do so. They cannot be forced to do so. A sanctuary city or state means that they do not cooperate with federal immigration authorities not that they hide illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I've heard all that blullshit a hundred times now. It's a meme that justifies nothing.
> 
> Sanctuary cities knowingly assist people who are breaking the law. Let me know when you've figured out a way to square that with the law. By declaring themselves to be sanctuary destinations those cities, counties and states
> are telling actual federal law breakers they will give them shelter and not rat these people out.
> What would happen to a person who declared he was going to help out drug dealers by giving them a place to stay and he would not divulge their location to police?
> 
> You aren't bright enough to realize you've gone beyond simply not helping federal immigration officers to actively thwarting them by hiding out criminals in sanctuary cities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does not matter what they call themselves. They are doing nothing illegal. The Supreme Court stated that states have limited powers in enforcing immigration law. In the 1930's Dillinger robbed banks yet because he did it in 1 state, the FBI was unable to arrest him because he did not violate any federal laws only state laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aiding and abetting criminal activity is illegal no matter how dishonestly you rationalize things. Aiding and Abetting/Accessory - FindLaw
> You are simply an updated Jim Crow advocate. You think you can pick and chose the laws you will support and not.
> Only a dishonest imbecile thinks that's okay.
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the liar. You cannot stand the truth so you have to lie like the weasel that you are. You are3 the asshole and fascist pig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If only you were half as smart and ethical as you are hate filled and vile you'd be almost right.
Click to expand...


Dealing in only the facts, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that being in the United States without papers *is not a crime*.  

That is not a belief, a political statement, nor my support or non-support of either side.  It's the law and THAT is what the  LEO community enforces.  They do not enforce your private interpretation of the law.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You accused Trump of being a liar, and me of being stupid for believing him.
> 
> 
> My point, ie that he was the best choice, is not a strawman argument.
> 
> 
> It was a very valid response to your point.
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim that it was not, is an obvious attempt to avoid admitting that my point was valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this point, you should apologize to me for calling me stupid, and admit that my logic in supporting Trump was sound.
> 
> 
> Seriously. You don't have to admit anything else, and we can continue the debate on immigration, and that admission will not undermine the rest of your position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll tell you once more after this and then you will be wasting your time.  I do not like responding to multi quotes and will not do so past today.
> 
> Correll, you are either an idiot or a liar.  You cannot cite where I said you were stupid to vote for Donald Trump.  I voted for him as the lesser of two evils.  However, when he signed that Executive Order against bump stocks, he showed us he is no better than Hillary.  Knowing his stance on the Second Amendment, you'd be an idiot to vote for him again.
> 
> I'm not here to debate immigration with you on this thread.  My generation was winning that war until the National Socialists co-opted it and then allowed a new religion to pop up that revolves around wall worship.  Today, that is all people like you obsess over.  If you lose constitutional Liberties along the way and make resistance to tyranny impossible, you can live with that.  I can't.  There isn't much more to disagree with on that point.
> 
> This thread is about Larry Hopkins and whether or not civilian militias can run roughshod over border towns just because they disagree with the law.  The courts say you are wrong.  People who adopt your strategies will end up where Hopkins did.  You won't because you don't have the intestinal fortitude it takes to do anything more than anonymously spew shit on the Internet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You post long rambling posts, and I will respond as I need to, to make sure you can tell which point I am referring to.
> 
> 2. Your words.
> 
> "Are you really that freaking stupid?
> 
> Donald Trump is"
> 
> Sounds to me like you were calling me stupid for supporting Trump or at least listening to what he was saying.
> 
> 
> 3. THe bump stock ban was bad. But Trump is still better than Hillary.
> 
> 4. When and how was your generation supposedly winning the war on immigration? And try to be concise. Or you might get mulit-qoutes in response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You give me four things to respond to and then bitch because the responses are over ten paragraphs.  That is why I don't normally respond to them.
> 
> Second point, your first post directed at me on this thread was to call me a moron.  What kind of response did you expect in return?
> 
> We all listened to Trump.  But Trump proved to be a liar.  Since he's really buddy buddy with the Clintons I'm not so sure now that he's the lesser of two evils, but in any event, none of us should extol the virtues of Trump when we know what he is.  Not that you should have known this, but *maybe* had Hillary won the Republicans would rebel against unconstitutional power grabs.
> 
> In the 1990s my generation almost got rid of the income tax, the IRS and the 16th Amendment.  There was no requirement that one get a Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops, "_Social Security Number_" and, without one, you could not be forced into the system and required to pay what was then a _voluntary_ tax.
> 
> My own U.S. Congressman introduced the most researched legislation in U.S. history which would have repealed the 16th Amendment and eliminate the income tax.  Had we done that, you could not say undocumented foreigners didn't pay the tax since the new system would have everybody paying a tax consistent with what they made - no loopholes, no  B.S.
> 
> The people of my generation were challenging and winning the effort to regain their status as freemen by rescinding their contracts with the government.  We knew the difference between a Preamble citizen and a 14th Amendment citizen.  By reclaiming our status as freemen, it was nullifying the 14th Amendment incrementally.  Your generation needed that Amendment to have something to bitch about (i.e. *mythical *"_anchor babies_.")  AND your generation wanted Orwellian National ID (Hitler's tattoo idea on steroids) based upon the Socialist Surveillance Number (SSN.)
> 
> We were making taxes a non-issue, taking the anchor baby argument out of the equation, dealing immigration in general  a heavy blow, restoring your Rights as individuals so that employers could hire whomever they wanted (which means that given a choice a lot of small companies - which should be the most representative in America - would be hiring their families, neighbors and people from the neighborhood.
> 
> I personally wrote a bill that would give businesses an opportunity to *earn* their tax breaks: a tax incentive for companies to hire an all American staff, another to bring jobs back to America, a tax incentive to have a pay scale with percentages above the poverty scale (the bigger the percentage, the greater the incentive.)  There would be additional tax write offs for employers to take people off unemployment, welfare, and disability.  There was more to it than that, but I'm just trying to fit all our efforts into a small enough post that you don't get confused by ten paragraphs.  Heaven forbid you don't get a history lesson in twenty words or less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I grant the many benefits of getting rid of the IRS.
> 
> 2. But how do you consider that winning the immigration issue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you wonder why I call you stupid!
> 
> Most of the pretexts used in wallist theology is that foreigners don't pay taxes.  You and me realize right now that is bullshit.  Otherwise, you would not have asked that.
> 
> If you eliminate the pretext, if it has any merit, it deters foreigners from coming here.  You and I realize that is not the case.  I'm going to presume, for the moment, your IQ is at least a couple of digits higher than your shoe size.
> 
> So, if foreigners cannot avoid the income tax and Americans are being incentivized to hire their fellow Americans... and if you take the feds out of welfare, then you've removed most of the reasons your side claims the foreigners are coming here.  It ain't rocket science, bro.
Click to expand...




I'm more concerned with the downward pressure on wages, and the cultural and political impact of immigration. 


But I will grant you the tax angle, though I think that claiming that that would be winning the immigration issue is vastly overstating it.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could this be why your "_hero_" gives the militia a bad name?
> 
> 
> 
> More and more personal insults and "wall worship" idiocy. Blather on, Rambo. I'm sorry I ever gave you the attention you crave to begin with. But I won't keep making that same mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No cherry, I was trying to have a civil conversation with you.  But, your shoe size is larger than your IQ so it's best we don't address each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i don't think you realize how insulting your constant use of terms like "Nazi" or even "Wallist" is.
> 
> 
> Not to mention your overall style of dismissing the arguments of those who you are discussing with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll,
> 
> I spent the better part of *FOUR DECADES* learning what I know.  I manned the border, went into courtrooms, went to marches, spoke out publicly (was on tv, radio, newspapers, magazines); even organized groups and financed the meeting places to discuss this and related issues.
> 
> I worked in think tanks, went to school and studied law so as to be able to apply it to these situations.  I was elected as a Justice of the Peace and did research for the top names in wallist theology.  Not wanting to be accused of prejudice, racism, etc. I worked in immigration law for a few years.  So, I've been on* ALL* sides of the issue.
> 
> Now, when I sit at a table or go somewhere to speak, people either respect me and don't say silly shit like you and those of your ilk do OR they are genuinely afraid of me  (and that is entirely plausible. too - good reason for it.)  On the Internet, just like you, many wallists start out with a disrespectful tone AND, instead of asking questions, they make assumptions and start insulting people.  Then you have the unmitigated gall to think you are due something you were not willing to give.  I *earned* my spot in this discussion.   I've been beaten, shot, jailed, run through the criminal justice system, threatened by the most powerful agencies in the government AND the biggest names in political organizations.  I've been in court at least once for every year you've lived.
> 
> I'm not going to earn your respect on the Internet.  I can tell people that your philosophy gets people killed - maybe imprisoned if you're lucky.  But, I will continue to call you a wallist because it is a religion and if I don't chant the mantra, you will call me names that you would never do publicly.  In all your arrogance, you do not understand the law and how one action impacts another.  For example:
> 
> The wallists demanded the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify in order to find so - called "_illegal aliens_" and punish employers that hire these mythical _"illegal aliens_."    What you guys did pretty much fucked your own people - NOT the foreigners.  You cannot target foreigners with the National ID without targeting Americans.  So, the background checks you supported keep Americans unemployed.  Some poor sap got busted on a misdemeanor rap five years ago and now because he smoked a joint, he can't even work at Mickey Ds.
> 
> Instead of owning up to the mistake  your side made, you start bullshit arguments about protecting kids from pedophiles in school - well Hell son, if an employer can show a relevancy to the job and info the government has, there has *NEVER* been a problem.  But, when everybody's information is out there for everybody else, then we could never mount a resistance to a tyrannical government.   Benjamin Franklin said that those who trade essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty nor Safety.  You simply don't understand the dynamics involved nor how one precedent will impact another.
> 
> The simple minded answers are "well this country (insert the name) built a wall and it works."  Really?  Is that country racially / religiously homogeneous?   Does it have the influence we had?  Until you guys screwed America we were the the world's superpower.  Does that country guarantee foreigners the _equal protection of the laws_ as does our 14th Amendment?  I think the 14th Amendment is illegal, but I still have to work within its parameters.  In short, you cannot look past your wall to see the big picture and the dynamics at play.  You don't know how you're being conned by the left.  You want respect, start showing respect.  I believe that the government big enough to give you your daily bread is big enough to take it from you.  That does not mean I'm on the right or the left... but I've never been left and you have.  It might have been unintentional, but you are deaf, dumb, blind and stupid with regards as to how this system is letting the whites commit genocide.
Click to expand...



I followed your reasoning, (not saying I agreed) up to.,


"letting whites commit genocide"?


Who are we supposedly committing genocide against?


----------



## Correll

busybee01 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Governor does not have the legal power to disregard the laws of this nation. That is not his job.
> 
> 
> 
> Leftist shitbags rationalize sanctuary policy by saying it's not their job to enforce federal law but that's not really the issue at all. No one is asking the governor of New Mexico to conduct ICE raids or check the status of suspected illegals.
> It's an absurd straw man lie.
> 
> When a state directly orders employees NOT to speak or communicate with federal immigration officers under any circumstances, for instance,  that crosses a line and sanctuary officials have gone from a hands off stance to actively
> opposing US federal law.
> 
> MIchelle Lujan Grisham doesn't get to decide which laws she wants to follow or not. That's what Jim Crow politicians did.
> She isn't entitled to pick and choose in an ala carte manner which laws she will deign to observe.
> 
> That's an absolute break down of law and order and the matter should be brought up to the Supreme Court. I can't believe it isn't illegal and improper to simply ignore the laws you don't wish to obey. Fucking leftists liars!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Local officials are under no obligation to enforce federal laws. The Supreme Court made it clear that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. It has nothing to do with Jim Crow laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They arrested people that were helping to enforce the laws. That is more than just NOT enforcing them, that is actively undermining them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one says that these militias can enforce any laws. They are not trained in law enforcement and they are accountable to no one. Vigilantes should be arrested.
Click to expand...



Why do you want to let unvetted and unlimited numbers of foreign nationals enter our nation?


----------



## Correll

busybee01 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya and democrats call BP  kidnappers..
> 
> At the end of the day we will be taking our country back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Stupider than I thought.
> 
> 
> "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> To be clear, you are the lying asshole I was talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the lying little asshole., Filth like you is a national disgrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what would have made that post really powerful?
> 
> 
> If you had backed up your claim that I was lying, with a link proving that my claim,
> 
> ie, that  "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> to some study or something that proved that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you didn't do that....
> 
> 
> Almost as though you know that you CAN'T.
> 
> 
> To be clear, for the slower among us,
> 
> 
> I challenge you to back up your shit claim, that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America..
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to seeing whether you do the norm lib response, and dodge or deflect, or whether you are stupid enough to even TRY to back up this shit, and if so, what incredible shit you post to try to do so.
> 
> 
> FUn times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
> 2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
> Stephen King R-Iowa
> Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
> Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Proud Boys are not neo nazis.
> 
> 2. Trump did condemn the white supremacists and neo nazis in charlottesville repeatedly. That you lie about that, shows that you know you need to lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. They are a neo-Nazi group.
> 
> 2. All you have to look at is then Chief of Staff General Kelly with his face buried in his hands. Trump tried to equate neo-nazis and white supremacists with peaceful protestors who were assaulted with 1 killed.
Click to expand...




1. They are not neo nazis. 

2. Antifa are not peaceful. They showed up to fight, and they did. That you lie about that, is supporting* their* use of violence. I do not support the violence from either side.


----------



## Correll

busybee01 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can’t white people talk about other races like black people talk about other races?? It’s a free country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to talk about other races, you have every Right to do so.  You will not gain majority sentiment; you may even have to defend your Rights, but if you want to say it then you have every Right to do so.
> 
> BTW, whether I agree with you or not, I will fight to the death to protect your Right to say it.  Will you do so for me?  Read some of the earlier posts here.  IIRC, it was on this thread that another poster threatened me with censorship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are a country of a culture built by white Americans blacks can assimilate or not, but I will make fun of there culture Perpetrated by whites or blacks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White America also introduced slavery for example. That is hardly anything to brag about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which does not contradict what he said. So, what is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whites went along with slavery. The inquisitions were conducted by whites. White missionaries sometimes brutally tried to force people into becoming Christians. WW I and WWII were started by whites. Whites are the source of a lot of suffering that has gone on throughout history. They are no better or worse than any others.
Click to expand...


Whites also fought against slavery. Whites fought for religious freedom. WWI and WWII were ended by whites. Whites are a source of a lot of peace, prosperity, freedom, and love that has gone on through out history. 

We are no better or worse than others.


And I still don't get your point.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll tell you once more after this and then you will be wasting your time.  I do not like responding to multi quotes and will not do so past today.
> 
> Correll, you are either an idiot or a liar.  You cannot cite where I said you were stupid to vote for Donald Trump.  I voted for him as the lesser of two evils.  However, when he signed that Executive Order against bump stocks, he showed us he is no better than Hillary.  Knowing his stance on the Second Amendment, you'd be an idiot to vote for him again.
> 
> I'm not here to debate immigration with you on this thread.  My generation was winning that war until the National Socialists co-opted it and then allowed a new religion to pop up that revolves around wall worship.  Today, that is all people like you obsess over.  If you lose constitutional Liberties along the way and make resistance to tyranny impossible, you can live with that.  I can't.  There isn't much more to disagree with on that point.
> 
> This thread is about Larry Hopkins and whether or not civilian militias can run roughshod over border towns just because they disagree with the law.  The courts say you are wrong.  People who adopt your strategies will end up where Hopkins did.  You won't because you don't have the intestinal fortitude it takes to do anything more than anonymously spew shit on the Internet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You post long rambling posts, and I will respond as I need to, to make sure you can tell which point I am referring to.
> 
> 2. Your words.
> 
> "Are you really that freaking stupid?
> 
> Donald Trump is"
> 
> Sounds to me like you were calling me stupid for supporting Trump or at least listening to what he was saying.
> 
> 
> 3. THe bump stock ban was bad. But Trump is still better than Hillary.
> 
> 4. When and how was your generation supposedly winning the war on immigration? And try to be concise. Or you might get mulit-qoutes in response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You give me four things to respond to and then bitch because the responses are over ten paragraphs.  That is why I don't normally respond to them.
> 
> Second point, your first post directed at me on this thread was to call me a moron.  What kind of response did you expect in return?
> 
> We all listened to Trump.  But Trump proved to be a liar.  Since he's really buddy buddy with the Clintons I'm not so sure now that he's the lesser of two evils, but in any event, none of us should extol the virtues of Trump when we know what he is.  Not that you should have known this, but *maybe* had Hillary won the Republicans would rebel against unconstitutional power grabs.
> 
> In the 1990s my generation almost got rid of the income tax, the IRS and the 16th Amendment.  There was no requirement that one get a Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops, "_Social Security Number_" and, without one, you could not be forced into the system and required to pay what was then a _voluntary_ tax.
> 
> My own U.S. Congressman introduced the most researched legislation in U.S. history which would have repealed the 16th Amendment and eliminate the income tax.  Had we done that, you could not say undocumented foreigners didn't pay the tax since the new system would have everybody paying a tax consistent with what they made - no loopholes, no  B.S.
> 
> The people of my generation were challenging and winning the effort to regain their status as freemen by rescinding their contracts with the government.  We knew the difference between a Preamble citizen and a 14th Amendment citizen.  By reclaiming our status as freemen, it was nullifying the 14th Amendment incrementally.  Your generation needed that Amendment to have something to bitch about (i.e. *mythical *"_anchor babies_.")  AND your generation wanted Orwellian National ID (Hitler's tattoo idea on steroids) based upon the Socialist Surveillance Number (SSN.)
> 
> We were making taxes a non-issue, taking the anchor baby argument out of the equation, dealing immigration in general  a heavy blow, restoring your Rights as individuals so that employers could hire whomever they wanted (which means that given a choice a lot of small companies - which should be the most representative in America - would be hiring their families, neighbors and people from the neighborhood.
> 
> I personally wrote a bill that would give businesses an opportunity to *earn* their tax breaks: a tax incentive for companies to hire an all American staff, another to bring jobs back to America, a tax incentive to have a pay scale with percentages above the poverty scale (the bigger the percentage, the greater the incentive.)  There would be additional tax write offs for employers to take people off unemployment, welfare, and disability.  There was more to it than that, but I'm just trying to fit all our efforts into a small enough post that you don't get confused by ten paragraphs.  Heaven forbid you don't get a history lesson in twenty words or less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I grant the many benefits of getting rid of the IRS.
> 
> 2. But how do you consider that winning the immigration issue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you wonder why I call you stupid!
> 
> Most of the pretexts used in wallist theology is that foreigners don't pay taxes.  You and me realize right now that is bullshit.  Otherwise, you would not have asked that.
> 
> If you eliminate the pretext, if it has any merit, it deters foreigners from coming here.  You and I realize that is not the case.  I'm going to presume, for the moment, your IQ is at least a couple of digits higher than your shoe size.
> 
> So, if foreigners cannot avoid the income tax and Americans are being incentivized to hire their fellow Americans... and if you take the feds out of welfare, then you've removed most of the reasons your side claims the foreigners are coming here.  It ain't rocket science, bro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm more concerned with the downward pressure on wages, and the cultural and political impact of immigration.
> 
> 
> But I will grant you the tax angle, though I think that claiming that that would be winning the immigration issue is vastly overstating it.
Click to expand...


If the Fair Tax had been debated and if the discussion ended with tax reform of which foreigners, regardless of so - called _"legal status_" were forced to pay, they would have to make more money.  

You limited your argument to the 16th Amendment when, like it or not, believe it or not, some patriots made significant inroads against the 14th Amendment as well.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could this be why your "_hero_" gives the militia a bad name?
> 
> 
> 
> More and more personal insults and "wall worship" idiocy. Blather on, Rambo. I'm sorry I ever gave you the attention you crave to begin with. But I won't keep making that same mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No cherry, I was trying to have a civil conversation with you.  But, your shoe size is larger than your IQ so it's best we don't address each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i don't think you realize how insulting your constant use of terms like "Nazi" or even "Wallist" is.
> 
> 
> Not to mention your overall style of dismissing the arguments of those who you are discussing with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll,
> 
> I spent the better part of *FOUR DECADES* learning what I know.  I manned the border, went into courtrooms, went to marches, spoke out publicly (was on tv, radio, newspapers, magazines); even organized groups and financed the meeting places to discuss this and related issues.
> 
> I worked in think tanks, went to school and studied law so as to be able to apply it to these situations.  I was elected as a Justice of the Peace and did research for the top names in wallist theology.  Not wanting to be accused of prejudice, racism, etc. I worked in immigration law for a few years.  So, I've been on* ALL* sides of the issue.
> 
> Now, when I sit at a table or go somewhere to speak, people either respect me and don't say silly shit like you and those of your ilk do OR they are genuinely afraid of me  (and that is entirely plausible. too - good reason for it.)  On the Internet, just like you, many wallists start out with a disrespectful tone AND, instead of asking questions, they make assumptions and start insulting people.  Then you have the unmitigated gall to think you are due something you were not willing to give.  I *earned* my spot in this discussion.   I've been beaten, shot, jailed, run through the criminal justice system, threatened by the most powerful agencies in the government AND the biggest names in political organizations.  I've been in court at least once for every year you've lived.
> 
> I'm not going to earn your respect on the Internet.  I can tell people that your philosophy gets people killed - maybe imprisoned if you're lucky.  But, I will continue to call you a wallist because it is a religion and if I don't chant the mantra, you will call me names that you would never do publicly.  In all your arrogance, you do not understand the law and how one action impacts another.  For example:
> 
> The wallists demanded the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify in order to find so - called "_illegal aliens_" and punish employers that hire these mythical _"illegal aliens_."    What you guys did pretty much fucked your own people - NOT the foreigners.  You cannot target foreigners with the National ID without targeting Americans.  So, the background checks you supported keep Americans unemployed.  Some poor sap got busted on a misdemeanor rap five years ago and now because he smoked a joint, he can't even work at Mickey Ds.
> 
> Instead of owning up to the mistake  your side made, you start bullshit arguments about protecting kids from pedophiles in school - well Hell son, if an employer can show a relevancy to the job and info the government has, there has *NEVER* been a problem.  But, when everybody's information is out there for everybody else, then we could never mount a resistance to a tyrannical government.   Benjamin Franklin said that those who trade essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty nor Safety.  You simply don't understand the dynamics involved nor how one precedent will impact another.
> 
> The simple minded answers are "well this country (insert the name) built a wall and it works."  Really?  Is that country racially / religiously homogeneous?   Does it have the influence we had?  Until you guys screwed America we were the the world's superpower.  Does that country guarantee foreigners the _equal protection of the laws_ as does our 14th Amendment?  I think the 14th Amendment is illegal, but I still have to work within its parameters.  In short, you cannot look past your wall to see the big picture and the dynamics at play.  You don't know how you're being conned by the left.  You want respect, start showing respect.  I believe that the government big enough to give you your daily bread is big enough to take it from you.  That does not mean I'm on the right or the left... but I've never been left and you have.  It might have been unintentional, but you are deaf, dumb, blind and stupid with regards as to how this system is letting the whites commit genocide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I followed your reasoning, (not saying I agreed) up to.,
> 
> 
> "letting whites commit genocide"?
> 
> 
> Who are we supposedly committing genocide against?
Click to expand...


Whites are unilaterally committing genocide against themselves.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You post long rambling posts, and I will respond as I need to, to make sure you can tell which point I am referring to.
> 
> 2. Your words.
> 
> "Are you really that freaking stupid?
> 
> Donald Trump is"
> 
> Sounds to me like you were calling me stupid for supporting Trump or at least listening to what he was saying.
> 
> 
> 3. THe bump stock ban was bad. But Trump is still better than Hillary.
> 
> 4. When and how was your generation supposedly winning the war on immigration? And try to be concise. Or you might get mulit-qoutes in response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You give me four things to respond to and then bitch because the responses are over ten paragraphs.  That is why I don't normally respond to them.
> 
> Second point, your first post directed at me on this thread was to call me a moron.  What kind of response did you expect in return?
> 
> We all listened to Trump.  But Trump proved to be a liar.  Since he's really buddy buddy with the Clintons I'm not so sure now that he's the lesser of two evils, but in any event, none of us should extol the virtues of Trump when we know what he is.  Not that you should have known this, but *maybe* had Hillary won the Republicans would rebel against unconstitutional power grabs.
> 
> In the 1990s my generation almost got rid of the income tax, the IRS and the 16th Amendment.  There was no requirement that one get a Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops, "_Social Security Number_" and, without one, you could not be forced into the system and required to pay what was then a _voluntary_ tax.
> 
> My own U.S. Congressman introduced the most researched legislation in U.S. history which would have repealed the 16th Amendment and eliminate the income tax.  Had we done that, you could not say undocumented foreigners didn't pay the tax since the new system would have everybody paying a tax consistent with what they made - no loopholes, no  B.S.
> 
> The people of my generation were challenging and winning the effort to regain their status as freemen by rescinding their contracts with the government.  We knew the difference between a Preamble citizen and a 14th Amendment citizen.  By reclaiming our status as freemen, it was nullifying the 14th Amendment incrementally.  Your generation needed that Amendment to have something to bitch about (i.e. *mythical *"_anchor babies_.")  AND your generation wanted Orwellian National ID (Hitler's tattoo idea on steroids) based upon the Socialist Surveillance Number (SSN.)
> 
> We were making taxes a non-issue, taking the anchor baby argument out of the equation, dealing immigration in general  a heavy blow, restoring your Rights as individuals so that employers could hire whomever they wanted (which means that given a choice a lot of small companies - which should be the most representative in America - would be hiring their families, neighbors and people from the neighborhood.
> 
> I personally wrote a bill that would give businesses an opportunity to *earn* their tax breaks: a tax incentive for companies to hire an all American staff, another to bring jobs back to America, a tax incentive to have a pay scale with percentages above the poverty scale (the bigger the percentage, the greater the incentive.)  There would be additional tax write offs for employers to take people off unemployment, welfare, and disability.  There was more to it than that, but I'm just trying to fit all our efforts into a small enough post that you don't get confused by ten paragraphs.  Heaven forbid you don't get a history lesson in twenty words or less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I grant the many benefits of getting rid of the IRS.
> 
> 2. But how do you consider that winning the immigration issue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you wonder why I call you stupid!
> 
> Most of the pretexts used in wallist theology is that foreigners don't pay taxes.  You and me realize right now that is bullshit.  Otherwise, you would not have asked that.
> 
> If you eliminate the pretext, if it has any merit, it deters foreigners from coming here.  You and I realize that is not the case.  I'm going to presume, for the moment, your IQ is at least a couple of digits higher than your shoe size.
> 
> So, if foreigners cannot avoid the income tax and Americans are being incentivized to hire their fellow Americans... and if you take the feds out of welfare, then you've removed most of the reasons your side claims the foreigners are coming here.  It ain't rocket science, bro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm more concerned with the downward pressure on wages, and the cultural and political impact of immigration.
> 
> 
> But I will grant you the tax angle, though I think that claiming that that would be winning the immigration issue is vastly overstating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Fair Tax had been debated and if the discussion ended with tax reform of which foreigners, regardless of so - called _"legal status_" were forced to pay, they would have to make more money.
> 
> You limited your argument to the 16th Amendment when, like it or not, believe it or not, some patriots made significant inroads against the 14th Amendment as well.
Click to expand...


"making more money" would only have slightly decreased the impact of unlimited Third World labor on the US labor market and thus US wages.

AND, still does not change the cultural and political issues of Immigration.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> More and more personal insults and "wall worship" idiocy. Blather on, Rambo. I'm sorry I ever gave you the attention you crave to begin with. But I won't keep making that same mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No cherry, I was trying to have a civil conversation with you.  But, your shoe size is larger than your IQ so it's best we don't address each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i don't think you realize how insulting your constant use of terms like "Nazi" or even "Wallist" is.
> 
> 
> Not to mention your overall style of dismissing the arguments of those who you are discussing with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll,
> 
> I spent the better part of *FOUR DECADES* learning what I know.  I manned the border, went into courtrooms, went to marches, spoke out publicly (was on tv, radio, newspapers, magazines); even organized groups and financed the meeting places to discuss this and related issues.
> 
> I worked in think tanks, went to school and studied law so as to be able to apply it to these situations.  I was elected as a Justice of the Peace and did research for the top names in wallist theology.  Not wanting to be accused of prejudice, racism, etc. I worked in immigration law for a few years.  So, I've been on* ALL* sides of the issue.
> 
> Now, when I sit at a table or go somewhere to speak, people either respect me and don't say silly shit like you and those of your ilk do OR they are genuinely afraid of me  (and that is entirely plausible. too - good reason for it.)  On the Internet, just like you, many wallists start out with a disrespectful tone AND, instead of asking questions, they make assumptions and start insulting people.  Then you have the unmitigated gall to think you are due something you were not willing to give.  I *earned* my spot in this discussion.   I've been beaten, shot, jailed, run through the criminal justice system, threatened by the most powerful agencies in the government AND the biggest names in political organizations.  I've been in court at least once for every year you've lived.
> 
> I'm not going to earn your respect on the Internet.  I can tell people that your philosophy gets people killed - maybe imprisoned if you're lucky.  But, I will continue to call you a wallist because it is a religion and if I don't chant the mantra, you will call me names that you would never do publicly.  In all your arrogance, you do not understand the law and how one action impacts another.  For example:
> 
> The wallists demanded the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify in order to find so - called "_illegal aliens_" and punish employers that hire these mythical _"illegal aliens_."    What you guys did pretty much fucked your own people - NOT the foreigners.  You cannot target foreigners with the National ID without targeting Americans.  So, the background checks you supported keep Americans unemployed.  Some poor sap got busted on a misdemeanor rap five years ago and now because he smoked a joint, he can't even work at Mickey Ds.
> 
> Instead of owning up to the mistake  your side made, you start bullshit arguments about protecting kids from pedophiles in school - well Hell son, if an employer can show a relevancy to the job and info the government has, there has *NEVER* been a problem.  But, when everybody's information is out there for everybody else, then we could never mount a resistance to a tyrannical government.   Benjamin Franklin said that those who trade essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty nor Safety.  You simply don't understand the dynamics involved nor how one precedent will impact another.
> 
> The simple minded answers are "well this country (insert the name) built a wall and it works."  Really?  Is that country racially / religiously homogeneous?   Does it have the influence we had?  Until you guys screwed America we were the the world's superpower.  Does that country guarantee foreigners the _equal protection of the laws_ as does our 14th Amendment?  I think the 14th Amendment is illegal, but I still have to work within its parameters.  In short, you cannot look past your wall to see the big picture and the dynamics at play.  You don't know how you're being conned by the left.  You want respect, start showing respect.  I believe that the government big enough to give you your daily bread is big enough to take it from you.  That does not mean I'm on the right or the left... but I've never been left and you have.  It might have been unintentional, but you are deaf, dumb, blind and stupid with regards as to how this system is letting the whites commit genocide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I followed your reasoning, (not saying I agreed) up to.,
> 
> 
> "letting whites commit genocide"?
> 
> 
> Who are we supposedly committing genocide against?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whites are unilaterally committing genocide against themselves.
Click to expand...



Yet you seem more upset about ids, and land rights than genocide.


----------



## Crixus

andaronjim said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with repelling an invading horde of diseased criminals from our country?  If killing a few thousand stops the migration, that would be a good thing...Those that die in the desert are far worse, so show those who are willing to make the arduous trek, that it isnt worth it, and save even more lives, by killing a few...The needs of the many out way the needs of the few.
Click to expand...



Then a dozen wetback smugglers with AK’s show up and kill all the dumb honkys. I don’t see all the joy here. The illegals they held up just got processed through the system and released into the US. So all these guys did was risk their lives getting these illegals into the interior.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You give me four things to respond to and then bitch because the responses are over ten paragraphs.  That is why I don't normally respond to them.
> 
> Second point, your first post directed at me on this thread was to call me a moron.  What kind of response did you expect in return?
> 
> We all listened to Trump.  But Trump proved to be a liar.  Since he's really buddy buddy with the Clintons I'm not so sure now that he's the lesser of two evils, but in any event, none of us should extol the virtues of Trump when we know what he is.  Not that you should have known this, but *maybe* had Hillary won the Republicans would rebel against unconstitutional power grabs.
> 
> In the 1990s my generation almost got rid of the income tax, the IRS and the 16th Amendment.  There was no requirement that one get a Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops, "_Social Security Number_" and, without one, you could not be forced into the system and required to pay what was then a _voluntary_ tax.
> 
> My own U.S. Congressman introduced the most researched legislation in U.S. history which would have repealed the 16th Amendment and eliminate the income tax.  Had we done that, you could not say undocumented foreigners didn't pay the tax since the new system would have everybody paying a tax consistent with what they made - no loopholes, no  B.S.
> 
> The people of my generation were challenging and winning the effort to regain their status as freemen by rescinding their contracts with the government.  We knew the difference between a Preamble citizen and a 14th Amendment citizen.  By reclaiming our status as freemen, it was nullifying the 14th Amendment incrementally.  Your generation needed that Amendment to have something to bitch about (i.e. *mythical *"_anchor babies_.")  AND your generation wanted Orwellian National ID (Hitler's tattoo idea on steroids) based upon the Socialist Surveillance Number (SSN.)
> 
> We were making taxes a non-issue, taking the anchor baby argument out of the equation, dealing immigration in general  a heavy blow, restoring your Rights as individuals so that employers could hire whomever they wanted (which means that given a choice a lot of small companies - which should be the most representative in America - would be hiring their families, neighbors and people from the neighborhood.
> 
> I personally wrote a bill that would give businesses an opportunity to *earn* their tax breaks: a tax incentive for companies to hire an all American staff, another to bring jobs back to America, a tax incentive to have a pay scale with percentages above the poverty scale (the bigger the percentage, the greater the incentive.)  There would be additional tax write offs for employers to take people off unemployment, welfare, and disability.  There was more to it than that, but I'm just trying to fit all our efforts into a small enough post that you don't get confused by ten paragraphs.  Heaven forbid you don't get a history lesson in twenty words or less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I grant the many benefits of getting rid of the IRS.
> 
> 2. But how do you consider that winning the immigration issue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you wonder why I call you stupid!
> 
> Most of the pretexts used in wallist theology is that foreigners don't pay taxes.  You and me realize right now that is bullshit.  Otherwise, you would not have asked that.
> 
> If you eliminate the pretext, if it has any merit, it deters foreigners from coming here.  You and I realize that is not the case.  I'm going to presume, for the moment, your IQ is at least a couple of digits higher than your shoe size.
> 
> So, if foreigners cannot avoid the income tax and Americans are being incentivized to hire their fellow Americans... and if you take the feds out of welfare, then you've removed most of the reasons your side claims the foreigners are coming here.  It ain't rocket science, bro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm more concerned with the downward pressure on wages, and the cultural and political impact of immigration.
> 
> 
> But I will grant you the tax angle, though I think that claiming that that would be winning the immigration issue is vastly overstating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Fair Tax had been debated and if the discussion ended with tax reform of which foreigners, regardless of so - called _"legal status_" were forced to pay, they would have to make more money.
> 
> You limited your argument to the 16th Amendment when, like it or not, believe it or not, some patriots made significant inroads against the 14th Amendment as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "making more money" would only have slightly decreased the impact of unlimited Third World labor on the US labor market and thus US wages.
> 
> AND, still does not change the cultural and political issues of Immigration.
Click to expand...


What* DOES *change our cultural and political issues regarding immigration is the illegally ratified 14th Amendment.

To give you the bare bones, what the 14th Amendment did was to create two classes of citizens:  Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.  The people I've been referring to as wallists took away all the wins patriots had racked up in their quest to fight so - called "_illegal immigration_."  

People can tell me all day long about conspiracy theories, nutjobs, etc. but at the end of the day we used to hold twice monthly meetings (and generally I financed them out of pocket.)  A lot of people would come, talking about what had worked and what didn't.

In those days it was established *fact* that you did not have to have an SSN.  I even had a personal letter from the head of the SSA that said whether you ever produced an SSN for an employer, it was a private matter between employer and emloyee.  Yeah they had an I-9 back then.  The problem was the I - 9 had an OMB (Office of Management and Budget Number on it.)  That OMB number would let you know *who *was doing the "_requiring_."  In this case, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and they had exactly ZERO jurisdiction in Social Security matters.  So, they could "_require_" all they wanted.  I had family and friends that had rescinded the SSN.  The advantage being, the 14th Amendment took away your *unalienable* Rights, replacing them with _"privileges and immunities_."

As patriots were chipping away at the illegally passed 14th Amendment, they were reclaiming their Rights as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights along with the unalienable Rights contemplated in the Declaration of Independence.  With the 14th Amendment, you're nothing special.  That Amendment gives the_ "equal protection of the laws"_ to all persons... and if you read the 14th very carefully, it describes the difference between a Citizen and a "_person_."  So, the people the wallists call "_illegal aliens_" have the same Rights as everybody else.  I can't change facts to fit your theology.

Your real problem is the 14th Amendment.  It is at the core of most of the problems you have relative to immigration and the assaults on culture.  When the wallists lobbied for and introduced legislation requiring us to have the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops, "_Social Security Number_,"  for National ID, it erased our wins and it now made it mandatory to have an SSN (prima facie evidence in Uncle Scam's eyes that you are now subject to the 14th Amendment.)  

*Without* the SSN, you were not subject to the income tax; you retained your Preamble status as a Citizen; you could not be forced to carry a National ID Card.  People rescinded their SSN.  My father did it and when he passed away, he willed him million dollar plus estate off to derelicts and low lifes (in my opinion.)  That money ended up where it was supposed to - so there isn't a swinging soul that can tell me what we were doing wasn't working.

If the federal government could not tax your wages, deprive you of your natural, inherent, God given, *unalienable*, irrevocable, absolute Rights, and claim jurisdiction over you via the 14th Amendment, then they had a REAL problem.  For then they would have to tax foreigners whether you call them legal or illegal.  And enough people were beginning to use passive resistance and civil disobedience against the 14th Amendment so as to seriously jeopardize it.  It even led to a near successful challenge to the 16th Amendment.  

If people understood the dangers of the 14th Amendment and forced it to collapse, you would not have so - called "_anchor babies_" and there would be a *dramatic* drop in immigration.  Of course, if you went back to the times of pre-14th Amendment... well, you should read the entire case of Dred Scott v. Sanford  to see where we stood.  Yeah, if the 14th Amendment began to collapse (since it was illegally ratified), some may think we would go backward.  Instead, Congress would begin passing laws to protect some of what they created, but they would have to be mindful of the culture that they have been trying to deliberately obliterate.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> No cherry, I was trying to have a civil conversation with you.  But, your shoe size is larger than your IQ so it's best we don't address each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i don't think you realize how insulting your constant use of terms like "Nazi" or even "Wallist" is.
> 
> 
> Not to mention your overall style of dismissing the arguments of those who you are discussing with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll,
> 
> I spent the better part of *FOUR DECADES* learning what I know.  I manned the border, went into courtrooms, went to marches, spoke out publicly (was on tv, radio, newspapers, magazines); even organized groups and financed the meeting places to discuss this and related issues.
> 
> I worked in think tanks, went to school and studied law so as to be able to apply it to these situations.  I was elected as a Justice of the Peace and did research for the top names in wallist theology.  Not wanting to be accused of prejudice, racism, etc. I worked in immigration law for a few years.  So, I've been on* ALL* sides of the issue.
> 
> Now, when I sit at a table or go somewhere to speak, people either respect me and don't say silly shit like you and those of your ilk do OR they are genuinely afraid of me  (and that is entirely plausible. too - good reason for it.)  On the Internet, just like you, many wallists start out with a disrespectful tone AND, instead of asking questions, they make assumptions and start insulting people.  Then you have the unmitigated gall to think you are due something you were not willing to give.  I *earned* my spot in this discussion.   I've been beaten, shot, jailed, run through the criminal justice system, threatened by the most powerful agencies in the government AND the biggest names in political organizations.  I've been in court at least once for every year you've lived.
> 
> I'm not going to earn your respect on the Internet.  I can tell people that your philosophy gets people killed - maybe imprisoned if you're lucky.  But, I will continue to call you a wallist because it is a religion and if I don't chant the mantra, you will call me names that you would never do publicly.  In all your arrogance, you do not understand the law and how one action impacts another.  For example:
> 
> The wallists demanded the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify in order to find so - called "_illegal aliens_" and punish employers that hire these mythical _"illegal aliens_."    What you guys did pretty much fucked your own people - NOT the foreigners.  You cannot target foreigners with the National ID without targeting Americans.  So, the background checks you supported keep Americans unemployed.  Some poor sap got busted on a misdemeanor rap five years ago and now because he smoked a joint, he can't even work at Mickey Ds.
> 
> Instead of owning up to the mistake  your side made, you start bullshit arguments about protecting kids from pedophiles in school - well Hell son, if an employer can show a relevancy to the job and info the government has, there has *NEVER* been a problem.  But, when everybody's information is out there for everybody else, then we could never mount a resistance to a tyrannical government.   Benjamin Franklin said that those who trade essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty nor Safety.  You simply don't understand the dynamics involved nor how one precedent will impact another.
> 
> The simple minded answers are "well this country (insert the name) built a wall and it works."  Really?  Is that country racially / religiously homogeneous?   Does it have the influence we had?  Until you guys screwed America we were the the world's superpower.  Does that country guarantee foreigners the _equal protection of the laws_ as does our 14th Amendment?  I think the 14th Amendment is illegal, but I still have to work within its parameters.  In short, you cannot look past your wall to see the big picture and the dynamics at play.  You don't know how you're being conned by the left.  You want respect, start showing respect.  I believe that the government big enough to give you your daily bread is big enough to take it from you.  That does not mean I'm on the right or the left... but I've never been left and you have.  It might have been unintentional, but you are deaf, dumb, blind and stupid with regards as to how this system is letting the whites commit genocide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I followed your reasoning, (not saying I agreed) up to.,
> 
> 
> "letting whites commit genocide"?
> 
> 
> Who are we supposedly committing genocide against?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whites are unilaterally committing genocide against themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you seem more upset about ids, and land rights than genocide.
Click to expand...



Without privacy and personal property, all you have is governmental control and they can control the population with those two powers.


----------



## busybee01

satrebil said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Governor does not have the legal power to disregard the laws of this nation. That is not his job.
> 
> 
> 
> Leftist shitbags rationalize sanctuary policy by saying it's not their job to enforce federal law but that's not really the issue at all. No one is asking the governor of New Mexico to conduct ICE raids or check the status of suspected illegals.
> It's an absurd straw man lie.
> 
> When a state directly orders employees NOT to speak or communicate with federal immigration officers under any circumstances, for instance,  that crosses a line and sanctuary officials have gone from a hands off stance to actively
> opposing US federal law.
> 
> MIchelle Lujan Grisham doesn't get to decide which laws she wants to follow or not. That's what Jim Crow politicians did.
> She isn't entitled to pick and choose in an ala carte manner which laws she will deign to observe.
> 
> That's an absolute break down of law and order and the matter should be brought up to the Supreme Court. I can't believe it isn't illegal and improper to simply ignore the laws you don't wish to obey. Fucking leftists liars!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Local officials are under no obligation to enforce federal laws. The Supreme Court made it clear that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. It has nothing to do with Jim Crow laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They arrested people that were helping to enforce the laws. That is more than just NOT enforcing them, that is actively undermining them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one says that these militias can enforce any laws. They are not trained in law enforcement and they are accountable to no one. Vigilantes should be arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I take it you've never heard of a "citizens arrest".
Click to expand...


They have no authority to arrest anyone.


----------



## busybee01

Jitss617 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the lying little asshole., Filth like you is a national disgrace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what would have made that post really powerful?
> 
> 
> If you had backed up your claim that I was lying, with a link proving that my claim,
> 
> ie, that  "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> to some study or something that proved that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you didn't do that....
> 
> 
> Almost as though you know that you CAN'T.
> 
> 
> To be clear, for the slower among us,
> 
> 
> I challenge you to back up your shit claim, that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America..
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to seeing whether you do the norm lib response, and dodge or deflect, or whether you are stupid enough to even TRY to back up this shit, and if so, what incredible shit you post to try to do so.
> 
> 
> FUn times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
> 2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
> Stephen King R-Iowa
> Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
> Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Proud Boys are not neo nazis.
> 
> 2. Trump did condemn the white supremacists and neo nazis in charlottesville repeatedly. That you lie about that, shows that you know you need to lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. They are a neo-Nazi group.
> 
> 2. All you have to look at is then Chief of Staff General Kelly with his face buried in his hands. Trump tried to equate neo-nazis and white supremacists with peaceful protestors who were assaulted with 1 killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are factually wrong.. it’s on video
Click to expand...


You are factually incorrect. The Proud Boys assaulted several people. That is why they were arrested.


----------



## Correll

busybee01 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what would have made that post really powerful?
> 
> 
> If you had backed up your claim that I was lying, with a link proving that my claim,
> 
> ie, that  "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> to some study or something that proved that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you didn't do that....
> 
> 
> Almost as though you know that you CAN'T.
> 
> 
> To be clear, for the slower among us,
> 
> 
> I challenge you to back up your shit claim, that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America..
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to seeing whether you do the norm lib response, and dodge or deflect, or whether you are stupid enough to even TRY to back up this shit, and if so, what incredible shit you post to try to do so.
> 
> 
> FUn times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
> 2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
> Stephen King R-Iowa
> Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
> Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Proud Boys are not neo nazis.
> 
> 2. Trump did condemn the white supremacists and neo nazis in charlottesville repeatedly. That you lie about that, shows that you know you need to lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. They are a neo-Nazi group.
> 
> 2. All you have to look at is then Chief of Staff General Kelly with his face buried in his hands. Trump tried to equate neo-nazis and white supremacists with peaceful protestors who were assaulted with 1 killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are factually wrong.. it’s on video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are factually incorrect. The Proud Boys assaulted several people. That is why they were arrested.
Click to expand...



The Proud Boys were assaulted and defended themselves. That is why no arrests were made that night.


It was not until vile dem politicians saw a change to punish people for daring to stand up to the lefty mob, that they were arrested, days later.


----------



## busybee01

Porter Rockwell said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the lying little asshole., Filth like you is a national disgrace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what would have made that post really powerful?
> 
> 
> If you had backed up your claim that I was lying, with a link proving that my claim,
> 
> ie, that  "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> to some study or something that proved that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you didn't do that....
> 
> 
> Almost as though you know that you CAN'T.
> 
> 
> To be clear, for the slower among us,
> 
> 
> I challenge you to back up your shit claim, that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America..
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to seeing whether you do the norm lib response, and dodge or deflect, or whether you are stupid enough to even TRY to back up this shit, and if so, what incredible shit you post to try to do so.
> 
> 
> FUn times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
> 2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
> Stephen King R-Iowa
> Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
> Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Proud Boys are not neo nazis.
> 
> 2. Trump did condemn the white supremacists and neo nazis in charlottesville repeatedly. That you lie about that, shows that you know you need to lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. They are a neo-Nazi group.
> 
> 2. All you have to look at is then Chief of Staff General Kelly with his face buried in his hands. Trump tried to equate neo-nazis and white supremacists with peaceful protestors who were assaulted with 1 killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not a Trump supporter, so don't go there when I tell you that you are wrong here.
> 
> The people who created the wallist religion (the whole wall worship thing) ARE nazis.  That is a fact beyond any dispute.  It is also a fact that the wallist religion predominates the effort that was made in Charlottesville.
> 
> Not all of the whites who attended the Charlottesville rally were violent white supremacists.  That is made self evident that the Charlottesville rally was a one and done event.  Contrast that to when the black community has their people shot or beaten in the streets.  The outcry and rallies are constant.
> 
> We do have a problem with foreigners coming to this country.  It is, however, one of our making.  But, the people have a RIGHT to protest and seek out change.  For anyone to say that all the Charlottesville protesters were white supremacists and so forth would be to claim that all black people are homosexuals just because the gay community marches with blacks when the black people feel their civil rights are being trampled on.
> 
> I wholly disagree with the neo nazis that are in charge of the nutty wall idea and I reject the principles of National Socialism.  At the same time, I care about my country, my race, my culture and the destiny of this nation.  I'm just not willing to step on the back of others to make my lot in life more pleasant.  Once you learn that, it will put us closer to sitting down and having a civil conversation that will lead to a solution all sides can live with.
Click to expand...


I will tell you that you are wrong. The fact is that the white supremacists and neo-nazis were at the rally. If you rally alongside of them then you support them. The fact is that as long as you associate with neo-nazis and white supremacists, you support them. The Charlottesville protestors were laregely neo-nazis and white supremacists.


----------



## busybee01

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only moron that I see except for your fellow Trump supporters. The Constitution does not require local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws. They can be deputized by the federal government only if they agree to do so. They cannot be forced to do so. A sanctuary city or state means that they do not cooperate with federal immigration authorities not that they hide illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I've heard all that blullshit a hundred times now. It's a meme that justifies nothing.
> 
> Sanctuary cities knowingly assist people who are breaking the law. Let me know when you've figured out a way to square that with the law. By declaring themselves to be sanctuary destinations those cities, counties and states
> are telling actual federal law breakers they will give them shelter and not rat these people out.
> What would happen to a person who declared he was going to help out drug dealers by giving them a place to stay and he would not divulge their location to police?
> 
> You aren't bright enough to realize you've gone beyond simply not helping federal immigration officers to actively thwarting them by hiding out criminals in sanctuary cities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does not matter what they call themselves. They are doing nothing illegal. The Supreme Court stated that states have limited powers in enforcing immigration law. In the 1930's Dillinger robbed banks yet because he did it in 1 state, the FBI was unable to arrest him because he did not violate any federal laws only state laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aiding and abetting criminal activity is illegal no matter how dishonestly you rationalize things. Aiding and Abetting/Accessory - FindLaw
> You are simply an updated Jim Crow advocate. You think you can pick and chose the laws you will support and not.
> Only a dishonest imbecile thinks that's okay.
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the liar. You cannot stand the truth so you have to lie like the weasel that you are. You are3 the asshole and fascist pig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If only you were half as smart and ethical as you are hate filled and vile you'd be almost right.
Click to expand...


The truth is the truth whether you like it or not. You can call it bullshit but you are the bullshit artist around here.

Sanctuary cities do not assist people in breaking the law. They are not required to ask someone if they are citizens or not nor are they required to ask for their papers. Trump's lawsuit against California has been largely thrown out. 

You are the dumb one as you clearly do not iunderstand the Constitution.

You are the dishonest imbecile. It is not illegal to not ask about someone's immigration status or their papers. You have no idea what a Jim Crow law is. These laws were declared illegal by the court. The courts have not said that states and local governments have to enforce immigration laws. They are not violating any court order.

You are the one that is uneducated and imbecilic. You are not even close to being right.


----------



## busybee01

Correll said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
> 2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
> Stephen King R-Iowa
> Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
> Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Proud Boys are not neo nazis.
> 
> 2. Trump did condemn the white supremacists and neo nazis in charlottesville repeatedly. That you lie about that, shows that you know you need to lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. They are a neo-Nazi group.
> 
> 2. All you have to look at is then Chief of Staff General Kelly with his face buried in his hands. Trump tried to equate neo-nazis and white supremacists with peaceful protestors who were assaulted with 1 killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are factually wrong.. it’s on video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are factually incorrect. The Proud Boys assaulted several people. That is why they were arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were assaulted and defended themselves. That is why no arrests were made that night.
> 
> 
> It was not until vile dem politicians saw a change to punish people for daring to stand up to the lefty mob, that they were arrested, days later.
Click to expand...


Wrong they reviewed the tape. Just because someone knocks a hat off your head does not give you the right to beat someone to a pulp. The force used has to be proportional. If it is not then it is felony assault.


----------



## Correll

busybee01 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what would have made that post really powerful?
> 
> 
> If you had backed up your claim that I was lying, with a link proving that my claim,
> 
> ie, that  "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> to some study or something that proved that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you didn't do that....
> 
> 
> Almost as though you know that you CAN'T.
> 
> 
> To be clear, for the slower among us,
> 
> 
> I challenge you to back up your shit claim, that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America..
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to seeing whether you do the norm lib response, and dodge or deflect, or whether you are stupid enough to even TRY to back up this shit, and if so, what incredible shit you post to try to do so.
> 
> 
> FUn times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
> 2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
> Stephen King R-Iowa
> Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
> Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Proud Boys are not neo nazis.
> 
> 2. Trump did condemn the white supremacists and neo nazis in charlottesville repeatedly. That you lie about that, shows that you know you need to lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. They are a neo-Nazi group.
> 
> 2. All you have to look at is then Chief of Staff General Kelly with his face buried in his hands. Trump tried to equate neo-nazis and white supremacists with peaceful protestors who were assaulted with 1 killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not a Trump supporter, so don't go there when I tell you that you are wrong here.
> 
> The people who created the wallist religion (the whole wall worship thing) ARE nazis.  That is a fact beyond any dispute.  It is also a fact that the wallist religion predominates the effort that was made in Charlottesville.
> 
> Not all of the whites who attended the Charlottesville rally were violent white supremacists.  That is made self evident that the Charlottesville rally was a one and done event.  Contrast that to when the black community has their people shot or beaten in the streets.  The outcry and rallies are constant.
> 
> We do have a problem with foreigners coming to this country.  It is, however, one of our making.  But, the people have a RIGHT to protest and seek out change.  For anyone to say that all the Charlottesville protesters were white supremacists and so forth would be to claim that all black people are homosexuals just because the gay community marches with blacks when the black people feel their civil rights are being trampled on.
> 
> I wholly disagree with the neo nazis that are in charge of the nutty wall idea and I reject the principles of National Socialism.  At the same time, I care about my country, my race, my culture and the destiny of this nation.  I'm just not willing to step on the back of others to make my lot in life more pleasant.  Once you learn that, it will put us closer to sitting down and having a civil conversation that will lead to a solution all sides can live with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will tell you that you are wrong. The fact is that the white supremacists and neo-nazis were at the rally. If you rally alongside of them then you support them. The fact is that as long as you associate with neo-nazis and white supremacists, you support them. The Charlottesville protestors were laregely neo-nazis and white supremacists.
Click to expand...



Name one other time, in the last 50 years. that a white supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.


----------



## Correll

busybee01 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Proud Boys are not neo nazis.
> 
> 2. Trump did condemn the white supremacists and neo nazis in charlottesville repeatedly. That you lie about that, shows that you know you need to lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. They are a neo-Nazi group.
> 
> 2. All you have to look at is then Chief of Staff General Kelly with his face buried in his hands. Trump tried to equate neo-nazis and white supremacists with peaceful protestors who were assaulted with 1 killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are factually wrong.. it’s on video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are factually incorrect. The Proud Boys assaulted several people. That is why they were arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were assaulted and defended themselves. That is why no arrests were made that night.
> 
> 
> It was not until vile dem politicians saw a change to punish people for daring to stand up to the lefty mob, that they were arrested, days later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong they reviewed the tape. Just because someone knocks a hat off your head does not give you the right to beat someone to a pulp. The force used has to be proportional. If it is not then it is felony assault.
Click to expand...



They reviewed the tape and ignored the context of days of harassment, vandalism and threats of attacks. And as to being beaten to a pulp, medical care was offered and refused by the antifa supposedly beaten to a pulp "victims".


This is politically motivated arrests and prosecution and a gross miscarriage of justice.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

busybee01 said:


> The truth is the truth whether you like it or not. You can call it bullshit but you are the bullshit artist around here.


Your bullshit-ery is far greater than mine, if indeed I bullshit at all.



> Sanctuary cities do not assist people in breaking the law. They are not required to ask someone if they are citizens or not nor are they required to ask for their papers. Trump's lawsuit against California has been largely thrown out.


The very fact sanctuary cities exist is proof you are just blowing smoke out of your backside whether you know it or not and I'm sure you have hypnotized yourself so as not to question the inherent illegality of a sanctuary refuge.
Sanctuary hiding places serve no other purpose than to give people who are here illegally a place where they won't be ratted out by  I put this in nice bright letters so you wouldn't be able to avoid the truth. 

The governor of California, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, etc. aren't allowed special dispensation so they can ignore the laws they don't want to follow. This isn't Jim Crow Alabama. They know what they do gives illegal immigrants vital assistance in avoiding the consequences of their illegal actions.
They are willing and eager accomplices to crime. Here...I helped you out again. 




> You are the dumb one as you clearly do not understand the Constitution.


That's just extra special stupid. The Constitution doesn't give anyone, especially public officials who all must take oaths of office swearing they will uphold the law, permission to pick and choose the laws they want to enforce and they ones they will ignore like they are ordering off an ala carte menu. Don't insult me with your imbecilic garbage!



> You are the dishonest imbecile.


Says the dishonest imbecile, most ironically.



> It is not illegal to not ask about someone's immigration status or their papers. You have no idea what a Jim Crow law is. These laws were declared illegal by the court. The courts have not said that states and local governments have to enforce immigration laws. They are not violating any court order.
> 
> You are the one that is uneducated and imbecilic. You are not even close to being right.


I feel sorry for anyone that enters your brain damaged aura.
I have already pointed out that merely by making yourself a sanctuary for criminals you are already declaring you are enabling and assisting people who are breaking the law. Hey, come and live here, you are saying to illegal immigrants...we won't tell La Migra you are here. You might as well be the gangster's girl friend who gives everybody a place to hide from the cops.

Nobody asks the Seattle City Council to check I.D.s or demand papers from anyone. That's a bullshit red herring.
I would say it's beneath you, but it's really not.

_I know *exactly* what Jim Crow era policy was...ignoring civil rights laws that ended segregation because you didn't want to follow those laws! _It is precisely like sanctuary city policy...we will follow the laws we like and ignore the ones we don't like. So bend over and shove that up your bumble bee.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

busybee01 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what would have made that post really powerful?
> 
> 
> If you had backed up your claim that I was lying, with a link proving that my claim,
> 
> ie, that  "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> to some study or something that proved that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you didn't do that....
> 
> 
> Almost as though you know that you CAN'T.
> 
> 
> To be clear, for the slower among us,
> 
> 
> I challenge you to back up your shit claim, that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America..
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to seeing whether you do the norm lib response, and dodge or deflect, or whether you are stupid enough to even TRY to back up this shit, and if so, what incredible shit you post to try to do so.
> 
> 
> FUn times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
> 2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
> Stephen King R-Iowa
> Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
> Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Proud Boys are not neo nazis.
> 
> 2. Trump did condemn the white supremacists and neo nazis in charlottesville repeatedly. That you lie about that, shows that you know you need to lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. They are a neo-Nazi group.
> 
> 2. All you have to look at is then Chief of Staff General Kelly with his face buried in his hands. Trump tried to equate neo-nazis and white supremacists with peaceful protestors who were assaulted with 1 killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not a Trump supporter, so don't go there when I tell you that you are wrong here.
> 
> The people who created the wallist religion (the whole wall worship thing) ARE nazis.  That is a fact beyond any dispute.  It is also a fact that the wallist religion predominates the effort that was made in Charlottesville.
> 
> Not all of the whites who attended the Charlottesville rally were violent white supremacists.  That is made self evident that the Charlottesville rally was a one and done event.  Contrast that to when the black community has their people shot or beaten in the streets.  The outcry and rallies are constant.
> 
> We do have a problem with foreigners coming to this country.  It is, however, one of our making.  But, the people have a RIGHT to protest and seek out change.  For anyone to say that all the Charlottesville protesters were white supremacists and so forth would be to claim that all black people are homosexuals just because the gay community marches with blacks when the black people feel their civil rights are being trampled on.
> 
> I wholly disagree with the neo nazis that are in charge of the nutty wall idea and I reject the principles of National Socialism.  At the same time, I care about my country, my race, my culture and the destiny of this nation.  I'm just not willing to step on the back of others to make my lot in life more pleasant.  Once you learn that, it will put us closer to sitting down and having a civil conversation that will lead to a solution all sides can live with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will tell you that you are wrong. The fact is that the white supremacists and neo-nazis were at the rally. If you rally alongside of them then you support them. The fact is that as long as you associate with neo-nazis and white supremacists, you support them. The Charlottesville protestors were laregely neo-nazis and white supremacists.
Click to expand...


Then when Muslims, gays, transvestites, and atheists march in civil rights marches organized by black people it makes all blacks Muslims, gays, transvestites and atheists.  Logic has a funny way of working, don't it?

Granted, most of the people attracted to the nutty wall idea (neo-nazis) - which is what drew most people to that rally; however, there are other groups who are decent people, but have no real leadership.  If you're making a left wing argument, then when it comes to traitors, be careful of who YOU keep company with.  That guilt by association works both ways.


----------



## Jitss617

busybee01 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what would have made that post really powerful?
> 
> 
> If you had backed up your claim that I was lying, with a link proving that my claim,
> 
> ie, that  "With supremacists" and "neo nazis" are an irrelevant fringe in this society and only a lying asshole would claim otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> to some study or something that proved that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you didn't do that....
> 
> 
> Almost as though you know that you CAN'T.
> 
> 
> To be clear, for the slower among us,
> 
> 
> I challenge you to back up your shit claim, that white supremacists and neo nazis are a major force in America..
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to seeing whether you do the norm lib response, and dodge or deflect, or whether you are stupid enough to even TRY to back up this shit, and if so, what incredible shit you post to try to do so.
> 
> 
> FUn times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
> 2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
> Stephen King R-Iowa
> Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
> Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Proud Boys are not neo nazis.
> 
> 2. Trump did condemn the white supremacists and neo nazis in charlottesville repeatedly. That you lie about that, shows that you know you need to lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. They are a neo-Nazi group.
> 
> 2. All you have to look at is then Chief of Staff General Kelly with his face buried in his hands. Trump tried to equate neo-nazis and white supremacists with peaceful protestors who were assaulted with 1 killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are factually wrong.. it’s on video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are factually incorrect. The Proud Boys assaulted several people. That is why they were arrested.
Click to expand...

And they were assulted .. they confronted the racist militant kkk groups now called antifia. They protect free speech


----------



## Jitss617

busybee01 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Proud Boys are not neo nazis.
> 
> 2. Trump did condemn the white supremacists and neo nazis in charlottesville repeatedly. That you lie about that, shows that you know you need to lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. They are a neo-Nazi group.
> 
> 2. All you have to look at is then Chief of Staff General Kelly with his face buried in his hands. Trump tried to equate neo-nazis and white supremacists with peaceful protestors who were assaulted with 1 killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are factually wrong.. it’s on video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are factually incorrect. The Proud Boys assaulted several people. That is why they were arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were assaulted and defended themselves. That is why no arrests were made that night.
> 
> 
> It was not until vile dem politicians saw a change to punish people for daring to stand up to the lefty mob, that they were arrested, days later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong they reviewed the tape. Just because someone knocks a hat off your head does not give you the right to beat someone to a pulp. The force used has to be proportional. If it is not then it is felony assault.
Click to expand...

Knock my hat off? Lol yea you will get knocked out


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
> 2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
> Stephen King R-Iowa
> Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
> Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Proud Boys are not neo nazis.
> 
> 2. Trump did condemn the white supremacists and neo nazis in charlottesville repeatedly. That you lie about that, shows that you know you need to lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. They are a neo-Nazi group.
> 
> 2. All you have to look at is then Chief of Staff General Kelly with his face buried in his hands. Trump tried to equate neo-nazis and white supremacists with peaceful protestors who were assaulted with 1 killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not a Trump supporter, so don't go there when I tell you that you are wrong here.
> 
> The people who created the wallist religion (the whole wall worship thing) ARE nazis.  That is a fact beyond any dispute.  It is also a fact that the wallist religion predominates the effort that was made in Charlottesville.
> 
> Not all of the whites who attended the Charlottesville rally were violent white supremacists.  That is made self evident that the Charlottesville rally was a one and done event.  Contrast that to when the black community has their people shot or beaten in the streets.  The outcry and rallies are constant.
> 
> We do have a problem with foreigners coming to this country.  It is, however, one of our making.  But, the people have a RIGHT to protest and seek out change.  For anyone to say that all the Charlottesville protesters were white supremacists and so forth would be to claim that all black people are homosexuals just because the gay community marches with blacks when the black people feel their civil rights are being trampled on.
> 
> I wholly disagree with the neo nazis that are in charge of the nutty wall idea and I reject the principles of National Socialism.  At the same time, I care about my country, my race, my culture and the destiny of this nation.  I'm just not willing to step on the back of others to make my lot in life more pleasant.  Once you learn that, it will put us closer to sitting down and having a civil conversation that will lead to a solution all sides can live with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will tell you that you are wrong. The fact is that the white supremacists and neo-nazis were at the rally. If you rally alongside of them then you support them. The fact is that as long as you associate with neo-nazis and white supremacists, you support them. The Charlottesville protestors were laregely neo-nazis and white supremacists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Name one other time, in the last 50 years. that a white supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
Click to expand...



The Ku Klux KIan held a rally in the 1980s in Georgia.  According to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, the crowd size was at least 8,000 but not more than 10,000.  One AJC story told of the thousands in the 70s, omitting the one in the 1980s:

The dwindling Klan has fallen on hard times

A lot of the news stories are gone with the wind, but one article says that Bill Wilkinson was the most popular Klan leader of that era - he had more members than David Duke (many he took from Duke when Duke tried to sell the membership list.)

Imperial Wizard Found 30 years after he Fled the USA

It's been so long ago that I cannot remember the year or the town, but a GBI agent is the one who told me their estimates at the time.

I also found this:

What was the largest KKK rally of modern times? Largest Black Panther?? - AR15.COM

Anything to do with the successes of white supremacists, right wingers, constitutionalists, etc. from the late 1970s to the year 2000 has been marginalized and sometimes even censored / erased so that it isn't easy to find on Google.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Proud Boys are not neo nazis.
> 
> 2. Trump did condemn the white supremacists and neo nazis in charlottesville repeatedly. That you lie about that, shows that you know you need to lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. They are a neo-Nazi group.
> 
> 2. All you have to look at is then Chief of Staff General Kelly with his face buried in his hands. Trump tried to equate neo-nazis and white supremacists with peaceful protestors who were assaulted with 1 killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not a Trump supporter, so don't go there when I tell you that you are wrong here.
> 
> The people who created the wallist religion (the whole wall worship thing) ARE nazis.  That is a fact beyond any dispute.  It is also a fact that the wallist religion predominates the effort that was made in Charlottesville.
> 
> Not all of the whites who attended the Charlottesville rally were violent white supremacists.  That is made self evident that the Charlottesville rally was a one and done event.  Contrast that to when the black community has their people shot or beaten in the streets.  The outcry and rallies are constant.
> 
> We do have a problem with foreigners coming to this country.  It is, however, one of our making.  But, the people have a RIGHT to protest and seek out change.  For anyone to say that all the Charlottesville protesters were white supremacists and so forth would be to claim that all black people are homosexuals just because the gay community marches with blacks when the black people feel their civil rights are being trampled on.
> 
> I wholly disagree with the neo nazis that are in charge of the nutty wall idea and I reject the principles of National Socialism.  At the same time, I care about my country, my race, my culture and the destiny of this nation.  I'm just not willing to step on the back of others to make my lot in life more pleasant.  Once you learn that, it will put us closer to sitting down and having a civil conversation that will lead to a solution all sides can live with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will tell you that you are wrong. The fact is that the white supremacists and neo-nazis were at the rally. If you rally alongside of them then you support them. The fact is that as long as you associate with neo-nazis and white supremacists, you support them. The Charlottesville protestors were laregely neo-nazis and white supremacists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Name one other time, in the last 50 years. that a white supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Ku Klux KIan held a rally in the 1980s in Georgia.  According to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, the crowd size was at least 8,000 but not more than 10,000.  One AJC story told of the thousands in the 70s, omitting the one in the 1980s:
> 
> The dwindling Klan has fallen on hard times
> 
> A lot of the news stories are gone with the wind, but one article says that Bill Wilkinson was the most popular Klan leader of that era - he had more members than David Duke (many he took from Duke when Duke tried to sell the membership list.)
> 
> Imperial Wizard Found 30 years after he Fled the USA
> 
> It's been so long ago that I cannot remember the year or the town, but a GBI agent is the one who told me their estimates at the time.
> 
> I also found this:
> 
> What was the largest KKK rally of modern times? Largest Black Panther?? - AR15.COM
> 
> Anything to do with the successes of white supremacists, right wingers, constitutionalists, etc. from the late 1970s to the year 2000 has been marginalized and sometimes even censored / erased so that it isn't easy to find on Google.
Click to expand...




Sorry, none of your links support your claims.

The reason you can't find hard numbers on rally sizes, is because they are so pathetically small.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. They are a neo-Nazi group.
> 
> 2. All you have to look at is then Chief of Staff General Kelly with his face buried in his hands. Trump tried to equate neo-nazis and white supremacists with peaceful protestors who were assaulted with 1 killed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a Trump supporter, so don't go there when I tell you that you are wrong here.
> 
> The people who created the wallist religion (the whole wall worship thing) ARE nazis.  That is a fact beyond any dispute.  It is also a fact that the wallist religion predominates the effort that was made in Charlottesville.
> 
> Not all of the whites who attended the Charlottesville rally were violent white supremacists.  That is made self evident that the Charlottesville rally was a one and done event.  Contrast that to when the black community has their people shot or beaten in the streets.  The outcry and rallies are constant.
> 
> We do have a problem with foreigners coming to this country.  It is, however, one of our making.  But, the people have a RIGHT to protest and seek out change.  For anyone to say that all the Charlottesville protesters were white supremacists and so forth would be to claim that all black people are homosexuals just because the gay community marches with blacks when the black people feel their civil rights are being trampled on.
> 
> I wholly disagree with the neo nazis that are in charge of the nutty wall idea and I reject the principles of National Socialism.  At the same time, I care about my country, my race, my culture and the destiny of this nation.  I'm just not willing to step on the back of others to make my lot in life more pleasant.  Once you learn that, it will put us closer to sitting down and having a civil conversation that will lead to a solution all sides can live with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will tell you that you are wrong. The fact is that the white supremacists and neo-nazis were at the rally. If you rally alongside of them then you support them. The fact is that as long as you associate with neo-nazis and white supremacists, you support them. The Charlottesville protestors were laregely neo-nazis and white supremacists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Name one other time, in the last 50 years. that a white supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Ku Klux KIan held a rally in the 1980s in Georgia.  According to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, the crowd size was at least 8,000 but not more than 10,000.  One AJC story told of the thousands in the 70s, omitting the one in the 1980s:
> 
> The dwindling Klan has fallen on hard times
> 
> A lot of the news stories are gone with the wind, but one article says that Bill Wilkinson was the most popular Klan leader of that era - he had more members than David Duke (many he took from Duke when Duke tried to sell the membership list.)
> 
> Imperial Wizard Found 30 years after he Fled the USA
> 
> It's been so long ago that I cannot remember the year or the town, but a GBI agent is the one who told me their estimates at the time.
> 
> I also found this:
> 
> What was the largest KKK rally of modern times? Largest Black Panther?? - AR15.COM
> 
> Anything to do with the successes of white supremacists, right wingers, constitutionalists, etc. from the late 1970s to the year 2000 has been marginalized and sometimes even censored / erased so that it isn't easy to find on Google.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, none of your links support your claims.
> 
> The reason you can't find hard numbers on rally sizes, is because they are so pathetically small.
Click to expand...


As was noted in one of the links, Wilkinson used to draw thousands.  Regardless of what you can find in on the Internet, with much of the factual stuff being watered down by lefties, you have to bear in mind that the links (at least of them) admit that Wilkinson drew thousands.

David Duke, although a charlatan, was the godfather of the wallist / man the border movement.  A lot of groups thought his Border Watch idea of the 1970s was a great thing and civilian militias took up that cause in the 1990s (along with fighting eminent domain abuses.)  So if people want to credit Trump with the rallies, he is doing so on the coat tails of David Duke.

If I took the time to research Duke's history with crowds, I'd have to say he came close to Wilkinson in delivering on crowd size.  When Duke ran for office, his support level was such that when he ran for governor of Louisiana, President Bush went there and endorsed the Democrat in order to keep Duke from winning.  BTW, the Democrat was later convicted of corruption.

Trump may draw bigger crowds, but that is not the criteria upon which your post was made.  Trump is simply promoting an idea he had no part in  pioneering.  Trump's agenda was first made popular by David Duke (a former nazi that founded his own version of the KKK) and Jim Gilchrst / Chris Simcox who were both racists and Simcox a proven nazi.

David Duke Says He and Donald Trump Have the Same Message

Former KKK leader David Duke: "Donald Trump is not a racist" - CBS News

Just like the far left is having extremists take down monuments, statues, plaques, and memorials to hide our history, they are busy scrubbing news stories that show how many people were in favor of things the left wants the public to hate enough to support liberals for.

I can assure you that I grew up only 15 miles from where the KKK had their national headquarters.  Their yearly rallies in the 1980s and maybe up to the 1990s drew thousands when they were at Stone Mountain.  On the week-ends you would see them on all the street corners and red lights in their robes, soliciting donations.

The media made a lot of false accusations against them from what I could tell. For example, though my over-all knowledge is limited, a Klan leader and I used the same printer.  But, this is the basic story FWIW in one instance:  One of the local KKK leaders was prosecuted for *not *committing perjury.  Somehow, the other guy in the case committed perjury and lied about the Klan leader who would NOT commit perjury.  Convoluted?  Yep.

But, back in those days the LEO community would set up rival Klans and then pay members to con dumb asses into committing illegal acts.  What we thought was amusing and a joke on tv back then is the same M.O. the media uses against Trump.  That is why, now, though I don't like Trump or nazis, I still consider the words of founding father Thomas Paine:

"_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."
_A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government_ (1795)

Correll, in both good and bad, the white people have a history.  You cannot white wash it and ultimately the left won't be able to hide it forever.  But it is what it is.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a Trump supporter, so don't go there when I tell you that you are wrong here.
> 
> The people who created the wallist religion (the whole wall worship thing) ARE nazis.  That is a fact beyond any dispute.  It is also a fact that the wallist religion predominates the effort that was made in Charlottesville.
> 
> Not all of the whites who attended the Charlottesville rally were violent white supremacists.  That is made self evident that the Charlottesville rally was a one and done event.  Contrast that to when the black community has their people shot or beaten in the streets.  The outcry and rallies are constant.
> 
> We do have a problem with foreigners coming to this country.  It is, however, one of our making.  But, the people have a RIGHT to protest and seek out change.  For anyone to say that all the Charlottesville protesters were white supremacists and so forth would be to claim that all black people are homosexuals just because the gay community marches with blacks when the black people feel their civil rights are being trampled on.
> 
> I wholly disagree with the neo nazis that are in charge of the nutty wall idea and I reject the principles of National Socialism.  At the same time, I care about my country, my race, my culture and the destiny of this nation.  I'm just not willing to step on the back of others to make my lot in life more pleasant.  Once you learn that, it will put us closer to sitting down and having a civil conversation that will lead to a solution all sides can live with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will tell you that you are wrong. The fact is that the white supremacists and neo-nazis were at the rally. If you rally alongside of them then you support them. The fact is that as long as you associate with neo-nazis and white supremacists, you support them. The Charlottesville protestors were laregely neo-nazis and white supremacists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Name one other time, in the last 50 years. that a white supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Ku Klux KIan held a rally in the 1980s in Georgia.  According to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, the crowd size was at least 8,000 but not more than 10,000.  One AJC story told of the thousands in the 70s, omitting the one in the 1980s:
> 
> The dwindling Klan has fallen on hard times
> 
> A lot of the news stories are gone with the wind, but one article says that Bill Wilkinson was the most popular Klan leader of that era - he had more members than David Duke (many he took from Duke when Duke tried to sell the membership list.)
> 
> Imperial Wizard Found 30 years after he Fled the USA
> 
> It's been so long ago that I cannot remember the year or the town, but a GBI agent is the one who told me their estimates at the time.
> 
> I also found this:
> 
> What was the largest KKK rally of modern times? Largest Black Panther?? - AR15.COM
> 
> Anything to do with the successes of white supremacists, right wingers, constitutionalists, etc. from the late 1970s to the year 2000 has been marginalized and sometimes even censored / erased so that it isn't easy to find on Google.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, none of your links support your claims.
> 
> The reason you can't find hard numbers on rally sizes, is because they are so pathetically small.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As was noted in one of the links, Wilkinson used to draw thousands.  Regardless of what you can find in on the Internet, with much of the factual stuff being watered down by lefties, you have to bear in mind that the links (at least of them) admit that Wilkinson drew thousands.
> 
> David Duke, although a charlatan, was the godfather of the wallist / man the border movement.  A lot of groups thought his Border Watch idea of the 1970s was a great thing and civilian militias took up that cause in the 1990s (along with fighting eminent domain abuses.)  So if people want to credit Trump with the rallies, he is doing so on the coat tails of David Duke.
> 
> If I took the time to research Duke's history with crowds, I'd have to say he came close to Wilkinson in delivering on crowd size.  When Duke ran for office, his support level was such that when he ran for governor of Louisiana, President Bush went there and endorsed the Democrat in order to keep Duke from winning.  BTW, the Democrat was later convicted of corruption.
> 
> Trump may draw bigger crowds, but that is not the criteria upon which your post was made.  Trump is simply promoting an idea he had no part in  pioneering.  Trump's agenda was first made popular by David Duke (a former nazi that founded his own version of the KKK) and Jim Gilchrst / Chris Simcox who were both racists and Simcox a proven nazi.
> 
> David Duke Says He and Donald Trump Have the Same Message
> 
> Former KKK leader David Duke: "Donald Trump is not a racist" - CBS News
> 
> Just like the far left is having extremists take down monuments, statues, plaques, and memorials to hide our history, they are busy scrubbing news stories that show how many people were in favor of things the left wants the public to hate enough to support liberals for.
> 
> I can assure you that I grew up only 15 miles from where the KKK had their national headquarters.  Their yearly rallies in the 1980s and maybe up to the 1990s drew thousands when they were at Stone Mountain.  On the week-ends you would see them on all the street corners and red lights in their robes, soliciting donations.
> 
> The media made a lot of false accusations against them from what I could tell. For example, though my over-all knowledge is limited, a Klan leader and I used the same printer.  But, this is the basic story FWIW in one instance:  One of the local KKK leaders was prosecuted for *not *committing perjury.  Somehow, the other guy in the case committed perjury and lied about the Klan leader who would NOT commit perjury.  Convoluted?  Yep.
> 
> But, back in those days the LEO community would set up rival Klans and then pay members to con dumb asses into committing illegal acts.  What we thought was amusing and a joke on tv back then is the same M.O. the media uses against Trump.  That is why, now, though I don't like Trump or nazis, I still consider the words of founding father Thomas Paine:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."
> _A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government_ (1795)
> 
> Correll, in both good and bad, the white people have a history.  You cannot white wash it and ultimately the left won't be able to hide it forever.  But it is what it is.
Click to expand...





A lot of typing to try to distract from the fact that you can't show one klan or nazi rally reaching into the hundreds of attendees in the last 50 years.


If, as you claim, that attending that rally showed that they are white supremacist supporters, then why have no other white supremacist rallies managed to get such numbers?



White supremacy is a fringe movement of no importance. That you try to conflate it, with larger, far more mainstream movements and figures, is wrong of you.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will tell you that you are wrong. The fact is that the white supremacists and neo-nazis were at the rally. If you rally alongside of them then you support them. The fact is that as long as you associate with neo-nazis and white supremacists, you support them. The Charlottesville protestors were laregely neo-nazis and white supremacists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one other time, in the last 50 years. that a white supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Ku Klux KIan held a rally in the 1980s in Georgia.  According to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, the crowd size was at least 8,000 but not more than 10,000.  One AJC story told of the thousands in the 70s, omitting the one in the 1980s:
> 
> The dwindling Klan has fallen on hard times
> 
> A lot of the news stories are gone with the wind, but one article says that Bill Wilkinson was the most popular Klan leader of that era - he had more members than David Duke (many he took from Duke when Duke tried to sell the membership list.)
> 
> Imperial Wizard Found 30 years after he Fled the USA
> 
> It's been so long ago that I cannot remember the year or the town, but a GBI agent is the one who told me their estimates at the time.
> 
> I also found this:
> 
> What was the largest KKK rally of modern times? Largest Black Panther?? - AR15.COM
> 
> Anything to do with the successes of white supremacists, right wingers, constitutionalists, etc. from the late 1970s to the year 2000 has been marginalized and sometimes even censored / erased so that it isn't easy to find on Google.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, none of your links support your claims.
> 
> The reason you can't find hard numbers on rally sizes, is because they are so pathetically small.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As was noted in one of the links, Wilkinson used to draw thousands.  Regardless of what you can find in on the Internet, with much of the factual stuff being watered down by lefties, you have to bear in mind that the links (at least of them) admit that Wilkinson drew thousands.
> 
> David Duke, although a charlatan, was the godfather of the wallist / man the border movement.  A lot of groups thought his Border Watch idea of the 1970s was a great thing and civilian militias took up that cause in the 1990s (along with fighting eminent domain abuses.)  So if people want to credit Trump with the rallies, he is doing so on the coat tails of David Duke.
> 
> If I took the time to research Duke's history with crowds, I'd have to say he came close to Wilkinson in delivering on crowd size.  When Duke ran for office, his support level was such that when he ran for governor of Louisiana, President Bush went there and endorsed the Democrat in order to keep Duke from winning.  BTW, the Democrat was later convicted of corruption.
> 
> Trump may draw bigger crowds, but that is not the criteria upon which your post was made.  Trump is simply promoting an idea he had no part in  pioneering.  Trump's agenda was first made popular by David Duke (a former nazi that founded his own version of the KKK) and Jim Gilchrst / Chris Simcox who were both racists and Simcox a proven nazi.
> 
> David Duke Says He and Donald Trump Have the Same Message
> 
> Former KKK leader David Duke: "Donald Trump is not a racist" - CBS News
> 
> Just like the far left is having extremists take down monuments, statues, plaques, and memorials to hide our history, they are busy scrubbing news stories that show how many people were in favor of things the left wants the public to hate enough to support liberals for.
> 
> I can assure you that I grew up only 15 miles from where the KKK had their national headquarters.  Their yearly rallies in the 1980s and maybe up to the 1990s drew thousands when they were at Stone Mountain.  On the week-ends you would see them on all the street corners and red lights in their robes, soliciting donations.
> 
> The media made a lot of false accusations against them from what I could tell. For example, though my over-all knowledge is limited, a Klan leader and I used the same printer.  But, this is the basic story FWIW in one instance:  One of the local KKK leaders was prosecuted for *not *committing perjury.  Somehow, the other guy in the case committed perjury and lied about the Klan leader who would NOT commit perjury.  Convoluted?  Yep.
> 
> But, back in those days the LEO community would set up rival Klans and then pay members to con dumb asses into committing illegal acts.  What we thought was amusing and a joke on tv back then is the same M.O. the media uses against Trump.  That is why, now, though I don't like Trump or nazis, I still consider the words of founding father Thomas Paine:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."
> _A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government_ (1795)
> 
> Correll, in both good and bad, the white people have a history.  You cannot white wash it and ultimately the left won't be able to hide it forever.  But it is what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of typing to try to distract from the fact that you can't show one klan or nazi rally reaching into the hundreds of attendees in the last 50 years.
> 
> 
> If, as you claim, that attending that rally showed that they are white supremacist supporters, then why have no other white supremacist rallies managed to get such numbers?
> 
> 
> 
> White supremacy is a fringe movement of no importance. That you try to conflate it, with larger, far more mainstream movements and figures, is wrong of you.
Click to expand...


Now you* ARE* lying.  Some of the links do show attendance at being in the thousands.    

Interestingly, just last year 55 percent of whites believed that discrimination against whites exists.

The Invisible Empire: The History of the KKK and Why People Joined

So you get the Charlottesville rally and it's one and done.  Where are the fruits of your labors other than a fat ass, rich , globalist that cost your the House of Representatives?  You keep crowing and you keep losing.

Correll you are the most self hating white activist wannabe I ever met.  You think Trump is God and you look down on the right wing conservatives from the past AND you're unable to appreciate the pioneers of the political agenda you subscribe to.  

Do you consider that Trump, with all the support you think he has, cannot win a single court case and the Mueller report just sits there in limbo.  One of the pioneers of *YOUR* cause once faced a jury.  The charge was* sedition*.  You know damn well the feds brought their very best prosecutors to town.  It was 1988.  Among the defendants was Louis Beam.  He represented himself.  He was acquitted.  So, he can win his case and Trump cannot get a clear cut victory on a damn thing he does.  Rich globalist with million dollar lawyers and you guys are still stuck in the mud.

Fort Smith sedition trial - Wikipedia

You can argue with me all day long, but you just suck up to the MSM when it's convenient.  The problem you have is you are trying to marginalize the very people that pioneered your agenda into more worship for a total dumb ass that can automatically get major headlines in an atmosphere wherein mover half the whites think they get discriminated against, but fewer are willing to support him on that issue than they were willing to support the KKK when the Klan approval ratings were much lower.  Your man is a loser.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one other time, in the last 50 years. that a white supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ku Klux KIan held a rally in the 1980s in Georgia.  According to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, the crowd size was at least 8,000 but not more than 10,000.  One AJC story told of the thousands in the 70s, omitting the one in the 1980s:
> 
> The dwindling Klan has fallen on hard times
> 
> A lot of the news stories are gone with the wind, but one article says that Bill Wilkinson was the most popular Klan leader of that era - he had more members than David Duke (many he took from Duke when Duke tried to sell the membership list.)
> 
> Imperial Wizard Found 30 years after he Fled the USA
> 
> It's been so long ago that I cannot remember the year or the town, but a GBI agent is the one who told me their estimates at the time.
> 
> I also found this:
> 
> What was the largest KKK rally of modern times? Largest Black Panther?? - AR15.COM
> 
> Anything to do with the successes of white supremacists, right wingers, constitutionalists, etc. from the late 1970s to the year 2000 has been marginalized and sometimes even censored / erased so that it isn't easy to find on Google.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, none of your links support your claims.
> 
> The reason you can't find hard numbers on rally sizes, is because they are so pathetically small.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As was noted in one of the links, Wilkinson used to draw thousands.  Regardless of what you can find in on the Internet, with much of the factual stuff being watered down by lefties, you have to bear in mind that the links (at least of them) admit that Wilkinson drew thousands.
> 
> David Duke, although a charlatan, was the godfather of the wallist / man the border movement.  A lot of groups thought his Border Watch idea of the 1970s was a great thing and civilian militias took up that cause in the 1990s (along with fighting eminent domain abuses.)  So if people want to credit Trump with the rallies, he is doing so on the coat tails of David Duke.
> 
> If I took the time to research Duke's history with crowds, I'd have to say he came close to Wilkinson in delivering on crowd size.  When Duke ran for office, his support level was such that when he ran for governor of Louisiana, President Bush went there and endorsed the Democrat in order to keep Duke from winning.  BTW, the Democrat was later convicted of corruption.
> 
> Trump may draw bigger crowds, but that is not the criteria upon which your post was made.  Trump is simply promoting an idea he had no part in  pioneering.  Trump's agenda was first made popular by David Duke (a former nazi that founded his own version of the KKK) and Jim Gilchrst / Chris Simcox who were both racists and Simcox a proven nazi.
> 
> David Duke Says He and Donald Trump Have the Same Message
> 
> Former KKK leader David Duke: "Donald Trump is not a racist" - CBS News
> 
> Just like the far left is having extremists take down monuments, statues, plaques, and memorials to hide our history, they are busy scrubbing news stories that show how many people were in favor of things the left wants the public to hate enough to support liberals for.
> 
> I can assure you that I grew up only 15 miles from where the KKK had their national headquarters.  Their yearly rallies in the 1980s and maybe up to the 1990s drew thousands when they were at Stone Mountain.  On the week-ends you would see them on all the street corners and red lights in their robes, soliciting donations.
> 
> The media made a lot of false accusations against them from what I could tell. For example, though my over-all knowledge is limited, a Klan leader and I used the same printer.  But, this is the basic story FWIW in one instance:  One of the local KKK leaders was prosecuted for *not *committing perjury.  Somehow, the other guy in the case committed perjury and lied about the Klan leader who would NOT commit perjury.  Convoluted?  Yep.
> 
> But, back in those days the LEO community would set up rival Klans and then pay members to con dumb asses into committing illegal acts.  What we thought was amusing and a joke on tv back then is the same M.O. the media uses against Trump.  That is why, now, though I don't like Trump or nazis, I still consider the words of founding father Thomas Paine:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."
> _A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government_ (1795)
> 
> Correll, in both good and bad, the white people have a history.  You cannot white wash it and ultimately the left won't be able to hide it forever.  But it is what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of typing to try to distract from the fact that you can't show one klan or nazi rally reaching into the hundreds of attendees in the last 50 years.
> 
> 
> If, as you claim, that attending that rally showed that they are white supremacist supporters, then why have no other white supremacist rallies managed to get such numbers?
> 
> 
> 
> White supremacy is a fringe movement of no importance. That you try to conflate it, with larger, far more mainstream movements and figures, is wrong of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you* ARE* lying.  Some of the links do show attendance at being in the thousands.
> 
> Interestingly, just last year 55 percent of whites believed that discrimination against whites exists.
> 
> The Invisible Empire: The History of the KKK and Why People Joined
> 
> So you get the Charlottesville rally and it's one and done.  Where are the fruits of your labors other than a fat ass, rich , globalist that cost your the House of Representatives?  You keep crowing and you keep losing.
> ......
Click to expand...




1. I didn't see any supporting evidence on "thousands". The biggest reference I saw in those links was 50, Please point it out to me. Cut and paste the important part.

2. White supremacy is a fringe movement of no importance. That you try to conflate it, with larger, far more mainstream movements and figures, is wrong of you.

3. Trump would have won the mid terms if he built the Wall.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ku Klux KIan held a rally in the 1980s in Georgia.  According to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, the crowd size was at least 8,000 but not more than 10,000.  One AJC story told of the thousands in the 70s, omitting the one in the 1980s:
> 
> The dwindling Klan has fallen on hard times
> 
> A lot of the news stories are gone with the wind, but one article says that Bill Wilkinson was the most popular Klan leader of that era - he had more members than David Duke (many he took from Duke when Duke tried to sell the membership list.)
> 
> Imperial Wizard Found 30 years after he Fled the USA
> 
> It's been so long ago that I cannot remember the year or the town, but a GBI agent is the one who told me their estimates at the time.
> 
> I also found this:
> 
> What was the largest KKK rally of modern times? Largest Black Panther?? - AR15.COM
> 
> Anything to do with the successes of white supremacists, right wingers, constitutionalists, etc. from the late 1970s to the year 2000 has been marginalized and sometimes even censored / erased so that it isn't easy to find on Google.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, none of your links support your claims.
> 
> The reason you can't find hard numbers on rally sizes, is because they are so pathetically small.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As was noted in one of the links, Wilkinson used to draw thousands.  Regardless of what you can find in on the Internet, with much of the factual stuff being watered down by lefties, you have to bear in mind that the links (at least of them) admit that Wilkinson drew thousands.
> 
> David Duke, although a charlatan, was the godfather of the wallist / man the border movement.  A lot of groups thought his Border Watch idea of the 1970s was a great thing and civilian militias took up that cause in the 1990s (along with fighting eminent domain abuses.)  So if people want to credit Trump with the rallies, he is doing so on the coat tails of David Duke.
> 
> If I took the time to research Duke's history with crowds, I'd have to say he came close to Wilkinson in delivering on crowd size.  When Duke ran for office, his support level was such that when he ran for governor of Louisiana, President Bush went there and endorsed the Democrat in order to keep Duke from winning.  BTW, the Democrat was later convicted of corruption.
> 
> Trump may draw bigger crowds, but that is not the criteria upon which your post was made.  Trump is simply promoting an idea he had no part in  pioneering.  Trump's agenda was first made popular by David Duke (a former nazi that founded his own version of the KKK) and Jim Gilchrst / Chris Simcox who were both racists and Simcox a proven nazi.
> 
> David Duke Says He and Donald Trump Have the Same Message
> 
> Former KKK leader David Duke: "Donald Trump is not a racist" - CBS News
> 
> Just like the far left is having extremists take down monuments, statues, plaques, and memorials to hide our history, they are busy scrubbing news stories that show how many people were in favor of things the left wants the public to hate enough to support liberals for.
> 
> I can assure you that I grew up only 15 miles from where the KKK had their national headquarters.  Their yearly rallies in the 1980s and maybe up to the 1990s drew thousands when they were at Stone Mountain.  On the week-ends you would see them on all the street corners and red lights in their robes, soliciting donations.
> 
> The media made a lot of false accusations against them from what I could tell. For example, though my over-all knowledge is limited, a Klan leader and I used the same printer.  But, this is the basic story FWIW in one instance:  One of the local KKK leaders was prosecuted for *not *committing perjury.  Somehow, the other guy in the case committed perjury and lied about the Klan leader who would NOT commit perjury.  Convoluted?  Yep.
> 
> But, back in those days the LEO community would set up rival Klans and then pay members to con dumb asses into committing illegal acts.  What we thought was amusing and a joke on tv back then is the same M.O. the media uses against Trump.  That is why, now, though I don't like Trump or nazis, I still consider the words of founding father Thomas Paine:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."
> _A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government_ (1795)
> 
> Correll, in both good and bad, the white people have a history.  You cannot white wash it and ultimately the left won't be able to hide it forever.  But it is what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of typing to try to distract from the fact that you can't show one klan or nazi rally reaching into the hundreds of attendees in the last 50 years.
> 
> 
> If, as you claim, that attending that rally showed that they are white supremacist supporters, then why have no other white supremacist rallies managed to get such numbers?
> 
> 
> 
> White supremacy is a fringe movement of no importance. That you try to conflate it, with larger, far more mainstream movements and figures, is wrong of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you* ARE* lying.  Some of the links do show attendance at being in the thousands.
> 
> Interestingly, just last year 55 percent of whites believed that discrimination against whites exists.
> 
> The Invisible Empire: The History of the KKK and Why People Joined
> 
> So you get the Charlottesville rally and it's one and done.  Where are the fruits of your labors other than a fat ass, rich , globalist that cost your the House of Representatives?  You keep crowing and you keep losing.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I didn't see any supporting evidence on "thousands". The biggest reference I saw in those links was 50, Please point it out to me. Cut and paste the important part.
> 
> 2. White supremacy is a fringe movement of no importance. That you try to conflate it, with larger, far more mainstream movements and figures, is wrong of you.
> 
> 3. Trump would have won the mid terms if he built the Wall.
Click to expand...


You can blow smoke up peoples ass, but they don't buy it.  Neither do I because, unlike you, I was there and you weren't.  I don't need supporting evidence to see what I saw.

In the 1980s and 1990s the left wing media tried to marginalize *everything* the right did.  Once there was a white's rights rally a county over from me.  Our local paper said between two and three hundred people attended.  I called the guy who wrote the story.  I asked him if he were drunk that Saturday.  The rally was roped off and you had to pass by LEOs to get in.  Outside the actual rally was the general public.  Our church group passed out over 800 flyers to those who went INTO the rally site past the police lines.  We gave out quite a few to the people that did not go beyond the police lines.

There are barely any records of the many protests and counter protests!  But, honestly son, I don't need no stinking link.  Those people who heard about the barren streets when Trump came to town and thousands actually attended should be intelligent enough to understand what is going on.

Your persistent efforts to promote a false narrative do more to discredit what you say than any effort the left can come up with.  America was built on the twin pillars of race and religion.  You cannot talk about your culture without addressing that *FACT*.  For that reason, you see white racists, separatists, and even supremacists of every sort embedded in *every* effort that is aimed at preserving our culture.  The John Birch Society, Young Republicans Club, and the Conservative Caucasus all like the Republican Party have had white supremacists in them for as long as I've been alive.

Hell, the last living klansman of the original KKK when it was rebirthed atop Stone Mountain was a Mason and Masons met routinely on his property and in his buildings.  You are either ignorant or a pathological liar to dismiss the working relationship.  Man, we aren't recruiting people for anything on this site, so it is quite disingenuous to claim that people like David Duke and neo nazis are some kind of "_fringe movement_."   Duke pioneered the idea of Border Watch which was adopted by Jim Gilchrist and Chris Simcox.  Gilchrist was a proven liar while Duke and Simcox are former nazis.  Without them, there would *never *have been an actual effort to man the border and then suggest build a wall.  They preceded Trump, who took up the banner - and even had the gall to claim he didn't know David Duke.  It's been proven over and over and over again, that is a LIE.  Trump's known Duke for years!

I would hold meetings and they were pretty well infiltrated by the National Alliance, neo - nazis,  and KKK types.  *BEFORE* the media and LEOs began underwriting the nazis and that idiotic build a wall idea, we were converting a lot of the people those organizations sent in to infiltrate the constitutionalists.  Dude, all you guys have a commonality with what you dishonestly call "_fringe groups_."  Without them, you wouldn't even have a movement.

I disagree with you because *you* represent their socialist solutions.  If you don't know the history of who you're following and the political road that led to Trump, then you need someone to guide you through that maze.  I agree with a lot of the people who have DISHONESTLY been identified as white supremacists when their only political crime is to want to protect, preserve, and advance our culture... which cannot be done without defending the race.  It simply cannot be done.  You cannot whitewash history enough to deny that fact.  The real issue is, if you build your culture on lies AND on the backs of other races and cultures, you will fail.  Know that because the reign of Trump coming to an end IS going to happen and I don't see you guys having any credible leadership once ol' moneybags is history. 

What I do see, however, is people like you being duped into a strategy that is counterproductive to Freedom and Liberty.  You're not going to win without a fight.  You are so caught up in believing your own lies that you don't have a plan B for when the SHTF.  So, you don't see the need for property Rights and the Right to Privacy... and the CIA is always saying that "_information is the ultimate weapon_."  I'm going to tell you something for your own good:  Without the ability to resist tyranny, you* will *lose this country.  Talk shit about me all you like, but it's idiotic strategies like yours that is making resistance impossible.  You are your own worst enemy; fighting to destroy those who can do the most to help you.  You participate in your own genocide - though now you cannot feign ignorance.  If you're refusing to wake up, it's now just plain stupidity.  Rant over.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, none of your links support your claims.
> 
> The reason you can't find hard numbers on rally sizes, is because they are so pathetically small.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As was noted in one of the links, Wilkinson used to draw thousands.  Regardless of what you can find in on the Internet, with much of the factual stuff being watered down by lefties, you have to bear in mind that the links (at least of them) admit that Wilkinson drew thousands.
> 
> David Duke, although a charlatan, was the godfather of the wallist / man the border movement.  A lot of groups thought his Border Watch idea of the 1970s was a great thing and civilian militias took up that cause in the 1990s (along with fighting eminent domain abuses.)  So if people want to credit Trump with the rallies, he is doing so on the coat tails of David Duke.
> 
> If I took the time to research Duke's history with crowds, I'd have to say he came close to Wilkinson in delivering on crowd size.  When Duke ran for office, his support level was such that when he ran for governor of Louisiana, President Bush went there and endorsed the Democrat in order to keep Duke from winning.  BTW, the Democrat was later convicted of corruption.
> 
> Trump may draw bigger crowds, but that is not the criteria upon which your post was made.  Trump is simply promoting an idea he had no part in  pioneering.  Trump's agenda was first made popular by David Duke (a former nazi that founded his own version of the KKK) and Jim Gilchrst / Chris Simcox who were both racists and Simcox a proven nazi.
> 
> David Duke Says He and Donald Trump Have the Same Message
> 
> Former KKK leader David Duke: "Donald Trump is not a racist" - CBS News
> 
> Just like the far left is having extremists take down monuments, statues, plaques, and memorials to hide our history, they are busy scrubbing news stories that show how many people were in favor of things the left wants the public to hate enough to support liberals for.
> 
> I can assure you that I grew up only 15 miles from where the KKK had their national headquarters.  Their yearly rallies in the 1980s and maybe up to the 1990s drew thousands when they were at Stone Mountain.  On the week-ends you would see them on all the street corners and red lights in their robes, soliciting donations.
> 
> The media made a lot of false accusations against them from what I could tell. For example, though my over-all knowledge is limited, a Klan leader and I used the same printer.  But, this is the basic story FWIW in one instance:  One of the local KKK leaders was prosecuted for *not *committing perjury.  Somehow, the other guy in the case committed perjury and lied about the Klan leader who would NOT commit perjury.  Convoluted?  Yep.
> 
> But, back in those days the LEO community would set up rival Klans and then pay members to con dumb asses into committing illegal acts.  What we thought was amusing and a joke on tv back then is the same M.O. the media uses against Trump.  That is why, now, though I don't like Trump or nazis, I still consider the words of founding father Thomas Paine:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."
> _A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government_ (1795)
> 
> Correll, in both good and bad, the white people have a history.  You cannot white wash it and ultimately the left won't be able to hide it forever.  But it is what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of typing to try to distract from the fact that you can't show one klan or nazi rally reaching into the hundreds of attendees in the last 50 years.
> 
> 
> If, as you claim, that attending that rally showed that they are white supremacist supporters, then why have no other white supremacist rallies managed to get such numbers?
> 
> 
> 
> White supremacy is a fringe movement of no importance. That you try to conflate it, with larger, far more mainstream movements and figures, is wrong of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you* ARE* lying.  Some of the links do show attendance at being in the thousands.
> 
> Interestingly, just last year 55 percent of whites believed that discrimination against whites exists.
> 
> The Invisible Empire: The History of the KKK and Why People Joined
> 
> So you get the Charlottesville rally and it's one and done.  Where are the fruits of your labors other than a fat ass, rich , globalist that cost your the House of Representatives?  You keep crowing and you keep losing.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I didn't see any supporting evidence on "thousands". The biggest reference I saw in those links was 50, Please point it out to me. Cut and paste the important part.
> 
> 2. White supremacy is a fringe movement of no importance. That you try to conflate it, with larger, far more mainstream movements and figures, is wrong of you.
> 
> 3. Trump would have won the mid terms if he built the Wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can blow smoke up peoples ass, but they don't buy it.  Neither do I because, unlike you, I was there and you weren't.  I don't need supporting evidence to see what I saw.
> 
> In the 1980s and 1990s the left wing media tried to marginalize *everything* the right did.  Once there was a white's rights rally a county over from me.  Our local paper said between two and three hundred people attended.  I called the guy who wrote the story.  I asked him if he were drunk that Saturday.  The rally was roped off and you had to pass by LEOs to get in.  Outside the actual rally was the general public.  Our church group passed out over 800 flyers to those who went INTO the rally site past the police lines.  We gave out quite a few to the people that did not go beyond the police lines.
> 
> There are barely any records of the many protests and counter protests!  But, honestly son, I don't need no stinking link.  Those people who heard about the barren streets when Trump came to town and thousands actually attended should be intelligent enough to understand what is going on.
> 
> Your persistent efforts to promote a false narrative do more to discredit what you say than any effort the left can come up with.  America was built on the twin pillars of race and religion.  You cannot talk about your culture without addressing that *FACT*.  For that reason, you see white racists, separatists, and even supremacists of every sort embedded in *every* effort that is aimed at preserving our culture.  The John Birch Society, Young Republicans Club, and the Conservative Caucasus all like the Republican Party have had white supremacists in them for as long as I've been alive.
> 
> Hell, the last living klansman of the original KKK when it was rebirthed atop Stone Mountain was a Mason and Masons met routinely on his property and in his buildings.  You are either ignorant or a pathological liar to dismiss the working relationship.  Man, we aren't recruiting people for anything on this site, so it is quite disingenuous to claim that people like David Duke and neo nazis are some kind of "_fringe movement_."   Duke pioneered the idea of Border Watch which was adopted by Jim Gilchrist and Chris Simcox.  Gilchrist was a proven liar while Duke and Simcox are former nazis.  Without them, there would *never *have been an actual effort to man the border and then suggest build a wall.  They preceded Trump, who took up the banner - and even had the gall to claim he didn't know David Duke.  It's been proven over and over and over again, that is a LIE.  Trump's known Duke for years!
> 
> I would hold meetings and they were pretty well infiltrated by the National Alliance, neo - nazis,  and KKK types.  *BEFORE* the media and LEOs began underwriting the nazis and that idiotic build a wall idea, we were converting a lot of the people those organizations sent in to infiltrate the constitutionalists.  Dude, all you guys have a commonality with what you dishonestly call "_fringe groups_."  Without them, you wouldn't even have a movement.
> 
> I disagree with you because *you* represent their socialist solutions.  If you don't know the history of who you're following and the political road that led to Trump, then you need someone to guide you through that maze.  I agree with a lot of the people who have DISHONESTLY been identified as white supremacists when their only political crime is to want to protect, preserve, and advance our culture... which cannot be done without defending the race.  It simply cannot be done.  You cannot whitewash history enough to deny that fact.  The real issue is, if you build your culture on lies AND on the backs of other races and cultures, you will fail.  Know that because the reign of Trump coming to an end IS going to happen and I don't see you guys having any credible leadership once ol' moneybags is history.
> 
> What I do see, however, is people like you being duped into a strategy that is counterproductive to Freedom and Liberty.  You're not going to win without a fight.  You are so caught up in believing your own lies that you don't have a plan B for when the SHTF.  So, you don't see the need for property Rights and the Right to Privacy... and the CIA is always saying that "_information is the ultimate weapon_."  I'm going to tell you something for your own good:  Without the ability to resist tyranny, you* will *lose this country.  Talk shit about me all you like, but it's idiotic strategies like yours that is making resistance impossible.  You are your own worst enemy; fighting to destroy those who can do the most to help you.  You participate in your own genocide - though now you cannot feign ignorance.  If you're refusing to wake up, it's now just plain stupidity.  Rant over.
Click to expand...





1. This country was not founded on racism.

2. The white supremacists are a fringe that can't do shit.


----------



## jillian

Correll said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fucktard would say a lie like that.
> 
> 
> You ever say that to a republican's face, or are you only a complete asshole online?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that it is more correct to state that bigots and racists are more attracted to the Republicans than they are Dems. Most GoPers aren't like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> With the examples of IM2, and Paul on this very site you can say that? LOL!!!!!
Click to expand...

Rogue lowlife criminal “militia”

Psychotic white supremacist trumpkins


----------



## jillian

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> As was noted in one of the links, Wilkinson used to draw thousands.  Regardless of what you can find in on the Internet, with much of the factual stuff being watered down by lefties, you have to bear in mind that the links (at least of them) admit that Wilkinson drew thousands.
> 
> David Duke, although a charlatan, was the godfather of the wallist / man the border movement.  A lot of groups thought his Border Watch idea of the 1970s was a great thing and civilian militias took up that cause in the 1990s (along with fighting eminent domain abuses.)  So if people want to credit Trump with the rallies, he is doing so on the coat tails of David Duke.
> 
> If I took the time to research Duke's history with crowds, I'd have to say he came close to Wilkinson in delivering on crowd size.  When Duke ran for office, his support level was such that when he ran for governor of Louisiana, President Bush went there and endorsed the Democrat in order to keep Duke from winning.  BTW, the Democrat was later convicted of corruption.
> 
> Trump may draw bigger crowds, but that is not the criteria upon which your post was made.  Trump is simply promoting an idea he had no part in  pioneering.  Trump's agenda was first made popular by David Duke (a former nazi that founded his own version of the KKK) and Jim Gilchrst / Chris Simcox who were both racists and Simcox a proven nazi.
> 
> David Duke Says He and Donald Trump Have the Same Message
> 
> Former KKK leader David Duke: "Donald Trump is not a racist" - CBS News
> 
> Just like the far left is having extremists take down monuments, statues, plaques, and memorials to hide our history, they are busy scrubbing news stories that show how many people were in favor of things the left wants the public to hate enough to support liberals for.
> 
> I can assure you that I grew up only 15 miles from where the KKK had their national headquarters.  Their yearly rallies in the 1980s and maybe up to the 1990s drew thousands when they were at Stone Mountain.  On the week-ends you would see them on all the street corners and red lights in their robes, soliciting donations.
> 
> The media made a lot of false accusations against them from what I could tell. For example, though my over-all knowledge is limited, a Klan leader and I used the same printer.  But, this is the basic story FWIW in one instance:  One of the local KKK leaders was prosecuted for *not *committing perjury.  Somehow, the other guy in the case committed perjury and lied about the Klan leader who would NOT commit perjury.  Convoluted?  Yep.
> 
> But, back in those days the LEO community would set up rival Klans and then pay members to con dumb asses into committing illegal acts.  What we thought was amusing and a joke on tv back then is the same M.O. the media uses against Trump.  That is why, now, though I don't like Trump or nazis, I still consider the words of founding father Thomas Paine:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."
> _A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government_ (1795)
> 
> Correll, in both good and bad, the white people have a history.  You cannot white wash it and ultimately the left won't be able to hide it forever.  But it is what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of typing to try to distract from the fact that you can't show one klan or nazi rally reaching into the hundreds of attendees in the last 50 years.
> 
> 
> If, as you claim, that attending that rally showed that they are white supremacist supporters, then why have no other white supremacist rallies managed to get such numbers?
> 
> 
> 
> White supremacy is a fringe movement of no importance. That you try to conflate it, with larger, far more mainstream movements and figures, is wrong of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you* ARE* lying.  Some of the links do show attendance at being in the thousands.
> 
> Interestingly, just last year 55 percent of whites believed that discrimination against whites exists.
> 
> The Invisible Empire: The History of the KKK and Why People Joined
> 
> So you get the Charlottesville rally and it's one and done.  Where are the fruits of your labors other than a fat ass, rich , globalist that cost your the House of Representatives?  You keep crowing and you keep losing.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I didn't see any supporting evidence on "thousands". The biggest reference I saw in those links was 50, Please point it out to me. Cut and paste the important part.
> 
> 2. White supremacy is a fringe movement of no importance. That you try to conflate it, with larger, far more mainstream movements and figures, is wrong of you.
> 
> 3. Trump would have won the mid terms if he built the Wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can blow smoke up peoples ass, but they don't buy it.  Neither do I because, unlike you, I was there and you weren't.  I don't need supporting evidence to see what I saw.
> 
> In the 1980s and 1990s the left wing media tried to marginalize *everything* the right did.  Once there was a white's rights rally a county over from me.  Our local paper said between two and three hundred people attended.  I called the guy who wrote the story.  I asked him if he were drunk that Saturday.  The rally was roped off and you had to pass by LEOs to get in.  Outside the actual rally was the general public.  Our church group passed out over 800 flyers to those who went INTO the rally site past the police lines.  We gave out quite a few to the people that did not go beyond the police lines.
> 
> There are barely any records of the many protests and counter protests!  But, honestly son, I don't need no stinking link.  Those people who heard about the barren streets when Trump came to town and thousands actually attended should be intelligent enough to understand what is going on.
> 
> Your persistent efforts to promote a false narrative do more to discredit what you say than any effort the left can come up with.  America was built on the twin pillars of race and religion.  You cannot talk about your culture without addressing that *FACT*.  For that reason, you see white racists, separatists, and even supremacists of every sort embedded in *every* effort that is aimed at preserving our culture.  The John Birch Society, Young Republicans Club, and the Conservative Caucasus all like the Republican Party have had white supremacists in them for as long as I've been alive.
> 
> Hell, the last living klansman of the original KKK when it was rebirthed atop Stone Mountain was a Mason and Masons met routinely on his property and in his buildings.  You are either ignorant or a pathological liar to dismiss the working relationship.  Man, we aren't recruiting people for anything on this site, so it is quite disingenuous to claim that people like David Duke and neo nazis are some kind of "_fringe movement_."   Duke pioneered the idea of Border Watch which was adopted by Jim Gilchrist and Chris Simcox.  Gilchrist was a proven liar while Duke and Simcox are former nazis.  Without them, there would *never *have been an actual effort to man the border and then suggest build a wall.  They preceded Trump, who took up the banner - and even had the gall to claim he didn't know David Duke.  It's been proven over and over and over again, that is a LIE.  Trump's known Duke for years!
> 
> I would hold meetings and they were pretty well infiltrated by the National Alliance, neo - nazis,  and KKK types.  *BEFORE* the media and LEOs began underwriting the nazis and that idiotic build a wall idea, we were converting a lot of the people those organizations sent in to infiltrate the constitutionalists.  Dude, all you guys have a commonality with what you dishonestly call "_fringe groups_."  Without them, you wouldn't even have a movement.
> 
> I disagree with you because *you* represent their socialist solutions.  If you don't know the history of who you're following and the political road that led to Trump, then you need someone to guide you through that maze.  I agree with a lot of the people who have DISHONESTLY been identified as white supremacists when their only political crime is to want to protect, preserve, and advance our culture... which cannot be done without defending the race.  It simply cannot be done.  You cannot whitewash history enough to deny that fact.  The real issue is, if you build your culture on lies AND on the backs of other races and cultures, you will fail.  Know that because the reign of Trump coming to an end IS going to happen and I don't see you guys having any credible leadership once ol' moneybags is history.
> 
> What I do see, however, is people like you being duped into a strategy that is counterproductive to Freedom and Liberty.  You're not going to win without a fight.  You are so caught up in believing your own lies that you don't have a plan B for when the SHTF.  So, you don't see the need for property Rights and the Right to Privacy... and the CIA is always saying that "_information is the ultimate weapon_."  I'm going to tell you something for your own good:  Without the ability to resist tyranny, you* will *lose this country.  Talk shit about me all you like, but it's idiotic strategies like yours that is making resistance impossible.  You are your own worst enemy; fighting to destroy those who can do the most to help you.  You participate in your own genocide - though now you cannot feign ignorance.  If you're refusing to wake up, it's now just plain stupidity.  Rant over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. This country was not founded on racism.
> 
> 2. The white supremacists are a fringe that can't do shit.
Click to expand...

Donald has proven they are not the fringe of the trump party. 

It is delusional to ignore that


----------



## Correll

jillian said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fucktard would say a lie like that.
> 
> 
> You ever say that to a republican's face, or are you only a complete asshole online?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that it is more correct to state that bigots and racists are more attracted to the Republicans than they are Dems. Most GoPers aren't like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> With the examples of IM2, and Paul on this very site you can say that? LOL!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rogue lowlife criminal “militia”
> 
> Psychotic white supremacist trumpkins
Click to expand...




Psychos who held criminals for the police to show up?


Wow. What vile monsters. 


Hey? Think Hollywood would make a movie about that? Imagine the TERROR.


----------



## Correll

jillian said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of typing to try to distract from the fact that you can't show one klan or nazi rally reaching into the hundreds of attendees in the last 50 years.
> 
> 
> If, as you claim, that attending that rally showed that they are white supremacist supporters, then why have no other white supremacist rallies managed to get such numbers?
> 
> 
> 
> White supremacy is a fringe movement of no importance. That you try to conflate it, with larger, far more mainstream movements and figures, is wrong of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you* ARE* lying.  Some of the links do show attendance at being in the thousands.
> 
> Interestingly, just last year 55 percent of whites believed that discrimination against whites exists.
> 
> The Invisible Empire: The History of the KKK and Why People Joined
> 
> So you get the Charlottesville rally and it's one and done.  Where are the fruits of your labors other than a fat ass, rich , globalist that cost your the House of Representatives?  You keep crowing and you keep losing.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I didn't see any supporting evidence on "thousands". The biggest reference I saw in those links was 50, Please point it out to me. Cut and paste the important part.
> 
> 2. White supremacy is a fringe movement of no importance. That you try to conflate it, with larger, far more mainstream movements and figures, is wrong of you.
> 
> 3. Trump would have won the mid terms if he built the Wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can blow smoke up peoples ass, but they don't buy it.  Neither do I because, unlike you, I was there and you weren't.  I don't need supporting evidence to see what I saw.
> 
> In the 1980s and 1990s the left wing media tried to marginalize *everything* the right did.  Once there was a white's rights rally a county over from me.  Our local paper said between two and three hundred people attended.  I called the guy who wrote the story.  I asked him if he were drunk that Saturday.  The rally was roped off and you had to pass by LEOs to get in.  Outside the actual rally was the general public.  Our church group passed out over 800 flyers to those who went INTO the rally site past the police lines.  We gave out quite a few to the people that did not go beyond the police lines.
> 
> There are barely any records of the many protests and counter protests!  But, honestly son, I don't need no stinking link.  Those people who heard about the barren streets when Trump came to town and thousands actually attended should be intelligent enough to understand what is going on.
> 
> Your persistent efforts to promote a false narrative do more to discredit what you say than any effort the left can come up with.  America was built on the twin pillars of race and religion.  You cannot talk about your culture without addressing that *FACT*.  For that reason, you see white racists, separatists, and even supremacists of every sort embedded in *every* effort that is aimed at preserving our culture.  The John Birch Society, Young Republicans Club, and the Conservative Caucasus all like the Republican Party have had white supremacists in them for as long as I've been alive.
> 
> Hell, the last living klansman of the original KKK when it was rebirthed atop Stone Mountain was a Mason and Masons met routinely on his property and in his buildings.  You are either ignorant or a pathological liar to dismiss the working relationship.  Man, we aren't recruiting people for anything on this site, so it is quite disingenuous to claim that people like David Duke and neo nazis are some kind of "_fringe movement_."   Duke pioneered the idea of Border Watch which was adopted by Jim Gilchrist and Chris Simcox.  Gilchrist was a proven liar while Duke and Simcox are former nazis.  Without them, there would *never *have been an actual effort to man the border and then suggest build a wall.  They preceded Trump, who took up the banner - and even had the gall to claim he didn't know David Duke.  It's been proven over and over and over again, that is a LIE.  Trump's known Duke for years!
> 
> I would hold meetings and they were pretty well infiltrated by the National Alliance, neo - nazis,  and KKK types.  *BEFORE* the media and LEOs began underwriting the nazis and that idiotic build a wall idea, we were converting a lot of the people those organizations sent in to infiltrate the constitutionalists.  Dude, all you guys have a commonality with what you dishonestly call "_fringe groups_."  Without them, you wouldn't even have a movement.
> 
> I disagree with you because *you* represent their socialist solutions.  If you don't know the history of who you're following and the political road that led to Trump, then you need someone to guide you through that maze.  I agree with a lot of the people who have DISHONESTLY been identified as white supremacists when their only political crime is to want to protect, preserve, and advance our culture... which cannot be done without defending the race.  It simply cannot be done.  You cannot whitewash history enough to deny that fact.  The real issue is, if you build your culture on lies AND on the backs of other races and cultures, you will fail.  Know that because the reign of Trump coming to an end IS going to happen and I don't see you guys having any credible leadership once ol' moneybags is history.
> 
> What I do see, however, is people like you being duped into a strategy that is counterproductive to Freedom and Liberty.  You're not going to win without a fight.  You are so caught up in believing your own lies that you don't have a plan B for when the SHTF.  So, you don't see the need for property Rights and the Right to Privacy... and the CIA is always saying that "_information is the ultimate weapon_."  I'm going to tell you something for your own good:  Without the ability to resist tyranny, you* will *lose this country.  Talk shit about me all you like, but it's idiotic strategies like yours that is making resistance impossible.  You are your own worst enemy; fighting to destroy those who can do the most to help you.  You participate in your own genocide - though now you cannot feign ignorance.  If you're refusing to wake up, it's now just plain stupidity.  Rant over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. This country was not founded on racism.
> 
> 2. The white supremacists are a fringe that can't do shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Donald has proven they are not the fringe of the trump party.
> 
> It is delusional to ignore that
Click to expand...




It is delusional and divisive to pretend that Trump's completely reasonable message on Trade and Immigration, that won him the Rust Belt, has anything to do with White Supremacy.


You are being a terrible person.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> As was noted in one of the links, Wilkinson used to draw thousands.  Regardless of what you can find in on the Internet, with much of the factual stuff being watered down by lefties, you have to bear in mind that the links (at least of them) admit that Wilkinson drew thousands.
> 
> David Duke, although a charlatan, was the godfather of the wallist / man the border movement.  A lot of groups thought his Border Watch idea of the 1970s was a great thing and civilian militias took up that cause in the 1990s (along with fighting eminent domain abuses.)  So if people want to credit Trump with the rallies, he is doing so on the coat tails of David Duke.
> 
> If I took the time to research Duke's history with crowds, I'd have to say he came close to Wilkinson in delivering on crowd size.  When Duke ran for office, his support level was such that when he ran for governor of Louisiana, President Bush went there and endorsed the Democrat in order to keep Duke from winning.  BTW, the Democrat was later convicted of corruption.
> 
> Trump may draw bigger crowds, but that is not the criteria upon which your post was made.  Trump is simply promoting an idea he had no part in  pioneering.  Trump's agenda was first made popular by David Duke (a former nazi that founded his own version of the KKK) and Jim Gilchrst / Chris Simcox who were both racists and Simcox a proven nazi.
> 
> David Duke Says He and Donald Trump Have the Same Message
> 
> Former KKK leader David Duke: "Donald Trump is not a racist" - CBS News
> 
> Just like the far left is having extremists take down monuments, statues, plaques, and memorials to hide our history, they are busy scrubbing news stories that show how many people were in favor of things the left wants the public to hate enough to support liberals for.
> 
> I can assure you that I grew up only 15 miles from where the KKK had their national headquarters.  Their yearly rallies in the 1980s and maybe up to the 1990s drew thousands when they were at Stone Mountain.  On the week-ends you would see them on all the street corners and red lights in their robes, soliciting donations.
> 
> The media made a lot of false accusations against them from what I could tell. For example, though my over-all knowledge is limited, a Klan leader and I used the same printer.  But, this is the basic story FWIW in one instance:  One of the local KKK leaders was prosecuted for *not *committing perjury.  Somehow, the other guy in the case committed perjury and lied about the Klan leader who would NOT commit perjury.  Convoluted?  Yep.
> 
> But, back in those days the LEO community would set up rival Klans and then pay members to con dumb asses into committing illegal acts.  What we thought was amusing and a joke on tv back then is the same M.O. the media uses against Trump.  That is why, now, though I don't like Trump or nazis, I still consider the words of founding father Thomas Paine:
> 
> "_An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_."
> _A Dissertation on the First Principles of Government_ (1795)
> 
> Correll, in both good and bad, the white people have a history.  You cannot white wash it and ultimately the left won't be able to hide it forever.  But it is what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of typing to try to distract from the fact that you can't show one klan or nazi rally reaching into the hundreds of attendees in the last 50 years.
> 
> 
> If, as you claim, that attending that rally showed that they are white supremacist supporters, then why have no other white supremacist rallies managed to get such numbers?
> 
> 
> 
> White supremacy is a fringe movement of no importance. That you try to conflate it, with larger, far more mainstream movements and figures, is wrong of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you* ARE* lying.  Some of the links do show attendance at being in the thousands.
> 
> Interestingly, just last year 55 percent of whites believed that discrimination against whites exists.
> 
> The Invisible Empire: The History of the KKK and Why People Joined
> 
> So you get the Charlottesville rally and it's one and done.  Where are the fruits of your labors other than a fat ass, rich , globalist that cost your the House of Representatives?  You keep crowing and you keep losing.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I didn't see any supporting evidence on "thousands". The biggest reference I saw in those links was 50, Please point it out to me. Cut and paste the important part.
> 
> 2. White supremacy is a fringe movement of no importance. That you try to conflate it, with larger, far more mainstream movements and figures, is wrong of you.
> 
> 3. Trump would have won the mid terms if he built the Wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can blow smoke up peoples ass, but they don't buy it.  Neither do I because, unlike you, I was there and you weren't.  I don't need supporting evidence to see what I saw.
> 
> In the 1980s and 1990s the left wing media tried to marginalize *everything* the right did.  Once there was a white's rights rally a county over from me.  Our local paper said between two and three hundred people attended.  I called the guy who wrote the story.  I asked him if he were drunk that Saturday.  The rally was roped off and you had to pass by LEOs to get in.  Outside the actual rally was the general public.  Our church group passed out over 800 flyers to those who went INTO the rally site past the police lines.  We gave out quite a few to the people that did not go beyond the police lines.
> 
> There are barely any records of the many protests and counter protests!  But, honestly son, I don't need no stinking link.  Those people who heard about the barren streets when Trump came to town and thousands actually attended should be intelligent enough to understand what is going on.
> 
> Your persistent efforts to promote a false narrative do more to discredit what you say than any effort the left can come up with.  America was built on the twin pillars of race and religion.  You cannot talk about your culture without addressing that *FACT*.  For that reason, you see white racists, separatists, and even supremacists of every sort embedded in *every* effort that is aimed at preserving our culture.  The John Birch Society, Young Republicans Club, and the Conservative Caucasus all like the Republican Party have had white supremacists in them for as long as I've been alive.
> 
> Hell, the last living klansman of the original KKK when it was rebirthed atop Stone Mountain was a Mason and Masons met routinely on his property and in his buildings.  You are either ignorant or a pathological liar to dismiss the working relationship.  Man, we aren't recruiting people for anything on this site, so it is quite disingenuous to claim that people like David Duke and neo nazis are some kind of "_fringe movement_."   Duke pioneered the idea of Border Watch which was adopted by Jim Gilchrist and Chris Simcox.  Gilchrist was a proven liar while Duke and Simcox are former nazis.  Without them, there would *never *have been an actual effort to man the border and then suggest build a wall.  They preceded Trump, who took up the banner - and even had the gall to claim he didn't know David Duke.  It's been proven over and over and over again, that is a LIE.  Trump's known Duke for years!
> 
> I would hold meetings and they were pretty well infiltrated by the National Alliance, neo - nazis,  and KKK types.  *BEFORE* the media and LEOs began underwriting the nazis and that idiotic build a wall idea, we were converting a lot of the people those organizations sent in to infiltrate the constitutionalists.  Dude, all you guys have a commonality with what you dishonestly call "_fringe groups_."  Without them, you wouldn't even have a movement.
> 
> I disagree with you because *you* represent their socialist solutions.  If you don't know the history of who you're following and the political road that led to Trump, then you need someone to guide you through that maze.  I agree with a lot of the people who have DISHONESTLY been identified as white supremacists when their only political crime is to want to protect, preserve, and advance our culture... which cannot be done without defending the race.  It simply cannot be done.  You cannot whitewash history enough to deny that fact.  The real issue is, if you build your culture on lies AND on the backs of other races and cultures, you will fail.  Know that because the reign of Trump coming to an end IS going to happen and I don't see you guys having any credible leadership once ol' moneybags is history.
> 
> What I do see, however, is people like you being duped into a strategy that is counterproductive to Freedom and Liberty.  You're not going to win without a fight.  You are so caught up in believing your own lies that you don't have a plan B for when the SHTF.  So, you don't see the need for property Rights and the Right to Privacy... and the CIA is always saying that "_information is the ultimate weapon_."  I'm going to tell you something for your own good:  Without the ability to resist tyranny, you* will *lose this country.  Talk shit about me all you like, but it's idiotic strategies like yours that is making resistance impossible.  You are your own worst enemy; fighting to destroy those who can do the most to help you.  You participate in your own genocide - though now you cannot feign ignorance.  If you're refusing to wake up, it's now just plain stupidity.  Rant over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. This country was not founded on racism.
> 
> 2. The white supremacists are a fringe that can't do shit.
Click to expand...


Who said that this country was founded on racism?  

White supremacists are NOT a fringe group.  They developed the political agenda that you follow.

Here is a *FACT*:

The* FIRST naturalization law* was passed within six months of the ratification of the Constitution.   Here is the wording of that law:

"_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a *free white person*, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof_..." 

naturalization laws 1790-1795

You can repeat a lie a thousand times, but it will NOT erase a simple fact.  This country was founded on the twin pillars of race and religion.  IF that means racism to you, then that is YOUR PERSONAL DEFINITION.  It most assuredly is not mine, but I am telling you the truth.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

jillian said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of typing to try to distract from the fact that you can't show one klan or nazi rally reaching into the hundreds of attendees in the last 50 years.
> 
> 
> If, as you claim, that attending that rally showed that they are white supremacist supporters, then why have no other white supremacist rallies managed to get such numbers?
> 
> 
> 
> White supremacy is a fringe movement of no importance. That you try to conflate it, with larger, far more mainstream movements and figures, is wrong of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you* ARE* lying.  Some of the links do show attendance at being in the thousands.
> 
> Interestingly, just last year 55 percent of whites believed that discrimination against whites exists.
> 
> The Invisible Empire: The History of the KKK and Why People Joined
> 
> So you get the Charlottesville rally and it's one and done.  Where are the fruits of your labors other than a fat ass, rich , globalist that cost your the House of Representatives?  You keep crowing and you keep losing.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I didn't see any supporting evidence on "thousands". The biggest reference I saw in those links was 50, Please point it out to me. Cut and paste the important part.
> 
> 2. White supremacy is a fringe movement of no importance. That you try to conflate it, with larger, far more mainstream movements and figures, is wrong of you.
> 
> 3. Trump would have won the mid terms if he built the Wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can blow smoke up peoples ass, but they don't buy it.  Neither do I because, unlike you, I was there and you weren't.  I don't need supporting evidence to see what I saw.
> 
> In the 1980s and 1990s the left wing media tried to marginalize *everything* the right did.  Once there was a white's rights rally a county over from me.  Our local paper said between two and three hundred people attended.  I called the guy who wrote the story.  I asked him if he were drunk that Saturday.  The rally was roped off and you had to pass by LEOs to get in.  Outside the actual rally was the general public.  Our church group passed out over 800 flyers to those who went INTO the rally site past the police lines.  We gave out quite a few to the people that did not go beyond the police lines.
> 
> There are barely any records of the many protests and counter protests!  But, honestly son, I don't need no stinking link.  Those people who heard about the barren streets when Trump came to town and thousands actually attended should be intelligent enough to understand what is going on.
> 
> Your persistent efforts to promote a false narrative do more to discredit what you say than any effort the left can come up with.  America was built on the twin pillars of race and religion.  You cannot talk about your culture without addressing that *FACT*.  For that reason, you see white racists, separatists, and even supremacists of every sort embedded in *every* effort that is aimed at preserving our culture.  The John Birch Society, Young Republicans Club, and the Conservative Caucasus all like the Republican Party have had white supremacists in them for as long as I've been alive.
> 
> Hell, the last living klansman of the original KKK when it was rebirthed atop Stone Mountain was a Mason and Masons met routinely on his property and in his buildings.  You are either ignorant or a pathological liar to dismiss the working relationship.  Man, we aren't recruiting people for anything on this site, so it is quite disingenuous to claim that people like David Duke and neo nazis are some kind of "_fringe movement_."   Duke pioneered the idea of Border Watch which was adopted by Jim Gilchrist and Chris Simcox.  Gilchrist was a proven liar while Duke and Simcox are former nazis.  Without them, there would *never *have been an actual effort to man the border and then suggest build a wall.  They preceded Trump, who took up the banner - and even had the gall to claim he didn't know David Duke.  It's been proven over and over and over again, that is a LIE.  Trump's known Duke for years!
> 
> I would hold meetings and they were pretty well infiltrated by the National Alliance, neo - nazis,  and KKK types.  *BEFORE* the media and LEOs began underwriting the nazis and that idiotic build a wall idea, we were converting a lot of the people those organizations sent in to infiltrate the constitutionalists.  Dude, all you guys have a commonality with what you dishonestly call "_fringe groups_."  Without them, you wouldn't even have a movement.
> 
> I disagree with you because *you* represent their socialist solutions.  If you don't know the history of who you're following and the political road that led to Trump, then you need someone to guide you through that maze.  I agree with a lot of the people who have DISHONESTLY been identified as white supremacists when their only political crime is to want to protect, preserve, and advance our culture... which cannot be done without defending the race.  It simply cannot be done.  You cannot whitewash history enough to deny that fact.  The real issue is, if you build your culture on lies AND on the backs of other races and cultures, you will fail.  Know that because the reign of Trump coming to an end IS going to happen and I don't see you guys having any credible leadership once ol' moneybags is history.
> 
> What I do see, however, is people like you being duped into a strategy that is counterproductive to Freedom and Liberty.  You're not going to win without a fight.  You are so caught up in believing your own lies that you don't have a plan B for when the SHTF.  So, you don't see the need for property Rights and the Right to Privacy... and the CIA is always saying that "_information is the ultimate weapon_."  I'm going to tell you something for your own good:  Without the ability to resist tyranny, you* will *lose this country.  Talk shit about me all you like, but it's idiotic strategies like yours that is making resistance impossible.  You are your own worst enemy; fighting to destroy those who can do the most to help you.  You participate in your own genocide - though now you cannot feign ignorance.  If you're refusing to wake up, it's now just plain stupidity.  Rant over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. This country was not founded on racism.
> 
> 2. The white supremacists are a fringe that can't do shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Donald has proven they are not the fringe of the trump party.
> 
> It is delusional to ignore that
Click to expand...


When Correll is committed to the platform developed by people  who themselves identify as being racists, it makes Correll's delusion even more bizarre.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you* ARE* lying.  Some of the links do show attendance at being in the thousands.
> 
> Interestingly, just last year 55 percent of whites believed that discrimination against whites exists.
> 
> The Invisible Empire: The History of the KKK and Why People Joined
> 
> So you get the Charlottesville rally and it's one and done.  Where are the fruits of your labors other than a fat ass, rich , globalist that cost your the House of Representatives?  You keep crowing and you keep losing.
> ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I didn't see any supporting evidence on "thousands". The biggest reference I saw in those links was 50, Please point it out to me. Cut and paste the important part.
> 
> 2. White supremacy is a fringe movement of no importance. That you try to conflate it, with larger, far more mainstream movements and figures, is wrong of you.
> 
> 3. Trump would have won the mid terms if he built the Wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can blow smoke up peoples ass, but they don't buy it.  Neither do I because, unlike you, I was there and you weren't.  I don't need supporting evidence to see what I saw.
> 
> In the 1980s and 1990s the left wing media tried to marginalize *everything* the right did.  Once there was a white's rights rally a county over from me.  Our local paper said between two and three hundred people attended.  I called the guy who wrote the story.  I asked him if he were drunk that Saturday.  The rally was roped off and you had to pass by LEOs to get in.  Outside the actual rally was the general public.  Our church group passed out over 800 flyers to those who went INTO the rally site past the police lines.  We gave out quite a few to the people that did not go beyond the police lines.
> 
> There are barely any records of the many protests and counter protests!  But, honestly son, I don't need no stinking link.  Those people who heard about the barren streets when Trump came to town and thousands actually attended should be intelligent enough to understand what is going on.
> 
> Your persistent efforts to promote a false narrative do more to discredit what you say than any effort the left can come up with.  America was built on the twin pillars of race and religion.  You cannot talk about your culture without addressing that *FACT*.  For that reason, you see white racists, separatists, and even supremacists of every sort embedded in *every* effort that is aimed at preserving our culture.  The John Birch Society, Young Republicans Club, and the Conservative Caucasus all like the Republican Party have had white supremacists in them for as long as I've been alive.
> 
> Hell, the last living klansman of the original KKK when it was rebirthed atop Stone Mountain was a Mason and Masons met routinely on his property and in his buildings.  You are either ignorant or a pathological liar to dismiss the working relationship.  Man, we aren't recruiting people for anything on this site, so it is quite disingenuous to claim that people like David Duke and neo nazis are some kind of "_fringe movement_."   Duke pioneered the idea of Border Watch which was adopted by Jim Gilchrist and Chris Simcox.  Gilchrist was a proven liar while Duke and Simcox are former nazis.  Without them, there would *never *have been an actual effort to man the border and then suggest build a wall.  They preceded Trump, who took up the banner - and even had the gall to claim he didn't know David Duke.  It's been proven over and over and over again, that is a LIE.  Trump's known Duke for years!
> 
> I would hold meetings and they were pretty well infiltrated by the National Alliance, neo - nazis,  and KKK types.  *BEFORE* the media and LEOs began underwriting the nazis and that idiotic build a wall idea, we were converting a lot of the people those organizations sent in to infiltrate the constitutionalists.  Dude, all you guys have a commonality with what you dishonestly call "_fringe groups_."  Without them, you wouldn't even have a movement.
> 
> I disagree with you because *you* represent their socialist solutions.  If you don't know the history of who you're following and the political road that led to Trump, then you need someone to guide you through that maze.  I agree with a lot of the people who have DISHONESTLY been identified as white supremacists when their only political crime is to want to protect, preserve, and advance our culture... which cannot be done without defending the race.  It simply cannot be done.  You cannot whitewash history enough to deny that fact.  The real issue is, if you build your culture on lies AND on the backs of other races and cultures, you will fail.  Know that because the reign of Trump coming to an end IS going to happen and I don't see you guys having any credible leadership once ol' moneybags is history.
> 
> What I do see, however, is people like you being duped into a strategy that is counterproductive to Freedom and Liberty.  You're not going to win without a fight.  You are so caught up in believing your own lies that you don't have a plan B for when the SHTF.  So, you don't see the need for property Rights and the Right to Privacy... and the CIA is always saying that "_information is the ultimate weapon_."  I'm going to tell you something for your own good:  Without the ability to resist tyranny, you* will *lose this country.  Talk shit about me all you like, but it's idiotic strategies like yours that is making resistance impossible.  You are your own worst enemy; fighting to destroy those who can do the most to help you.  You participate in your own genocide - though now you cannot feign ignorance.  If you're refusing to wake up, it's now just plain stupidity.  Rant over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. This country was not founded on racism.
> 
> 2. The white supremacists are a fringe that can't do shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Donald has proven they are not the fringe of the trump party.
> 
> It is delusional to ignore that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is delusional and divisive to pretend that Trump's completely reasonable message on Trade and Immigration, that won him the Rust Belt, has anything to do with White Supremacy.
> 
> 
> You are being a terrible person.
Click to expand...


You are delusional beyond all belief.  Trump got most of his votes on the promise of a silly wall around the United States.  You cannot go to ANY discussion board and talk about Trump, individual Rights, the fight against National ID, or the size of government without the Trumpeteers bringing that damn wall into the discussion.

Since white supremacists control what you think politically, they're doing a pretty damn good job.  White supremacists are the ones who conjured up the presupposed _"need"_ for a wall.  That is a simple fact that you cannot dispute.  It is what it is, son.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of typing to try to distract from the fact that you can't show one klan or nazi rally reaching into the hundreds of attendees in the last 50 years.
> 
> 
> If, as you claim, that attending that rally showed that they are white supremacist supporters, then why have no other white supremacist rallies managed to get such numbers?
> 
> 
> 
> White supremacy is a fringe movement of no importance. That you try to conflate it, with larger, far more mainstream movements and figures, is wrong of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you* ARE* lying.  Some of the links do show attendance at being in the thousands.
> 
> Interestingly, just last year 55 percent of whites believed that discrimination against whites exists.
> 
> The Invisible Empire: The History of the KKK and Why People Joined
> 
> So you get the Charlottesville rally and it's one and done.  Where are the fruits of your labors other than a fat ass, rich , globalist that cost your the House of Representatives?  You keep crowing and you keep losing.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I didn't see any supporting evidence on "thousands". The biggest reference I saw in those links was 50, Please point it out to me. Cut and paste the important part.
> 
> 2. White supremacy is a fringe movement of no importance. That you try to conflate it, with larger, far more mainstream movements and figures, is wrong of you.
> 
> 3. Trump would have won the mid terms if he built the Wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can blow smoke up peoples ass, but they don't buy it.  Neither do I because, unlike you, I was there and you weren't.  I don't need supporting evidence to see what I saw.
> 
> In the 1980s and 1990s the left wing media tried to marginalize *everything* the right did.  Once there was a white's rights rally a county over from me.  Our local paper said between two and three hundred people attended.  I called the guy who wrote the story.  I asked him if he were drunk that Saturday.  The rally was roped off and you had to pass by LEOs to get in.  Outside the actual rally was the general public.  Our church group passed out over 800 flyers to those who went INTO the rally site past the police lines.  We gave out quite a few to the people that did not go beyond the police lines.
> 
> There are barely any records of the many protests and counter protests!  But, honestly son, I don't need no stinking link.  Those people who heard about the barren streets when Trump came to town and thousands actually attended should be intelligent enough to understand what is going on.
> 
> Your persistent efforts to promote a false narrative do more to discredit what you say than any effort the left can come up with.  America was built on the twin pillars of race and religion.  You cannot talk about your culture without addressing that *FACT*.  For that reason, you see white racists, separatists, and even supremacists of every sort embedded in *every* effort that is aimed at preserving our culture.  The John Birch Society, Young Republicans Club, and the Conservative Caucasus all like the Republican Party have had white supremacists in them for as long as I've been alive.
> 
> Hell, the last living klansman of the original KKK when it was rebirthed atop Stone Mountain was a Mason and Masons met routinely on his property and in his buildings.  You are either ignorant or a pathological liar to dismiss the working relationship.  Man, we aren't recruiting people for anything on this site, so it is quite disingenuous to claim that people like David Duke and neo nazis are some kind of "_fringe movement_."   Duke pioneered the idea of Border Watch which was adopted by Jim Gilchrist and Chris Simcox.  Gilchrist was a proven liar while Duke and Simcox are former nazis.  Without them, there would *never *have been an actual effort to man the border and then suggest build a wall.  They preceded Trump, who took up the banner - and even had the gall to claim he didn't know David Duke.  It's been proven over and over and over again, that is a LIE.  Trump's known Duke for years!
> 
> I would hold meetings and they were pretty well infiltrated by the National Alliance, neo - nazis,  and KKK types.  *BEFORE* the media and LEOs began underwriting the nazis and that idiotic build a wall idea, we were converting a lot of the people those organizations sent in to infiltrate the constitutionalists.  Dude, all you guys have a commonality with what you dishonestly call "_fringe groups_."  Without them, you wouldn't even have a movement.
> 
> I disagree with you because *you* represent their socialist solutions.  If you don't know the history of who you're following and the political road that led to Trump, then you need someone to guide you through that maze.  I agree with a lot of the people who have DISHONESTLY been identified as white supremacists when their only political crime is to want to protect, preserve, and advance our culture... which cannot be done without defending the race.  It simply cannot be done.  You cannot whitewash history enough to deny that fact.  The real issue is, if you build your culture on lies AND on the backs of other races and cultures, you will fail.  Know that because the reign of Trump coming to an end IS going to happen and I don't see you guys having any credible leadership once ol' moneybags is history.
> 
> What I do see, however, is people like you being duped into a strategy that is counterproductive to Freedom and Liberty.  You're not going to win without a fight.  You are so caught up in believing your own lies that you don't have a plan B for when the SHTF.  So, you don't see the need for property Rights and the Right to Privacy... and the CIA is always saying that "_information is the ultimate weapon_."  I'm going to tell you something for your own good:  Without the ability to resist tyranny, you* will *lose this country.  Talk shit about me all you like, but it's idiotic strategies like yours that is making resistance impossible.  You are your own worst enemy; fighting to destroy those who can do the most to help you.  You participate in your own genocide - though now you cannot feign ignorance.  If you're refusing to wake up, it's now just plain stupidity.  Rant over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. This country was not founded on racism.
> 
> 2. The white supremacists are a fringe that can't do shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said that this country was founded on racism?
> 
> White supremacists are NOT a fringe group.  They developed the political agenda that you follow.
> 
> Here is a *FACT*:
> 
> The* FIRST naturalization law* was passed within six months of the ratification of the Constitution.   Here is the wording of that law:
> 
> "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a *free white person*, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof_..."
> 
> naturalization laws 1790-1795
> 
> You can repeat a lie a thousand times, but it will NOT erase a simple fact.  This country was founded on the twin pillars of race and religion.  IF that means racism to you, then that is YOUR PERSONAL DEFINITION.  It most assuredly is not mine, but I am telling you the truth.
Click to expand...





1. This country was not founded on racism.

2. White supremacists are a fringe that can't do shit.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you* ARE* lying.  Some of the links do show attendance at being in the thousands.
> 
> Interestingly, just last year 55 percent of whites believed that discrimination against whites exists.
> 
> The Invisible Empire: The History of the KKK and Why People Joined
> 
> So you get the Charlottesville rally and it's one and done.  Where are the fruits of your labors other than a fat ass, rich , globalist that cost your the House of Representatives?  You keep crowing and you keep losing.
> ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I didn't see any supporting evidence on "thousands". The biggest reference I saw in those links was 50, Please point it out to me. Cut and paste the important part.
> 
> 2. White supremacy is a fringe movement of no importance. That you try to conflate it, with larger, far more mainstream movements and figures, is wrong of you.
> 
> 3. Trump would have won the mid terms if he built the Wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can blow smoke up peoples ass, but they don't buy it.  Neither do I because, unlike you, I was there and you weren't.  I don't need supporting evidence to see what I saw.
> 
> In the 1980s and 1990s the left wing media tried to marginalize *everything* the right did.  Once there was a white's rights rally a county over from me.  Our local paper said between two and three hundred people attended.  I called the guy who wrote the story.  I asked him if he were drunk that Saturday.  The rally was roped off and you had to pass by LEOs to get in.  Outside the actual rally was the general public.  Our church group passed out over 800 flyers to those who went INTO the rally site past the police lines.  We gave out quite a few to the people that did not go beyond the police lines.
> 
> There are barely any records of the many protests and counter protests!  But, honestly son, I don't need no stinking link.  Those people who heard about the barren streets when Trump came to town and thousands actually attended should be intelligent enough to understand what is going on.
> 
> Your persistent efforts to promote a false narrative do more to discredit what you say than any effort the left can come up with.  America was built on the twin pillars of race and religion.  You cannot talk about your culture without addressing that *FACT*.  For that reason, you see white racists, separatists, and even supremacists of every sort embedded in *every* effort that is aimed at preserving our culture.  The John Birch Society, Young Republicans Club, and the Conservative Caucasus all like the Republican Party have had white supremacists in them for as long as I've been alive.
> 
> Hell, the last living klansman of the original KKK when it was rebirthed atop Stone Mountain was a Mason and Masons met routinely on his property and in his buildings.  You are either ignorant or a pathological liar to dismiss the working relationship.  Man, we aren't recruiting people for anything on this site, so it is quite disingenuous to claim that people like David Duke and neo nazis are some kind of "_fringe movement_."   Duke pioneered the idea of Border Watch which was adopted by Jim Gilchrist and Chris Simcox.  Gilchrist was a proven liar while Duke and Simcox are former nazis.  Without them, there would *never *have been an actual effort to man the border and then suggest build a wall.  They preceded Trump, who took up the banner - and even had the gall to claim he didn't know David Duke.  It's been proven over and over and over again, that is a LIE.  Trump's known Duke for years!
> 
> I would hold meetings and they were pretty well infiltrated by the National Alliance, neo - nazis,  and KKK types.  *BEFORE* the media and LEOs began underwriting the nazis and that idiotic build a wall idea, we were converting a lot of the people those organizations sent in to infiltrate the constitutionalists.  Dude, all you guys have a commonality with what you dishonestly call "_fringe groups_."  Without them, you wouldn't even have a movement.
> 
> I disagree with you because *you* represent their socialist solutions.  If you don't know the history of who you're following and the political road that led to Trump, then you need someone to guide you through that maze.  I agree with a lot of the people who have DISHONESTLY been identified as white supremacists when their only political crime is to want to protect, preserve, and advance our culture... which cannot be done without defending the race.  It simply cannot be done.  You cannot whitewash history enough to deny that fact.  The real issue is, if you build your culture on lies AND on the backs of other races and cultures, you will fail.  Know that because the reign of Trump coming to an end IS going to happen and I don't see you guys having any credible leadership once ol' moneybags is history.
> 
> What I do see, however, is people like you being duped into a strategy that is counterproductive to Freedom and Liberty.  You're not going to win without a fight.  You are so caught up in believing your own lies that you don't have a plan B for when the SHTF.  So, you don't see the need for property Rights and the Right to Privacy... and the CIA is always saying that "_information is the ultimate weapon_."  I'm going to tell you something for your own good:  Without the ability to resist tyranny, you* will *lose this country.  Talk shit about me all you like, but it's idiotic strategies like yours that is making resistance impossible.  You are your own worst enemy; fighting to destroy those who can do the most to help you.  You participate in your own genocide - though now you cannot feign ignorance.  If you're refusing to wake up, it's now just plain stupidity.  Rant over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. This country was not founded on racism.
> 
> 2. The white supremacists are a fringe that can't do shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Donald has proven they are not the fringe of the trump party.
> 
> It is delusional to ignore that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Correll is committed to the platform developed by people  who themselves identify as being racists, it makes Correll's delusion even more bizarre.
Click to expand...



Wanting a secure border, is not racist. Calling that racist is insane.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I didn't see any supporting evidence on "thousands". The biggest reference I saw in those links was 50, Please point it out to me. Cut and paste the important part.
> 
> 2. White supremacy is a fringe movement of no importance. That you try to conflate it, with larger, far more mainstream movements and figures, is wrong of you.
> 
> 3. Trump would have won the mid terms if he built the Wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can blow smoke up peoples ass, but they don't buy it.  Neither do I because, unlike you, I was there and you weren't.  I don't need supporting evidence to see what I saw.
> 
> In the 1980s and 1990s the left wing media tried to marginalize *everything* the right did.  Once there was a white's rights rally a county over from me.  Our local paper said between two and three hundred people attended.  I called the guy who wrote the story.  I asked him if he were drunk that Saturday.  The rally was roped off and you had to pass by LEOs to get in.  Outside the actual rally was the general public.  Our church group passed out over 800 flyers to those who went INTO the rally site past the police lines.  We gave out quite a few to the people that did not go beyond the police lines.
> 
> There are barely any records of the many protests and counter protests!  But, honestly son, I don't need no stinking link.  Those people who heard about the barren streets when Trump came to town and thousands actually attended should be intelligent enough to understand what is going on.
> 
> Your persistent efforts to promote a false narrative do more to discredit what you say than any effort the left can come up with.  America was built on the twin pillars of race and religion.  You cannot talk about your culture without addressing that *FACT*.  For that reason, you see white racists, separatists, and even supremacists of every sort embedded in *every* effort that is aimed at preserving our culture.  The John Birch Society, Young Republicans Club, and the Conservative Caucasus all like the Republican Party have had white supremacists in them for as long as I've been alive.
> 
> Hell, the last living klansman of the original KKK when it was rebirthed atop Stone Mountain was a Mason and Masons met routinely on his property and in his buildings.  You are either ignorant or a pathological liar to dismiss the working relationship.  Man, we aren't recruiting people for anything on this site, so it is quite disingenuous to claim that people like David Duke and neo nazis are some kind of "_fringe movement_."   Duke pioneered the idea of Border Watch which was adopted by Jim Gilchrist and Chris Simcox.  Gilchrist was a proven liar while Duke and Simcox are former nazis.  Without them, there would *never *have been an actual effort to man the border and then suggest build a wall.  They preceded Trump, who took up the banner - and even had the gall to claim he didn't know David Duke.  It's been proven over and over and over again, that is a LIE.  Trump's known Duke for years!
> 
> I would hold meetings and they were pretty well infiltrated by the National Alliance, neo - nazis,  and KKK types.  *BEFORE* the media and LEOs began underwriting the nazis and that idiotic build a wall idea, we were converting a lot of the people those organizations sent in to infiltrate the constitutionalists.  Dude, all you guys have a commonality with what you dishonestly call "_fringe groups_."  Without them, you wouldn't even have a movement.
> 
> I disagree with you because *you* represent their socialist solutions.  If you don't know the history of who you're following and the political road that led to Trump, then you need someone to guide you through that maze.  I agree with a lot of the people who have DISHONESTLY been identified as white supremacists when their only political crime is to want to protect, preserve, and advance our culture... which cannot be done without defending the race.  It simply cannot be done.  You cannot whitewash history enough to deny that fact.  The real issue is, if you build your culture on lies AND on the backs of other races and cultures, you will fail.  Know that because the reign of Trump coming to an end IS going to happen and I don't see you guys having any credible leadership once ol' moneybags is history.
> 
> What I do see, however, is people like you being duped into a strategy that is counterproductive to Freedom and Liberty.  You're not going to win without a fight.  You are so caught up in believing your own lies that you don't have a plan B for when the SHTF.  So, you don't see the need for property Rights and the Right to Privacy... and the CIA is always saying that "_information is the ultimate weapon_."  I'm going to tell you something for your own good:  Without the ability to resist tyranny, you* will *lose this country.  Talk shit about me all you like, but it's idiotic strategies like yours that is making resistance impossible.  You are your own worst enemy; fighting to destroy those who can do the most to help you.  You participate in your own genocide - though now you cannot feign ignorance.  If you're refusing to wake up, it's now just plain stupidity.  Rant over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. This country was not founded on racism.
> 
> 2. The white supremacists are a fringe that can't do shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Donald has proven they are not the fringe of the trump party.
> 
> It is delusional to ignore that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is delusional and divisive to pretend that Trump's completely reasonable message on Trade and Immigration, that won him the Rust Belt, has anything to do with White Supremacy.
> 
> 
> You are being a terrible person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are delusional beyond all belief.  Trump got most of his votes on the promise of a silly wall around the United States.  You cannot go to ANY discussion board and talk about Trump, individual Rights, the fight against National ID, or the size of government without the Trumpeteers bringing that damn wall into the discussion.
> 
> Since white supremacists control what you think politically, they're doing a pretty damn good job.  White supremacists are the ones who conjured up the presupposed _"need"_ for a wall.  That is a simple fact that you cannot dispute.  It is what it is, son.
Click to expand...




1. Building a Wall along a border that is massively violated by a shitty neighbor is completely reasonable and no person of good faith would call that racist.


2. Controlling a border is not government overreach. It is a core function of reasonable and limited government.

3. White supremacists are an irrelevant fringe that can't do shit.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Correll said:


> 1. Building a Wall along a border that is massively violated by a shitty neighbor is completely reasonable and no person of good faith would call that racist.


Who says the critics that use racism as a cynical form of attack are of good faith?


Correll said:


> 2. Controlling a border is not government overreach. It is a core function of reasonable and limited government.


Providing security for the nation is the government's primary function. Without a secure nation all other duties are pointless. 



> 3. White supremacists are an irrelevant fringe that can't do shit.


They are a boogie man and just give leftists an excuse to attack and try to deconstruct America which is what they want anyway.


----------



## Correll

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Building a Wall along a border that is massively violated by a shitty neighbor is completely reasonable and no person of good faith would call that racist.
> 
> 
> 
> Who says the critics that use racism as a cynical form of attack are of good faith?
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Controlling a border is not government overreach. It is a core function of reasonable and limited government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Providing security for the nation is the government's primary function. Without a secure nation all other duties are pointless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. White supremacists are an irrelevant fringe that can't do shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are a boogie man and just give leftists an excuse to attack and try to deconstruct America which is what they want anyway.
Click to expand...




Well said on all counts.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you* ARE* lying.  Some of the links do show attendance at being in the thousands.
> 
> Interestingly, just last year 55 percent of whites believed that discrimination against whites exists.
> 
> The Invisible Empire: The History of the KKK and Why People Joined
> 
> So you get the Charlottesville rally and it's one and done.  Where are the fruits of your labors other than a fat ass, rich , globalist that cost your the House of Representatives?  You keep crowing and you keep losing.
> ......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I didn't see any supporting evidence on "thousands". The biggest reference I saw in those links was 50, Please point it out to me. Cut and paste the important part.
> 
> 2. White supremacy is a fringe movement of no importance. That you try to conflate it, with larger, far more mainstream movements and figures, is wrong of you.
> 
> 3. Trump would have won the mid terms if he built the Wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can blow smoke up peoples ass, but they don't buy it.  Neither do I because, unlike you, I was there and you weren't.  I don't need supporting evidence to see what I saw.
> 
> In the 1980s and 1990s the left wing media tried to marginalize *everything* the right did.  Once there was a white's rights rally a county over from me.  Our local paper said between two and three hundred people attended.  I called the guy who wrote the story.  I asked him if he were drunk that Saturday.  The rally was roped off and you had to pass by LEOs to get in.  Outside the actual rally was the general public.  Our church group passed out over 800 flyers to those who went INTO the rally site past the police lines.  We gave out quite a few to the people that did not go beyond the police lines.
> 
> There are barely any records of the many protests and counter protests!  But, honestly son, I don't need no stinking link.  Those people who heard about the barren streets when Trump came to town and thousands actually attended should be intelligent enough to understand what is going on.
> 
> Your persistent efforts to promote a false narrative do more to discredit what you say than any effort the left can come up with.  America was built on the twin pillars of race and religion.  You cannot talk about your culture without addressing that *FACT*.  For that reason, you see white racists, separatists, and even supremacists of every sort embedded in *every* effort that is aimed at preserving our culture.  The John Birch Society, Young Republicans Club, and the Conservative Caucasus all like the Republican Party have had white supremacists in them for as long as I've been alive.
> 
> Hell, the last living klansman of the original KKK when it was rebirthed atop Stone Mountain was a Mason and Masons met routinely on his property and in his buildings.  You are either ignorant or a pathological liar to dismiss the working relationship.  Man, we aren't recruiting people for anything on this site, so it is quite disingenuous to claim that people like David Duke and neo nazis are some kind of "_fringe movement_."   Duke pioneered the idea of Border Watch which was adopted by Jim Gilchrist and Chris Simcox.  Gilchrist was a proven liar while Duke and Simcox are former nazis.  Without them, there would *never *have been an actual effort to man the border and then suggest build a wall.  They preceded Trump, who took up the banner - and even had the gall to claim he didn't know David Duke.  It's been proven over and over and over again, that is a LIE.  Trump's known Duke for years!
> 
> I would hold meetings and they were pretty well infiltrated by the National Alliance, neo - nazis,  and KKK types.  *BEFORE* the media and LEOs began underwriting the nazis and that idiotic build a wall idea, we were converting a lot of the people those organizations sent in to infiltrate the constitutionalists.  Dude, all you guys have a commonality with what you dishonestly call "_fringe groups_."  Without them, you wouldn't even have a movement.
> 
> I disagree with you because *you* represent their socialist solutions.  If you don't know the history of who you're following and the political road that led to Trump, then you need someone to guide you through that maze.  I agree with a lot of the people who have DISHONESTLY been identified as white supremacists when their only political crime is to want to protect, preserve, and advance our culture... which cannot be done without defending the race.  It simply cannot be done.  You cannot whitewash history enough to deny that fact.  The real issue is, if you build your culture on lies AND on the backs of other races and cultures, you will fail.  Know that because the reign of Trump coming to an end IS going to happen and I don't see you guys having any credible leadership once ol' moneybags is history.
> 
> What I do see, however, is people like you being duped into a strategy that is counterproductive to Freedom and Liberty.  You're not going to win without a fight.  You are so caught up in believing your own lies that you don't have a plan B for when the SHTF.  So, you don't see the need for property Rights and the Right to Privacy... and the CIA is always saying that "_information is the ultimate weapon_."  I'm going to tell you something for your own good:  Without the ability to resist tyranny, you* will *lose this country.  Talk shit about me all you like, but it's idiotic strategies like yours that is making resistance impossible.  You are your own worst enemy; fighting to destroy those who can do the most to help you.  You participate in your own genocide - though now you cannot feign ignorance.  If you're refusing to wake up, it's now just plain stupidity.  Rant over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. This country was not founded on racism.
> 
> 2. The white supremacists are a fringe that can't do shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said that this country was founded on racism?
> 
> White supremacists are NOT a fringe group.  They developed the political agenda that you follow.
> 
> Here is a *FACT*:
> 
> The* FIRST naturalization law* was passed within six months of the ratification of the Constitution.   Here is the wording of that law:
> 
> "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a *free white person*, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof_..."
> 
> naturalization laws 1790-1795
> 
> You can repeat a lie a thousand times, but it will NOT erase a simple fact.  This country was founded on the twin pillars of race and religion.  IF that means racism to you, then that is YOUR PERSONAL DEFINITION.  It most assuredly is not mine, but I am telling you the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. This country was not founded on racism.
> 
> 2. White supremacists are a fringe that can't do shit.
Click to expand...


You already said that.  If you can keep repeating your errors, I can keep repeating the truth:

Who said that this country was founded on racism? 

White supremacists are NOT a fringe group. They developed the political agenda that you follow.

Here is a *FACT*:

The* FIRST naturalization law* was passed within six months of the ratification of the Constitution. Here is the wording of that law:

"_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a *free white person*, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof_..." 

naturalization laws 1790-1795

You can repeat a lie a thousand times, but it will NOT erase a simple fact. This country was founded on the twin pillars of race and religion. IF that means racism to you, then that is YOUR PERSONAL DEFINITION. It most assuredly is not mine, but I am telling you the truth.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I didn't see any supporting evidence on "thousands". The biggest reference I saw in those links was 50, Please point it out to me. Cut and paste the important part.
> 
> 2. White supremacy is a fringe movement of no importance. That you try to conflate it, with larger, far more mainstream movements and figures, is wrong of you.
> 
> 3. Trump would have won the mid terms if he built the Wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can blow smoke up peoples ass, but they don't buy it.  Neither do I because, unlike you, I was there and you weren't.  I don't need supporting evidence to see what I saw.
> 
> In the 1980s and 1990s the left wing media tried to marginalize *everything* the right did.  Once there was a white's rights rally a county over from me.  Our local paper said between two and three hundred people attended.  I called the guy who wrote the story.  I asked him if he were drunk that Saturday.  The rally was roped off and you had to pass by LEOs to get in.  Outside the actual rally was the general public.  Our church group passed out over 800 flyers to those who went INTO the rally site past the police lines.  We gave out quite a few to the people that did not go beyond the police lines.
> 
> There are barely any records of the many protests and counter protests!  But, honestly son, I don't need no stinking link.  Those people who heard about the barren streets when Trump came to town and thousands actually attended should be intelligent enough to understand what is going on.
> 
> Your persistent efforts to promote a false narrative do more to discredit what you say than any effort the left can come up with.  America was built on the twin pillars of race and religion.  You cannot talk about your culture without addressing that *FACT*.  For that reason, you see white racists, separatists, and even supremacists of every sort embedded in *every* effort that is aimed at preserving our culture.  The John Birch Society, Young Republicans Club, and the Conservative Caucasus all like the Republican Party have had white supremacists in them for as long as I've been alive.
> 
> Hell, the last living klansman of the original KKK when it was rebirthed atop Stone Mountain was a Mason and Masons met routinely on his property and in his buildings.  You are either ignorant or a pathological liar to dismiss the working relationship.  Man, we aren't recruiting people for anything on this site, so it is quite disingenuous to claim that people like David Duke and neo nazis are some kind of "_fringe movement_."   Duke pioneered the idea of Border Watch which was adopted by Jim Gilchrist and Chris Simcox.  Gilchrist was a proven liar while Duke and Simcox are former nazis.  Without them, there would *never *have been an actual effort to man the border and then suggest build a wall.  They preceded Trump, who took up the banner - and even had the gall to claim he didn't know David Duke.  It's been proven over and over and over again, that is a LIE.  Trump's known Duke for years!
> 
> I would hold meetings and they were pretty well infiltrated by the National Alliance, neo - nazis,  and KKK types.  *BEFORE* the media and LEOs began underwriting the nazis and that idiotic build a wall idea, we were converting a lot of the people those organizations sent in to infiltrate the constitutionalists.  Dude, all you guys have a commonality with what you dishonestly call "_fringe groups_."  Without them, you wouldn't even have a movement.
> 
> I disagree with you because *you* represent their socialist solutions.  If you don't know the history of who you're following and the political road that led to Trump, then you need someone to guide you through that maze.  I agree with a lot of the people who have DISHONESTLY been identified as white supremacists when their only political crime is to want to protect, preserve, and advance our culture... which cannot be done without defending the race.  It simply cannot be done.  You cannot whitewash history enough to deny that fact.  The real issue is, if you build your culture on lies AND on the backs of other races and cultures, you will fail.  Know that because the reign of Trump coming to an end IS going to happen and I don't see you guys having any credible leadership once ol' moneybags is history.
> 
> What I do see, however, is people like you being duped into a strategy that is counterproductive to Freedom and Liberty.  You're not going to win without a fight.  You are so caught up in believing your own lies that you don't have a plan B for when the SHTF.  So, you don't see the need for property Rights and the Right to Privacy... and the CIA is always saying that "_information is the ultimate weapon_."  I'm going to tell you something for your own good:  Without the ability to resist tyranny, you* will *lose this country.  Talk shit about me all you like, but it's idiotic strategies like yours that is making resistance impossible.  You are your own worst enemy; fighting to destroy those who can do the most to help you.  You participate in your own genocide - though now you cannot feign ignorance.  If you're refusing to wake up, it's now just plain stupidity.  Rant over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. This country was not founded on racism.
> 
> 2. The white supremacists are a fringe that can't do shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Donald has proven they are not the fringe of the trump party.
> 
> It is delusional to ignore that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Correll is committed to the platform developed by people  who themselves identify as being racists, it makes Correll's delusion even more bizarre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wanting a secure border, is not racist. Calling that racist is insane.
Click to expand...


Dishonesty is your forte'. If your "_secure border" _plan involves making outrageous allegations you cannot sustain AND it involves proposed solutions thought up by* National Socialists*, then yes, it would be racism.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Building a Wall along a border that is massively violated by a shitty neighbor is completely reasonable and no person of good faith would call that racist.
> 
> 
> 
> Who says the critics that use racism as a cynical form of attack are of good faith?
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Controlling a border is not government overreach. It is a core function of reasonable and limited government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Providing security for the nation is the government's primary function. Without a secure nation all other duties are pointless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. White supremacists are an irrelevant fringe that can't do shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are a boogie man and just give leftists an excuse to attack and try to deconstruct America which is what they want anyway.
Click to expand...


Your post is both meaningless as well as wholly dishonest.  Not everybody that opposes National Socialist solutions is a leftist.

You need a reality check.  The nutty wall idea began with racists and socialists.  Would you like for me to repeat the facts that we go over in each of these threads?

Now, don't you accuse the Democrats of being the first racists in the U.S.?  Isn't part of your narrative one of selling people on the notion that Democrats are racists?  Well, then besides National Socialists, *WHO* were the first people to begin suggesting the agenda you follow?


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I didn't see any supporting evidence on "thousands". The biggest reference I saw in those links was 50, Please point it out to me. Cut and paste the important part.
> 
> 2. White supremacy is a fringe movement of no importance. That you try to conflate it, with larger, far more mainstream movements and figures, is wrong of you.
> 
> 3. Trump would have won the mid terms if he built the Wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can blow smoke up peoples ass, but they don't buy it.  Neither do I because, unlike you, I was there and you weren't.  I don't need supporting evidence to see what I saw.
> 
> In the 1980s and 1990s the left wing media tried to marginalize *everything* the right did.  Once there was a white's rights rally a county over from me.  Our local paper said between two and three hundred people attended.  I called the guy who wrote the story.  I asked him if he were drunk that Saturday.  The rally was roped off and you had to pass by LEOs to get in.  Outside the actual rally was the general public.  Our church group passed out over 800 flyers to those who went INTO the rally site past the police lines.  We gave out quite a few to the people that did not go beyond the police lines.
> 
> There are barely any records of the many protests and counter protests!  But, honestly son, I don't need no stinking link.  Those people who heard about the barren streets when Trump came to town and thousands actually attended should be intelligent enough to understand what is going on.
> 
> Your persistent efforts to promote a false narrative do more to discredit what you say than any effort the left can come up with.  America was built on the twin pillars of race and religion.  You cannot talk about your culture without addressing that *FACT*.  For that reason, you see white racists, separatists, and even supremacists of every sort embedded in *every* effort that is aimed at preserving our culture.  The John Birch Society, Young Republicans Club, and the Conservative Caucasus all like the Republican Party have had white supremacists in them for as long as I've been alive.
> 
> Hell, the last living klansman of the original KKK when it was rebirthed atop Stone Mountain was a Mason and Masons met routinely on his property and in his buildings.  You are either ignorant or a pathological liar to dismiss the working relationship.  Man, we aren't recruiting people for anything on this site, so it is quite disingenuous to claim that people like David Duke and neo nazis are some kind of "_fringe movement_."   Duke pioneered the idea of Border Watch which was adopted by Jim Gilchrist and Chris Simcox.  Gilchrist was a proven liar while Duke and Simcox are former nazis.  Without them, there would *never *have been an actual effort to man the border and then suggest build a wall.  They preceded Trump, who took up the banner - and even had the gall to claim he didn't know David Duke.  It's been proven over and over and over again, that is a LIE.  Trump's known Duke for years!
> 
> I would hold meetings and they were pretty well infiltrated by the National Alliance, neo - nazis,  and KKK types.  *BEFORE* the media and LEOs began underwriting the nazis and that idiotic build a wall idea, we were converting a lot of the people those organizations sent in to infiltrate the constitutionalists.  Dude, all you guys have a commonality with what you dishonestly call "_fringe groups_."  Without them, you wouldn't even have a movement.
> 
> I disagree with you because *you* represent their socialist solutions.  If you don't know the history of who you're following and the political road that led to Trump, then you need someone to guide you through that maze.  I agree with a lot of the people who have DISHONESTLY been identified as white supremacists when their only political crime is to want to protect, preserve, and advance our culture... which cannot be done without defending the race.  It simply cannot be done.  You cannot whitewash history enough to deny that fact.  The real issue is, if you build your culture on lies AND on the backs of other races and cultures, you will fail.  Know that because the reign of Trump coming to an end IS going to happen and I don't see you guys having any credible leadership once ol' moneybags is history.
> 
> What I do see, however, is people like you being duped into a strategy that is counterproductive to Freedom and Liberty.  You're not going to win without a fight.  You are so caught up in believing your own lies that you don't have a plan B for when the SHTF.  So, you don't see the need for property Rights and the Right to Privacy... and the CIA is always saying that "_information is the ultimate weapon_."  I'm going to tell you something for your own good:  Without the ability to resist tyranny, you* will *lose this country.  Talk shit about me all you like, but it's idiotic strategies like yours that is making resistance impossible.  You are your own worst enemy; fighting to destroy those who can do the most to help you.  You participate in your own genocide - though now you cannot feign ignorance.  If you're refusing to wake up, it's now just plain stupidity.  Rant over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. This country was not founded on racism.
> 
> 2. The white supremacists are a fringe that can't do shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said that this country was founded on racism?
> 
> White supremacists are NOT a fringe group.  They developed the political agenda that you follow.
> 
> Here is a *FACT*:
> 
> The* FIRST naturalization law* was passed within six months of the ratification of the Constitution.   Here is the wording of that law:
> 
> "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a *free white person*, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof_..."
> 
> naturalization laws 1790-1795
> 
> You can repeat a lie a thousand times, but it will NOT erase a simple fact.  This country was founded on the twin pillars of race and religion.  IF that means racism to you, then that is YOUR PERSONAL DEFINITION.  It most assuredly is not mine, but I am telling you the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. This country was not founded on racism.
> 
> 2. White supremacists are a fringe that can't do shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You already said that.  If you can keep repeating your errors, I can keep repeating the truth:
> 
> Who said that this country was founded on racism?
> 
> White supremacists are NOT a fringe group. They developed the political agenda that you follow.
> 
> Here is a *FACT*:
> 
> The* FIRST naturalization law* was passed within six months of the ratification of the Constitution. Here is the wording of that law:
> 
> "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a *free white person*, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof_..."
> 
> naturalization laws 1790-1795
> 
> You can repeat a lie a thousand times, but it will NOT erase a simple fact. This country was founded on the twin pillars of race and religion. IF that means racism to you, then that is YOUR PERSONAL DEFINITION. It most assuredly is not mine, but I am telling you the truth.
Click to expand...




This country was founded on the concepts of the Enlightenment thinking of the Founding Fathers, including the concept of God Given Rights and all men being created equal.




A secure border is the goal of any healthy nation, not the creation of a fringe group.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can blow smoke up peoples ass, but they don't buy it.  Neither do I because, unlike you, I was there and you weren't.  I don't need supporting evidence to see what I saw.
> 
> In the 1980s and 1990s the left wing media tried to marginalize *everything* the right did.  Once there was a white's rights rally a county over from me.  Our local paper said between two and three hundred people attended.  I called the guy who wrote the story.  I asked him if he were drunk that Saturday.  The rally was roped off and you had to pass by LEOs to get in.  Outside the actual rally was the general public.  Our church group passed out over 800 flyers to those who went INTO the rally site past the police lines.  We gave out quite a few to the people that did not go beyond the police lines.
> 
> There are barely any records of the many protests and counter protests!  But, honestly son, I don't need no stinking link.  Those people who heard about the barren streets when Trump came to town and thousands actually attended should be intelligent enough to understand what is going on.
> 
> Your persistent efforts to promote a false narrative do more to discredit what you say than any effort the left can come up with.  America was built on the twin pillars of race and religion.  You cannot talk about your culture without addressing that *FACT*.  For that reason, you see white racists, separatists, and even supremacists of every sort embedded in *every* effort that is aimed at preserving our culture.  The John Birch Society, Young Republicans Club, and the Conservative Caucasus all like the Republican Party have had white supremacists in them for as long as I've been alive.
> 
> Hell, the last living klansman of the original KKK when it was rebirthed atop Stone Mountain was a Mason and Masons met routinely on his property and in his buildings.  You are either ignorant or a pathological liar to dismiss the working relationship.  Man, we aren't recruiting people for anything on this site, so it is quite disingenuous to claim that people like David Duke and neo nazis are some kind of "_fringe movement_."   Duke pioneered the idea of Border Watch which was adopted by Jim Gilchrist and Chris Simcox.  Gilchrist was a proven liar while Duke and Simcox are former nazis.  Without them, there would *never *have been an actual effort to man the border and then suggest build a wall.  They preceded Trump, who took up the banner - and even had the gall to claim he didn't know David Duke.  It's been proven over and over and over again, that is a LIE.  Trump's known Duke for years!
> 
> I would hold meetings and they were pretty well infiltrated by the National Alliance, neo - nazis,  and KKK types.  *BEFORE* the media and LEOs began underwriting the nazis and that idiotic build a wall idea, we were converting a lot of the people those organizations sent in to infiltrate the constitutionalists.  Dude, all you guys have a commonality with what you dishonestly call "_fringe groups_."  Without them, you wouldn't even have a movement.
> 
> I disagree with you because *you* represent their socialist solutions.  If you don't know the history of who you're following and the political road that led to Trump, then you need someone to guide you through that maze.  I agree with a lot of the people who have DISHONESTLY been identified as white supremacists when their only political crime is to want to protect, preserve, and advance our culture... which cannot be done without defending the race.  It simply cannot be done.  You cannot whitewash history enough to deny that fact.  The real issue is, if you build your culture on lies AND on the backs of other races and cultures, you will fail.  Know that because the reign of Trump coming to an end IS going to happen and I don't see you guys having any credible leadership once ol' moneybags is history.
> 
> What I do see, however, is people like you being duped into a strategy that is counterproductive to Freedom and Liberty.  You're not going to win without a fight.  You are so caught up in believing your own lies that you don't have a plan B for when the SHTF.  So, you don't see the need for property Rights and the Right to Privacy... and the CIA is always saying that "_information is the ultimate weapon_."  I'm going to tell you something for your own good:  Without the ability to resist tyranny, you* will *lose this country.  Talk shit about me all you like, but it's idiotic strategies like yours that is making resistance impossible.  You are your own worst enemy; fighting to destroy those who can do the most to help you.  You participate in your own genocide - though now you cannot feign ignorance.  If you're refusing to wake up, it's now just plain stupidity.  Rant over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. This country was not founded on racism.
> 
> 2. The white supremacists are a fringe that can't do shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Donald has proven they are not the fringe of the trump party.
> 
> It is delusional to ignore that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Correll is committed to the platform developed by people  who themselves identify as being racists, it makes Correll's delusion even more bizarre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wanting a secure border, is not racist. Calling that racist is insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dishonesty is your forte'. If your "_secure border" _plan involves making outrageous allegations you cannot sustain AND it involves proposed solutions thought up by* National Socialists*, then yes, it would be racism.
Click to expand...




If I see a "national socialist" advocating for good dental hygiene, I'm not going to stop brushing my teeth. 


Your games of six degrees of separation, does not actually address the fact of the issue. They are nothing but the logical fallacy of guilt by association and poorly done at that.


This nation has been flooded with immigrates over the last 50 years, and we need a period of assimilation.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can blow smoke up peoples ass, but they don't buy it.  Neither do I because, unlike you, I was there and you weren't.  I don't need supporting evidence to see what I saw.
> 
> In the 1980s and 1990s the left wing media tried to marginalize *everything* the right did.  Once there was a white's rights rally a county over from me.  Our local paper said between two and three hundred people attended.  I called the guy who wrote the story.  I asked him if he were drunk that Saturday.  The rally was roped off and you had to pass by LEOs to get in.  Outside the actual rally was the general public.  Our church group passed out over 800 flyers to those who went INTO the rally site past the police lines.  We gave out quite a few to the people that did not go beyond the police lines.
> 
> There are barely any records of the many protests and counter protests!  But, honestly son, I don't need no stinking link.  Those people who heard about the barren streets when Trump came to town and thousands actually attended should be intelligent enough to understand what is going on.
> 
> Your persistent efforts to promote a false narrative do more to discredit what you say than any effort the left can come up with.  America was built on the twin pillars of race and religion.  You cannot talk about your culture without addressing that *FACT*.  For that reason, you see white racists, separatists, and even supremacists of every sort embedded in *every* effort that is aimed at preserving our culture.  The John Birch Society, Young Republicans Club, and the Conservative Caucasus all like the Republican Party have had white supremacists in them for as long as I've been alive.
> 
> Hell, the last living klansman of the original KKK when it was rebirthed atop Stone Mountain was a Mason and Masons met routinely on his property and in his buildings.  You are either ignorant or a pathological liar to dismiss the working relationship.  Man, we aren't recruiting people for anything on this site, so it is quite disingenuous to claim that people like David Duke and neo nazis are some kind of "_fringe movement_."   Duke pioneered the idea of Border Watch which was adopted by Jim Gilchrist and Chris Simcox.  Gilchrist was a proven liar while Duke and Simcox are former nazis.  Without them, there would *never *have been an actual effort to man the border and then suggest build a wall.  They preceded Trump, who took up the banner - and even had the gall to claim he didn't know David Duke.  It's been proven over and over and over again, that is a LIE.  Trump's known Duke for years!
> 
> I would hold meetings and they were pretty well infiltrated by the National Alliance, neo - nazis,  and KKK types.  *BEFORE* the media and LEOs began underwriting the nazis and that idiotic build a wall idea, we were converting a lot of the people those organizations sent in to infiltrate the constitutionalists.  Dude, all you guys have a commonality with what you dishonestly call "_fringe groups_."  Without them, you wouldn't even have a movement.
> 
> I disagree with you because *you* represent their socialist solutions.  If you don't know the history of who you're following and the political road that led to Trump, then you need someone to guide you through that maze.  I agree with a lot of the people who have DISHONESTLY been identified as white supremacists when their only political crime is to want to protect, preserve, and advance our culture... which cannot be done without defending the race.  It simply cannot be done.  You cannot whitewash history enough to deny that fact.  The real issue is, if you build your culture on lies AND on the backs of other races and cultures, you will fail.  Know that because the reign of Trump coming to an end IS going to happen and I don't see you guys having any credible leadership once ol' moneybags is history.
> 
> What I do see, however, is people like you being duped into a strategy that is counterproductive to Freedom and Liberty.  You're not going to win without a fight.  You are so caught up in believing your own lies that you don't have a plan B for when the SHTF.  So, you don't see the need for property Rights and the Right to Privacy... and the CIA is always saying that "_information is the ultimate weapon_."  I'm going to tell you something for your own good:  Without the ability to resist tyranny, you* will *lose this country.  Talk shit about me all you like, but it's idiotic strategies like yours that is making resistance impossible.  You are your own worst enemy; fighting to destroy those who can do the most to help you.  You participate in your own genocide - though now you cannot feign ignorance.  If you're refusing to wake up, it's now just plain stupidity.  Rant over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. This country was not founded on racism.
> 
> 2. The white supremacists are a fringe that can't do shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said that this country was founded on racism?
> 
> White supremacists are NOT a fringe group.  They developed the political agenda that you follow.
> 
> Here is a *FACT*:
> 
> The* FIRST naturalization law* was passed within six months of the ratification of the Constitution.   Here is the wording of that law:
> 
> "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a *free white person*, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof_..."
> 
> naturalization laws 1790-1795
> 
> You can repeat a lie a thousand times, but it will NOT erase a simple fact.  This country was founded on the twin pillars of race and religion.  IF that means racism to you, then that is YOUR PERSONAL DEFINITION.  It most assuredly is not mine, but I am telling you the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. This country was not founded on racism.
> 
> 2. White supremacists are a fringe that can't do shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You already said that.  If you can keep repeating your errors, I can keep repeating the truth:
> 
> Who said that this country was founded on racism?
> 
> White supremacists are NOT a fringe group. They developed the political agenda that you follow.
> 
> Here is a *FACT*:
> 
> The* FIRST naturalization law* was passed within six months of the ratification of the Constitution. Here is the wording of that law:
> 
> "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a *free white person*, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof_..."
> 
> naturalization laws 1790-1795
> 
> You can repeat a lie a thousand times, but it will NOT erase a simple fact. This country was founded on the twin pillars of race and religion. IF that means racism to you, then that is YOUR PERSONAL DEFINITION. It most assuredly is not mine, but I am telling you the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This country was founded on the concepts of the Enlightenment thinking of the Founding Fathers, including the concept of God Given Rights and all men being created equal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A secure border is the goal of any healthy nation, not the creation of a fringe group.
Click to expand...


You'd argue with a tree stump.  The blacks are going to argue with you and say they weren't equal when the Constitution was ratified.  The Chinese, who built the Transcontinental Railroad will argue with you.  So will other races that were unable to become citizens.

*ALL* men are created equal, in the sense that God bestowed upon them *unalienable* Rights.  Those Rights, however, did not extend to the privileges of citizenship.  Consequently America was founded on the twin pillars of race and religion.

You are conflating a militarized border with a secure border.  They are not the same thing.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. This country was not founded on racism.
> 
> 2. The white supremacists are a fringe that can't do shit.
> 
> 
> 
> Donald has proven they are not the fringe of the trump party.
> 
> It is delusional to ignore that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Correll is committed to the platform developed by people  who themselves identify as being racists, it makes Correll's delusion even more bizarre.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wanting a secure border, is not racist. Calling that racist is insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dishonesty is your forte'. If your "_secure border" _plan involves making outrageous allegations you cannot sustain AND it involves proposed solutions thought up by* National Socialists*, then yes, it would be racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I see a "national socialist" advocating for good dental hygiene, I'm not going to stop brushing my teeth.
> 
> 
> Your games of six degrees of separation, does not actually address the fact of the issue. They are nothing but the logical fallacy of guilt by association and poorly done at that.
> 
> 
> This nation has been flooded with immigrates over the last 50 years, and we need a period of assimilation.
Click to expand...


If I see a dental hygienist advocating that I brush my teeth with drano because it will make my teeth whiter, I'm not likely to be duped as easily as you are by white supremacists.  You're being silly.  There are no six degrees of separation.  Hell man, I know David Duke personally.  I'm not going to be like Trump.  The difference between Trump and yours truly - I'm not buying the National Socialist solution.  You are.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. This country was not founded on racism.
> 
> 2. The white supremacists are a fringe that can't do shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that this country was founded on racism?
> 
> White supremacists are NOT a fringe group.  They developed the political agenda that you follow.
> 
> Here is a *FACT*:
> 
> The* FIRST naturalization law* was passed within six months of the ratification of the Constitution.   Here is the wording of that law:
> 
> "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a *free white person*, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof_..."
> 
> naturalization laws 1790-1795
> 
> You can repeat a lie a thousand times, but it will NOT erase a simple fact.  This country was founded on the twin pillars of race and religion.  IF that means racism to you, then that is YOUR PERSONAL DEFINITION.  It most assuredly is not mine, but I am telling you the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. This country was not founded on racism.
> 
> 2. White supremacists are a fringe that can't do shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You already said that.  If you can keep repeating your errors, I can keep repeating the truth:
> 
> Who said that this country was founded on racism?
> 
> White supremacists are NOT a fringe group. They developed the political agenda that you follow.
> 
> Here is a *FACT*:
> 
> The* FIRST naturalization law* was passed within six months of the ratification of the Constitution. Here is the wording of that law:
> 
> "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a *free white person*, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof_..."
> 
> naturalization laws 1790-1795
> 
> You can repeat a lie a thousand times, but it will NOT erase a simple fact. This country was founded on the twin pillars of race and religion. IF that means racism to you, then that is YOUR PERSONAL DEFINITION. It most assuredly is not mine, but I am telling you the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This country was founded on the concepts of the Enlightenment thinking of the Founding Fathers, including the concept of God Given Rights and all men being created equal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A secure border is the goal of any healthy nation, not the creation of a fringe group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd argue with a tree stump.  The blacks are going to argue with you and say they weren't equal when the Constitution was ratified.  The Chinese, who built the Transcontinental Railroad will argue with you.  So will other races that were unable to become citizens.
> 
> *ALL* men are created equal, in the sense that God bestowed upon them *unalienable* Rights.  Those Rights, however, did not extend to the privileges of citizenship.  Consequently America was founded on the twin pillars of race and religion.
> 
> You are conflating a militarized border with a secure border.  They are not the same thing.
Click to expand...




1. So it took some time for US to live up to our ideals. That does not change the fact that of the Ideals that we were founded on.


2. Race, religion, Oppression, ect. ect ect ect, was the norm at the time. You might as well say that nation was founded on the planting and eating of food.  I reject your narrative of history. It is self serving and self defeating.

3 The tens of millions of illegals living in this country, prove that we do not have a secure border. I would be happy to militarize it, and see if that secures it. If not, I promise to apologize and admit I was wrong. We can then demilitarize it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Roc
> kwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said that this country was founded on racism?
> 
> White supremacists are NOT a fringe group.  They developed the political agenda that you follow.
> 
> Here is a *FACT*:
> 
> The* FIRST naturalization law* was passed within six months of the ratification of the Constitution.   Here is the wording of that law:
> 
> "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a *free white person*, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof_..."
> 
> naturalization laws 1790-1795
> 
> You can repeat a lie a thousand times, but it will NOT erase a simple fact.  This country was founded on the twin pillars of race and religion.  IF that means racism to you, then that is YOUR PERSONAL DEFINITION.  It most assuredly is not mine, but I am telling you the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. This country was not founded on racism.
> 
> 2. White supremacists are a fringe that can't do shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You already said that.  If you can keep repeating your errors, I can keep repeating the truth:
> 
> Who said that this country was founded on racism?
> 
> White supremacists are NOT a fringe group. They developed the political agenda that you follow.
> 
> Here is a *FACT*:
> 
> The* FIRST naturalization law* was passed within six months of the ratification of the Constitution. Here is the wording of that law:
> 
> "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a *free white person*, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof_..."
> 
> naturalization laws 1790-1795
> 
> You can repeat a lie a thousand times, but it will NOT erase a simple fact. This country was founded on the twin pillars of race and religion. IF that means racism to you, then that is YOUR PERSONAL DEFINITION. It most assuredly is not mine, but I am telling you the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This country was founded on the concepts of the Enlightenment thinking of the Founding Fathers, including the concept of God Given Rights and all men being created equal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A secure border is the goal of any healthy nation, not the creation of a fringe group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd argue with a tree stump.  The blacks are going to argue with you and say they weren't equal when the Constitution was ratified.  The Chinese, who built the Transcontinental Railroad will argue with you.  So will other races that were unable to become citizens.
> 
> *ALL* men are created equal, in the sense that God bestowed upon them *unalienable* Rights.  Those Rights, however, did not extend to the privileges of citizenship.  Consequently America was founded on the twin pillars of race and religion.
> 
> You are conflating a militarized border with a secure border.  They are not the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. So it took some time for US to live up to our ideals. That does not change the fact that of the Ideals that we were founded on.
> 
> 
> 2. Race, religion, Oppression, ect. ect ect ect, was the norm at the time. You might as well say that nation was founded on the planting and eating of food.  I reject your narrative of history. It is self serving and self defeating.
> 
> 3 The tens of millions of illegals living in this country, prove that we do not have a secure border. I would be happy to militarize it, and see if that secures it. If not, I promise to apologize and admit I was wrong. We can then demilitarize it.
Click to expand...


You've already been proven wrong.  In 1953 Congress began talking about _Operation Wetback_.  By 1954 they were rounding up every undocumented foreigner they could find.  In less than five years, the unemployment rate* doubled!* 

Race and religion is the norm today.  Many political leaders, including John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan have had speech writers quote parts of a sermon delivered in 1630 aboard the Arbella as it sailed for the New World.  You should take some time from your day, give posting a rest and read that sermon:

http://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf

There is a reason that the people who made the 14 part documentary about the Civil Rights Movement entitled their work "_Eyes on the Prize_."  Many in America don't know what they know.  *IF* you get bold enough, there was a reason I told you about the most popular sermon every preached relative to our founding AND the black peoples ultimate objective, so I'm leaving you some links so you might figure it out:

http://www.kimmillerconcernedchristians.com/Unsealings/1425.pdf

The Old Jerusalem is Not the New JerUSAlem

Welcome to "New JerUSAlem"

Our Father's Kingdom of America: America the New Jerusalem

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5705&context=etd

General Convention of the New Jerusalem in the United States of America | The Online Books Page

 I could cite you many other sources that would add to that, but those show that the sentiment crosses over many denominational lines and is as old as this country.

Finally,  it is* YOU* who cannot explain that founding of America was built on the twin pillars of race and religion.  You run from the FIRST naturalization law passed in the U.S.; ignore the many Compacts, Charters, and even the wording in the FIRST state constitutions that limited citizenship, voting privileges, and the privilege of holding public office to whites.  For *you*, *you* have been programmed, Pavlovian style, to stomp your feet, deny *your* history and proclaim such to be racist.

It is *YOU* calling it racist.  Wait a minute here.  It's perfectly kosher for Japan to call itself the most racially pure nation in the world.  with 98.5 percent of its 127 million people being Japanese.  So, practice what you preach.  If racism as you call it is so bad, get rid of all the Japanese products in your home.  They're racists you know.

There are more Chinese in China than there are white people on the face of the earth.  Of the nearly BILLION AND A HALF Chinese, 91.5 percent are Han Chinese.  How much junk is in your house that was made in China?  Damn dirty racists.  They have no Jews, Blacks, or Mexicans running their government so why are you supporting them?

North Korea is the most homogenous nation in the world.  How much stuff in your house says made in Korea on it?  Which one... North or South?

The United States spends BILLIONS of dollars per year to make sure the Israelis have their own homeland.  We're as quiet as a church mouse while the blacks in Zimbabwe commit genocide against the whites there.  Zimbabwe is 97.5 percent black today.  

America was built on the presupposition that all men are created equal and all of us have *unalienable* Rights.  So, when you start trying to deflect and call America a racist nation because the whites sought their own homeland, you are being hypocritical.  We support that Right for every nation in the world except our own.  Furthermore, that part of your argument is that you'd allow the world to come here _"legally_" is a load of horseshit.

WHEN the non-whites become the majority, they will kick your kind out of office, take what you have, demand reparations, force you out of existence by letting you overdose on drugs, marry outside your race, or be killed for your supposed racism.  Let's face it dude.  You are genuinely screwed up.  

Just between you and I:  I have never walked on the back of another man because he was the better man for a job.  I've never been so inferior that I needed an unfair advantage (the other guy didn't come here "_legally_.")  When you go to put on that halo and think you're going to put me in my place, you bear in mind that *any laws* which gives some foreigners the ability to work a job willingly offered and excludes others over a fricking piece of paper is plain damn wrong and it violates the 14th Amendment - unless you're about to admit that Amendment was illegally ratified.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Roc
> kwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. This country was not founded on racism.
> 
> 2. White supremacists are a fringe that can't do shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You already said that.  If you can keep repeating your errors, I can keep repeating the truth:
> 
> Who said that this country was founded on racism?
> 
> White supremacists are NOT a fringe group. They developed the political agenda that you follow.
> 
> Here is a *FACT*:
> 
> The* FIRST naturalization law* was passed within six months of the ratification of the Constitution. Here is the wording of that law:
> 
> "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a *free white person*, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof_..."
> 
> naturalization laws 1790-1795
> 
> You can repeat a lie a thousand times, but it will NOT erase a simple fact. This country was founded on the twin pillars of race and religion. IF that means racism to you, then that is YOUR PERSONAL DEFINITION. It most assuredly is not mine, but I am telling you the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This country was founded on the concepts of the Enlightenment thinking of the Founding Fathers, including the concept of God Given Rights and all men being created equal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A secure border is the goal of any healthy nation, not the creation of a fringe group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd argue with a tree stump.  The blacks are going to argue with you and say they weren't equal when the Constitution was ratified.  The Chinese, who built the Transcontinental Railroad will argue with you.  So will other races that were unable to become citizens.
> 
> *ALL* men are created equal, in the sense that God bestowed upon them *unalienable* Rights.  Those Rights, however, did not extend to the privileges of citizenship.  Consequently America was founded on the twin pillars of race and religion.
> 
> You are conflating a militarized border with a secure border.  They are not the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. So it took some time for US to live up to our ideals. That does not change the fact that of the Ideals that we were founded on.
> 
> 
> 2. Race, religion, Oppression, ect. ect ect ect, was the norm at the time. You might as well say that nation was founded on the planting and eating of food.  I reject your narrative of history. It is self serving and self defeating.
> 
> 3 The tens of millions of illegals living in this country, prove that we do not have a secure border. I would be happy to militarize it, and see if that secures it. If not, I promise to apologize and admit I was wrong. We can then demilitarize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've already been proven wrong.  In 1953 Congress began talking about _Operation Wetback_.  By 1954 they were rounding up every undocumented foreigner they could find.  In less than five years, the unemployment rate* doubled!* .....
Click to expand...




NOthing in my post made any point about employment. You brought that up to avoid addressing what I actually said.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Roc
> kwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You already said that.  If you can keep repeating your errors, I can keep repeating the truth:
> 
> Who said that this country was founded on racism?
> 
> White supremacists are NOT a fringe group. They developed the political agenda that you follow.
> 
> Here is a *FACT*:
> 
> The* FIRST naturalization law* was passed within six months of the ratification of the Constitution. Here is the wording of that law:
> 
> "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a *free white person*, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof_..."
> 
> naturalization laws 1790-1795
> 
> You can repeat a lie a thousand times, but it will NOT erase a simple fact. This country was founded on the twin pillars of race and religion. IF that means racism to you, then that is YOUR PERSONAL DEFINITION. It most assuredly is not mine, but I am telling you the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This country was founded on the concepts of the Enlightenment thinking of the Founding Fathers, including the concept of God Given Rights and all men being created equal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A secure border is the goal of any healthy nation, not the creation of a fringe group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd argue with a tree stump.  The blacks are going to argue with you and say they weren't equal when the Constitution was ratified.  The Chinese, who built the Transcontinental Railroad will argue with you.  So will other races that were unable to become citizens.
> 
> *ALL* men are created equal, in the sense that God bestowed upon them *unalienable* Rights.  Those Rights, however, did not extend to the privileges of citizenship.  Consequently America was founded on the twin pillars of race and religion.
> 
> You are conflating a militarized border with a secure border.  They are not the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. So it took some time for US to live up to our ideals. That does not change the fact that of the Ideals that we were founded on.
> 
> 
> 2. Race, religion, Oppression, ect. ect ect ect, was the norm at the time. You might as well say that nation was founded on the planting and eating of food.  I reject your narrative of history. It is self serving and self defeating.
> 
> 3 The tens of millions of illegals living in this country, prove that we do not have a secure border. I would be happy to militarize it, and see if that secures it. If not, I promise to apologize and admit I was wrong. We can then demilitarize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've already been proven wrong.  In 1953 Congress began talking about _Operation Wetback_.  By 1954 they were rounding up every undocumented foreigner they could find.  In less than five years, the unemployment rate* doubled!* .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOthing in my post made any point about employment. You brought that up to avoid addressing what I actually said.
Click to expand...


No sir, *YOU'VE* been avoiding what I have asked.  

I'm presuming we're a nation of laws and that even the illegally ratified laws are in place.  You haven't been able to deal in reality.  You don't understand the difference between what America was founded on what it evolved into (which, contrary to your opinion, is NOT a good thing.)

Your infantile analogies do not address the many links I've posted.  You and I both know you don't know all the different sides to this.  The bottom line, whether you like it or not, the Preamble to the Constitution reads:

"_We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and *secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,* do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America_."

I'm sorry that Constitution does not fit your narrative.  You will watch your country go down in flames because you cannot make a simple connection.  America cannot be a nation that is everything to everybody.  Someone* WILL* be pushed out.  This is the last president that is going to see it your way during your lifetime.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Roc
> kwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> This country was founded on the concepts of the Enlightenment thinking of the Founding Fathers, including the concept of God Given Rights and all men being created equal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A secure border is the goal of any healthy nation, not the creation of a fringe group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd argue with a tree stump.  The blacks are going to argue with you and say they weren't equal when the Constitution was ratified.  The Chinese, who built the Transcontinental Railroad will argue with you.  So will other races that were unable to become citizens.
> 
> *ALL* men are created equal, in the sense that God bestowed upon them *unalienable* Rights.  Those Rights, however, did not extend to the privileges of citizenship.  Consequently America was founded on the twin pillars of race and religion.
> 
> You are conflating a militarized border with a secure border.  They are not the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. So it took some time for US to live up to our ideals. That does not change the fact that of the Ideals that we were founded on.
> 
> 
> 2. Race, religion, Oppression, ect. ect ect ect, was the norm at the time. You might as well say that nation was founded on the planting and eating of food.  I reject your narrative of history. It is self serving and self defeating.
> 
> 3 The tens of millions of illegals living in this country, prove that we do not have a secure border. I would be happy to militarize it, and see if that secures it. If not, I promise to apologize and admit I was wrong. We can then demilitarize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've already been proven wrong.  In 1953 Congress began talking about _Operation Wetback_.  By 1954 they were rounding up every undocumented foreigner they could find.  In less than five years, the unemployment rate* doubled!* .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOthing in my post made any point about employment. You brought that up to avoid addressing what I actually said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir, *YOU'VE* been avoiding what I have asked.
> 
> I'm presuming we're a nation of laws and that even the illegally ratified laws are in place.  You haven't been able to deal in reality.  You don't understand the difference between what America was founded on what it evolved into (which, contrary to your opinion, is NOT a good thing.)
> 
> Your infantile analogies do not address the many links I've posted.  You and I both know you don't know all the different sides to this.  The bottom line, whether you like it or not, the Preamble to the Constitution reads:
> 
> "_We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and *secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,* do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America_."
> 
> I'm sorry that Constitution does not fit your narrative.  You will watch your country go down in flames because you cannot make a simple connection.  America cannot be a nation that is everything to everybody.  Someone* WILL* be pushed out.  This is the last president that is going to see it your way during your lifetime.
Click to expand...




You are not making any sense. 


You complain about the effects of Third World immigration, while attacking the idea of fighting against Third World immigration.


----------



## busybee01

Correll said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
> 2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
> Stephen King R-Iowa
> Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
> Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Proud Boys are not neo nazis.
> 
> 2. Trump did condemn the white supremacists and neo nazis in charlottesville repeatedly. That you lie about that, shows that you know you need to lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. They are a neo-Nazi group.
> 
> 2. All you have to look at is then Chief of Staff General Kelly with his face buried in his hands. Trump tried to equate neo-nazis and white supremacists with peaceful protestors who were assaulted with 1 killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not a Trump supporter, so don't go there when I tell you that you are wrong here.
> 
> The people who created the wallist religion (the whole wall worship thing) ARE nazis.  That is a fact beyond any dispute.  It is also a fact that the wallist religion predominates the effort that was made in Charlottesville.
> 
> Not all of the whites who attended the Charlottesville rally were violent white supremacists.  That is made self evident that the Charlottesville rally was a one and done event.  Contrast that to when the black community has their people shot or beaten in the streets.  The outcry and rallies are constant.
> 
> We do have a problem with foreigners coming to this country.  It is, however, one of our making.  But, the people have a RIGHT to protest and seek out change.  For anyone to say that all the Charlottesville protesters were white supremacists and so forth would be to claim that all black people are homosexuals just because the gay community marches with blacks when the black people feel their civil rights are being trampled on.
> 
> I wholly disagree with the neo nazis that are in charge of the nutty wall idea and I reject the principles of National Socialism.  At the same time, I care about my country, my race, my culture and the destiny of this nation.  I'm just not willing to step on the back of others to make my lot in life more pleasant.  Once you learn that, it will put us closer to sitting down and having a civil conversation that will lead to a solution all sides can live with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will tell you that you are wrong. The fact is that the white supremacists and neo-nazis were at the rally. If you rally alongside of them then you support them. The fact is that as long as you associate with neo-nazis and white supremacists, you support them. The Charlottesville protestors were laregely neo-nazis and white supremacists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Name one other time, in the last 50 years. that a white supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
Click to expand...


There has been a marked rise in right wing hate groups since Trump's election. These groups have been mainlined. The Republicans are forced to march to Trump's march and that is decidedly racist.


----------



## busybee01

s if


Correll said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. They are a neo-Nazi group.
> 
> 2. All you have to look at is then Chief of Staff General Kelly with his face buried in his hands. Trump tried to equate neo-nazis and white supremacists with peaceful protestors who were assaulted with 1 killed.
> 
> 
> 
> You are factually wrong.. it’s on video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are factually incorrect. The Proud Boys assaulted several people. That is why they were arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were assaulted and defended themselves. That is why no arrests were made that night.
> 
> 
> It was not until vile dem politicians saw a change to punish people for daring to stand up to the lefty mob, that they were arrested, days later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong they reviewed the tape. Just because someone knocks a hat off your head does not give you the right to beat someone to a pulp. The force used has to be proportional. If it is not then it is felony assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They reviewed the tape and ignored the context of days of harassment, vandalism and threats of attacks. And as to being beaten to a pulp, medical care was offered and refused by the antifa supposedly beaten to a pulp "victims".
> 
> 
> This is politically motivated arrests and prosecution and a gross miscarriage of justice.
Click to expand...


It is not a miscarriage of justice. It is justice. You have proved that you re a part of the radical right wing so you are totally wrong.


----------



## Correll

busybee01 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Proud Boys are not neo nazis.
> 
> 2. Trump did condemn the white supremacists and neo nazis in charlottesville repeatedly. That you lie about that, shows that you know you need to lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. They are a neo-Nazi group.
> 
> 2. All you have to look at is then Chief of Staff General Kelly with his face buried in his hands. Trump tried to equate neo-nazis and white supremacists with peaceful protestors who were assaulted with 1 killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not a Trump supporter, so don't go there when I tell you that you are wrong here.
> 
> The people who created the wallist religion (the whole wall worship thing) ARE nazis.  That is a fact beyond any dispute.  It is also a fact that the wallist religion predominates the effort that was made in Charlottesville.
> 
> Not all of the whites who attended the Charlottesville rally were violent white supremacists.  That is made self evident that the Charlottesville rally was a one and done event.  Contrast that to when the black community has their people shot or beaten in the streets.  The outcry and rallies are constant.
> 
> We do have a problem with foreigners coming to this country.  It is, however, one of our making.  But, the people have a RIGHT to protest and seek out change.  For anyone to say that all the Charlottesville protesters were white supremacists and so forth would be to claim that all black people are homosexuals just because the gay community marches with blacks when the black people feel their civil rights are being trampled on.
> 
> I wholly disagree with the neo nazis that are in charge of the nutty wall idea and I reject the principles of National Socialism.  At the same time, I care about my country, my race, my culture and the destiny of this nation.  I'm just not willing to step on the back of others to make my lot in life more pleasant.  Once you learn that, it will put us closer to sitting down and having a civil conversation that will lead to a solution all sides can live with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will tell you that you are wrong. The fact is that the white supremacists and neo-nazis were at the rally. If you rally alongside of them then you support them. The fact is that as long as you associate with neo-nazis and white supremacists, you support them. The Charlottesville protestors were laregely neo-nazis and white supremacists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Name one other time, in the last 50 years. that a white supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has been a marked rise in right wing hate groups since Trump's election. These groups have been mainlined. The Republicans are forced to march to Trump's march and that is decidedly racist.
Click to expand...



Said the man that could not cite another time that a whit supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.


Because whtie supremacists are an insignificant fringe and you know it.



Your vile lies about Trump being racist, is just you being an asshole.


----------



## Correll

busybee01 said:


> s if
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are factually wrong.. it’s on video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are factually incorrect. The Proud Boys assaulted several people. That is why they were arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were assaulted and defended themselves. That is why no arrests were made that night.
> 
> 
> It was not until vile dem politicians saw a change to punish people for daring to stand up to the lefty mob, that they were arrested, days later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong they reviewed the tape. Just because someone knocks a hat off your head does not give you the right to beat someone to a pulp. The force used has to be proportional. If it is not then it is felony assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They reviewed the tape and ignored the context of days of harassment, vandalism and threats of attacks. And as to being beaten to a pulp, medical care was offered and refused by the antifa supposedly beaten to a pulp "victims".
> 
> 
> This is politically motivated arrests and prosecution and a gross miscarriage of justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a miscarriage of justice. It is justice. You have proved that you re a part of the radical right wing so you are totally wrong.
Click to expand...





I explained why I believed that arrests were a miscarriage of justice.


All you did, was cowardly avoid addressing my points, and repeated your initial position.


THat is the logical fallacy of Argument by Assertion. YOur post is invalid, and you lose.



My point stands.


They reviewed the tape and ignored the context of days of harassment, vandalism and threats of attacks. And as to being beaten to a pulp, medical care was offered and refused by the antifa supposedly beaten to a pulp "victims".


This is politically motivated arrests and prosecution and a gross miscarriage of justice.


----------



## busybee01

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is the truth whether you like it or not. You can call it bullshit but you are the bullshit artist around here.
> 
> 
> 
> Your bullshit-ery is far greater than mine, if indeed I bullshit at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctuary cities do not assist people in breaking the law. They are not required to ask someone if they are citizens or not nor are they required to ask for their papers. Trump's lawsuit against California has been largely thrown out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The very fact sanctuary cities exist is proof you are just blowing smoke out of your backside whether you know it or not and I'm sure you have hypnotized yourself so as not to question the inherent illegality of a sanctuary refuge.
> Sanctuary hiding places serve no other purpose than to give people who are here illegally a place where they won't be ratted out by  I put this in nice bright letters so you wouldn't be able to avoid the truth.
> 
> The governor of California, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, etc. aren't allowed special dispensation so they can ignore the laws they don't want to follow. This isn't Jim Crow Alabama. They know what they do gives illegal immigrants vital assistance in avoiding the consequences of their illegal actions.
> They are willing and eager accomplices to crime. Here...I helped you out again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the dumb one as you clearly do not understand the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just extra special stupid. The Constitution doesn't give anyone, especially public officials who all must take oaths of office swearing they will uphold the law, permission to pick and choose the laws they want to enforce and they ones they will ignore like they are ordering off an ala carte menu. Don't insult me with your imbecilic garbage!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the dishonest imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the dishonest imbecile, most ironically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not illegal to not ask about someone's immigration status or their papers. You have no idea what a Jim Crow law is. These laws were declared illegal by the court. The courts have not said that states and local governments have to enforce immigration laws. They are not violating any court order.
> 
> You are the one that is uneducated and imbecilic. You are not even close to being right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I feel sorry for anyone that enters your brain damaged aura.
> I have already pointed out that merely by making yourself a sanctuary for criminals you are already declaring you are enabling and assisting people who are breaking the law. Hey, come and live here, you are saying to illegal immigrants...we won't tell La Migra you are here. You might as well be the gangster's girl friend who gives everybody a place to hide from the cops.
> 
> Nobody asks the Seattle City Council to check I.D.s or demand papers from anyone. That's a bullshit red herring.
> I would say it's beneath you, but it's really not.
> 
> _I know *exactly* what Jim Crow era policy was...ignoring civil rights laws that ended segregation because you didn't want to follow those laws! _It is precisely like sanctuary city policy...we will follow the laws we like and ignore the ones we don't like. So bend over and shove that up your bumble bee.
Click to expand...


You are the bullshit around here. 

1. State and local officials cannot be required to enforce immigration  law. Not asking someone's immigration status is not unlawful. The fact is that there is a clear boundary between the jurisdiction of federal and state law enforcement. The Supreme Court affirmed this in the  Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012). They set clear limits on states' ability to enforce federal immigration law even if a state wishes to do so. Your opinion has not been affirmed in any court.

2. Your brain does not exist so anyone looking for it would be lost forever. Voters do not support Trump on immigration policy. The states that defied Jim Crow policies were defending policies that had been declared illegal by the courts. Not one court has called sanctuary cities illegal because they understand it does not break any laws. Your opinion has not been endorsed in any court of law as a federal judge tossed most of Trump's lawsuit against California.,


----------



## busybee01

Porter Rockwell said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
> 2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
> Stephen King R-Iowa
> Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
> Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Proud Boys are not neo nazis.
> 
> 2. Trump did condemn the white supremacists and neo nazis in charlottesville repeatedly. That you lie about that, shows that you know you need to lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. They are a neo-Nazi group.
> 
> 2. All you have to look at is then Chief of Staff General Kelly with his face buried in his hands. Trump tried to equate neo-nazis and white supremacists with peaceful protestors who were assaulted with 1 killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not a Trump supporter, so don't go there when I tell you that you are wrong here.
> 
> The people who created the wallist religion (the whole wall worship thing) ARE nazis.  That is a fact beyond any dispute.  It is also a fact that the wallist religion predominates the effort that was made in Charlottesville.
> 
> Not all of the whites who attended the Charlottesville rally were violent white supremacists.  That is made self evident that the Charlottesville rally was a one and done event.  Contrast that to when the black community has their people shot or beaten in the streets.  The outcry and rallies are constant.
> 
> We do have a problem with foreigners coming to this country.  It is, however, one of our making.  But, the people have a RIGHT to protest and seek out change.  For anyone to say that all the Charlottesville protesters were white supremacists and so forth would be to claim that all black people are homosexuals just because the gay community marches with blacks when the black people feel their civil rights are being trampled on.
> 
> I wholly disagree with the neo nazis that are in charge of the nutty wall idea and I reject the principles of National Socialism.  At the same time, I care about my country, my race, my culture and the destiny of this nation.  I'm just not willing to step on the back of others to make my lot in life more pleasant.  Once you learn that, it will put us closer to sitting down and having a civil conversation that will lead to a solution all sides can live with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will tell you that you are wrong. The fact is that the white supremacists and neo-nazis were at the rally. If you rally alongside of them then you support them. The fact is that as long as you associate with neo-nazis and white supremacists, you support them. The Charlottesville protestors were laregely neo-nazis and white supremacists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then when Muslims, gays, transvestites, and atheists march in civil rights marches organized by black people it makes all blacks Muslims, gays, transvestites and atheists.  Logic has a funny way of working, don't it?
> 
> Granted, most of the people attracted to the nutty wall idea (neo-nazis) - which is what drew most people to that rally; however, there are other groups who are decent people, but have no real leadership.  If you're making a left wing argument, then when it comes to traitors, be careful of who YOU keep company with.  That guilt by association works both ways.
Click to expand...


The fact is that when you don't care whether your party has been taken over by the far right, it is far more than guilt by association. The Republican Party has been taken over by the alt-right and neo-nazis. The people who refuse to stand up to this are guilty by association.


----------



## Correll

busybee01 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Proud Boys are not neo nazis.
> 
> 2. Trump did condemn the white supremacists and neo nazis in charlottesville repeatedly. That you lie about that, shows that you know you need to lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. They are a neo-Nazi group.
> 
> 2. All you have to look at is then Chief of Staff General Kelly with his face buried in his hands. Trump tried to equate neo-nazis and white supremacists with peaceful protestors who were assaulted with 1 killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not a Trump supporter, so don't go there when I tell you that you are wrong here.
> 
> The people who created the wallist religion (the whole wall worship thing) ARE nazis.  That is a fact beyond any dispute.  It is also a fact that the wallist religion predominates the effort that was made in Charlottesville.
> 
> Not all of the whites who attended the Charlottesville rally were violent white supremacists.  That is made self evident that the Charlottesville rally was a one and done event.  Contrast that to when the black community has their people shot or beaten in the streets.  The outcry and rallies are constant.
> 
> We do have a problem with foreigners coming to this country.  It is, however, one of our making.  But, the people have a RIGHT to protest and seek out change.  For anyone to say that all the Charlottesville protesters were white supremacists and so forth would be to claim that all black people are homosexuals just because the gay community marches with blacks when the black people feel their civil rights are being trampled on.
> 
> I wholly disagree with the neo nazis that are in charge of the nutty wall idea and I reject the principles of National Socialism.  At the same time, I care about my country, my race, my culture and the destiny of this nation.  I'm just not willing to step on the back of others to make my lot in life more pleasant.  Once you learn that, it will put us closer to sitting down and having a civil conversation that will lead to a solution all sides can live with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will tell you that you are wrong. The fact is that the white supremacists and neo-nazis were at the rally. If you rally alongside of them then you support them. The fact is that as long as you associate with neo-nazis and white supremacists, you support them. The Charlottesville protestors were laregely neo-nazis and white supremacists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then when Muslims, gays, transvestites, and atheists march in civil rights marches organized by black people it makes all blacks Muslims, gays, transvestites and atheists.  Logic has a funny way of working, don't it?
> 
> Granted, most of the people attracted to the nutty wall idea (neo-nazis) - which is what drew most people to that rally; however, there are other groups who are decent people, but have no real leadership.  If you're making a left wing argument, then when it comes to traitors, be careful of who YOU keep company with.  That guilt by association works both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that when you don't care whether your party has been taken over by the far right, it is far more than guilt by association. The Republican Party has been taken over by the alt-right and neo-nazis. The people who refuse to stand up to this are guilty by association.
Click to expand...




Yeah, so "far right" that they want to control the border, and send foreign nationals who are here against the law, home!


What radical terror!!!!


LOL!!!!!!


----------



## busybee01

Jitss617 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were invited to speak by Republicans in NY
> 2018 Virginia Republican Senate candidate Corey Stewart had ties to white supremacists
> Stephen King R-Iowa
> Trump's refusal to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis in Charlottesville
> Tennessee Republicans block a bill to condemn white supremacists and neo-nazis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Proud Boys are not neo nazis.
> 
> 2. Trump did condemn the white supremacists and neo nazis in charlottesville repeatedly. That you lie about that, shows that you know you need to lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. They are a neo-Nazi group.
> 
> 2. All you have to look at is then Chief of Staff General Kelly with his face buried in his hands. Trump tried to equate neo-nazis and white supremacists with peaceful protestors who were assaulted with 1 killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are factually wrong.. it’s on video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are factually incorrect. The Proud Boys assaulted several people. That is why they were arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they were assulted .. they confronted the racist militant kkk groups now called antifia. They protect free speech
Click to expand...


The Proud Boys did the assault. They used disproportionate force against the protestors. If they had called the police, then the protestors might have been guilty of misdemeanor assault. However they took the law into their own hands and committed felony assault.


----------



## Jitss617

busybee01 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Proud Boys are not neo nazis.
> 
> 2. Trump did condemn the white supremacists and neo nazis in charlottesville repeatedly. That you lie about that, shows that you know you need to lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. They are a neo-Nazi group.
> 
> 2. All you have to look at is then Chief of Staff General Kelly with his face buried in his hands. Trump tried to equate neo-nazis and white supremacists with peaceful protestors who were assaulted with 1 killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are factually wrong.. it’s on video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are factually incorrect. The Proud Boys assaulted several people. That is why they were arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they were assulted .. they confronted the racist militant kkk groups now called antifia. They protect free speech
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys did the assault. They used disproportionate force against the protestors. If they had called the police, then the protestors might have been guilty of misdemeanor assault. However they took the law into their own hands and committed felony assault.
Click to expand...

Proud boys assulted anti Americans who are out to assault proud Americans. They protect us


----------



## busybee01

Correll said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. They are a neo-Nazi group.
> 
> 2. All you have to look at is then Chief of Staff General Kelly with his face buried in his hands. Trump tried to equate neo-nazis and white supremacists with peaceful protestors who were assaulted with 1 killed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a Trump supporter, so don't go there when I tell you that you are wrong here.
> 
> The people who created the wallist religion (the whole wall worship thing) ARE nazis.  That is a fact beyond any dispute.  It is also a fact that the wallist religion predominates the effort that was made in Charlottesville.
> 
> Not all of the whites who attended the Charlottesville rally were violent white supremacists.  That is made self evident that the Charlottesville rally was a one and done event.  Contrast that to when the black community has their people shot or beaten in the streets.  The outcry and rallies are constant.
> 
> We do have a problem with foreigners coming to this country.  It is, however, one of our making.  But, the people have a RIGHT to protest and seek out change.  For anyone to say that all the Charlottesville protesters were white supremacists and so forth would be to claim that all black people are homosexuals just because the gay community marches with blacks when the black people feel their civil rights are being trampled on.
> 
> I wholly disagree with the neo nazis that are in charge of the nutty wall idea and I reject the principles of National Socialism.  At the same time, I care about my country, my race, my culture and the destiny of this nation.  I'm just not willing to step on the back of others to make my lot in life more pleasant.  Once you learn that, it will put us closer to sitting down and having a civil conversation that will lead to a solution all sides can live with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will tell you that you are wrong. The fact is that the white supremacists and neo-nazis were at the rally. If you rally alongside of them then you support them. The fact is that as long as you associate with neo-nazis and white supremacists, you support them. The Charlottesville protestors were laregely neo-nazis and white supremacists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Name one other time, in the last 50 years. that a white supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has been a marked rise in right wing hate groups since Trump's election. These groups have been mainlined. The Republicans are forced to march to Trump's march and that is decidedly racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that could not cite another time that a whit supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
> 
> 
> Because whtie supremacists are an insignificant fringe and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your vile lies about Trump being racist, is just you being an asshole.
Click to expand...


You are the one who is a vile liar. The fact is that since Trump's election, far right haters on the rise. They have committed numerous acts of violence by killing people and plotting to kill Trump's political opponents. Republicans refuse to hold Trump accountable.

You are the asshole who has his tongue so far up Trump's ass that you have blown your brains out.

One such example is Corey Stewart. He got the Republican nomination despite his ties to white supremacists. He still got 1,368,451 votes in losing. That is a huge number of people who ignored or supported him even with his ties to white supremacists.


----------



## Correll

busybee01 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Proud Boys are not neo nazis.
> 
> 2. Trump did condemn the white supremacists and neo nazis in charlottesville repeatedly. That you lie about that, shows that you know you need to lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. They are a neo-Nazi group.
> 
> 2. All you have to look at is then Chief of Staff General Kelly with his face buried in his hands. Trump tried to equate neo-nazis and white supremacists with peaceful protestors who were assaulted with 1 killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are factually wrong.. it’s on video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are factually incorrect. The Proud Boys assaulted several people. That is why they were arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they were assulted .. they confronted the racist militant kkk groups now called antifia. They protect free speech
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys did the assault. They used disproportionate force against the protestors. If they had called the police, then the protestors might have been guilty of misdemeanor assault. However they took the law into their own hands and committed felony assault.
Click to expand...


Such disproportionate force that not one injury was recorded or treated. 


Your support of antifa, makes you the fascist.


----------



## Aba Incieni

busybee01 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is the truth whether you like it or not. You can call it bullshit but you are the bullshit artist around here.
> 
> 
> 
> Your bullshit-ery is far greater than mine, if indeed I bullshit at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctuary cities do not assist people in breaking the law. They are not required to ask someone if they are citizens or not nor are they required to ask for their papers. Trump's lawsuit against California has been largely thrown out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The very fact sanctuary cities exist is proof you are just blowing smoke out of your backside whether you know it or not and I'm sure you have hypnotized yourself so as not to question the inherent illegality of a sanctuary refuge.
> Sanctuary hiding places serve no other purpose than to give people who are here illegally a place where they won't be ratted out by  I put this in nice bright letters so you wouldn't be able to avoid the truth.
> 
> The governor of California, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, etc. aren't allowed special dispensation so they can ignore the laws they don't want to follow. This isn't Jim Crow Alabama. They know what they do gives illegal immigrants vital assistance in avoiding the consequences of their illegal actions.
> They are willing and eager accomplices to crime. Here...I helped you out again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the dumb one as you clearly do not understand the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just extra special stupid. The Constitution doesn't give anyone, especially public officials who all must take oaths of office swearing they will uphold the law, permission to pick and choose the laws they want to enforce and they ones they will ignore like they are ordering off an ala carte menu. Don't insult me with your imbecilic garbage!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the dishonest imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the dishonest imbecile, most ironically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not illegal to not ask about someone's immigration status or their papers. You have no idea what a Jim Crow law is. These laws were declared illegal by the court. The courts have not said that states and local governments have to enforce immigration laws. They are not violating any court order.
> 
> You are the one that is uneducated and imbecilic. You are not even close to being right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I feel sorry for anyone that enters your brain damaged aura.
> I have already pointed out that merely by making yourself a sanctuary for criminals you are already declaring you are enabling and assisting people who are breaking the law. Hey, come and live here, you are saying to illegal immigrants...we won't tell La Migra you are here. You might as well be the gangster's girl friend who gives everybody a place to hide from the cops.
> 
> Nobody asks the Seattle City Council to check I.D.s or demand papers from anyone. That's a bullshit red herring.
> I would say it's beneath you, but it's really not.
> 
> _I know *exactly* what Jim Crow era policy was...ignoring civil rights laws that ended segregation because you didn't want to follow those laws! _It is precisely like sanctuary city policy...we will follow the laws we like and ignore the ones we don't like. So bend over and shove that up your bumble bee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the bullshit around here.
> 
> 1. State and local officials cannot be required to enforce immigration  law. Not asking someone's immigration status is not unlawful. The fact is that there is a clear boundary between the jurisdiction of federal and state law enforcement. The Supreme Court affirmed this in the  Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012). They set clear limits on states' ability to enforce federal immigration law even if a state wishes to do so. Your opinion has not been affirmed in any court.
> 
> 2. Your brain does not exist so anyone looking for it would be lost forever. Voters do not support Trump on immigration policy. The states that defied Jim Crow policies were defending policies that had been declared illegal by the courts. Not one court has called sanctuary cities illegal because they understand it does not break any laws. Your opinion has not been endorsed in any court of law as a federal judge tossed most of Trump's lawsuit against California.,
Click to expand...

These weren't state or local officials. They were a well-armed militia.


----------



## busybee01

Correll said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> s if
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are factually incorrect. The Proud Boys assaulted several people. That is why they were arrested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were assaulted and defended themselves. That is why no arrests were made that night.
> 
> 
> It was not until vile dem politicians saw a change to punish people for daring to stand up to the lefty mob, that they were arrested, days later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong they reviewed the tape. Just because someone knocks a hat off your head does not give you the right to beat someone to a pulp. The force used has to be proportional. If it is not then it is felony assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They reviewed the tape and ignored the context of days of harassment, vandalism and threats of attacks. And as to being beaten to a pulp, medical care was offered and refused by the antifa supposedly beaten to a pulp "victims".
> 
> 
> This is politically motivated arrests and prosecution and a gross miscarriage of justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a miscarriage of justice. It is justice. You have proved that you re a part of the radical right wing so you are totally wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I explained why I believed that arrests were a miscarriage of justice.
> 
> 
> All you did, was cowardly avoid addressing my points, and repeated your initial position.
> 
> 
> THat is the logical fallacy of Argument by Assertion. YOur post is invalid, and you lose.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> They reviewed the tape and ignored the context of days of harassment, vandalism and threats of attacks. And as to being beaten to a pulp, medical care was offered and refused by the antifa supposedly beaten to a pulp "victims".
> 
> 
> This is politically motivated arrests and prosecution and a gross miscarriage of justice.
Click to expand...


You have stated your opinion. Try using the law. In claiming self defense, proportional force must be used. Someone's hat was knocked off. That does not allow someone to beat someone. 

*Proportional Response*

Self-defense law requires the response to match the level of the threat in question. In other words, a person can only employ as much force as required to remove the threat. If the threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat. If, however, the threat involves only minor force and the person claiming self-defense uses force that could cause grievous bodily harm or death, the claim of self-defense will fail.

Self-Defense Law: Overview - FindLaw

I don't have to address your points because I understand the law. You do not.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Roc
> kwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd argue with a tree stump.  The blacks are going to argue with you and say they weren't equal when the Constitution was ratified.  The Chinese, who built the Transcontinental Railroad will argue with you.  So will other races that were unable to become citizens.
> 
> *ALL* men are created equal, in the sense that God bestowed upon them *unalienable* Rights.  Those Rights, however, did not extend to the privileges of citizenship.  Consequently America was founded on the twin pillars of race and religion.
> 
> You are conflating a militarized border with a secure border.  They are not the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. So it took some time for US to live up to our ideals. That does not change the fact that of the Ideals that we were founded on.
> 
> 
> 2. Race, religion, Oppression, ect. ect ect ect, was the norm at the time. You might as well say that nation was founded on the planting and eating of food.  I reject your narrative of history. It is self serving and self defeating.
> 
> 3 The tens of millions of illegals living in this country, prove that we do not have a secure border. I would be happy to militarize it, and see if that secures it. If not, I promise to apologize and admit I was wrong. We can then demilitarize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've already been proven wrong.  In 1953 Congress began talking about _Operation Wetback_.  By 1954 they were rounding up every undocumented foreigner they could find.  In less than five years, the unemployment rate* doubled!* .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOthing in my post made any point about employment. You brought that up to avoid addressing what I actually said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir, *YOU'VE* been avoiding what I have asked.
> 
> I'm presuming we're a nation of laws and that even the illegally ratified laws are in place.  You haven't been able to deal in reality.  You don't understand the difference between what America was founded on what it evolved into (which, contrary to your opinion, is NOT a good thing.)
> 
> Your infantile analogies do not address the many links I've posted.  You and I both know you don't know all the different sides to this.  The bottom line, whether you like it or not, the Preamble to the Constitution reads:
> 
> "_We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and *secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,* do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America_."
> 
> I'm sorry that Constitution does not fit your narrative.  You will watch your country go down in flames because you cannot make a simple connection.  America cannot be a nation that is everything to everybody.  Someone* WILL* be pushed out.  This is the last president that is going to see it your way during your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not making any sense.
> 
> 
> You complain about the effects of Third World immigration, while attacking the idea of fighting against Third World immigration.
Click to expand...


I am fighting against* proposed SOCIALIST SOLUTIONS DREAMED UP BY NEO - NAZIS*.  

What in the Hell is it you don't understand about that?  What is it that makes you unable to realize that you are handing this country over to the third world with a strategy designed to implode?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

busybee01 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The Proud Boys are not neo nazis.
> 
> 2. Trump did condemn the white supremacists and neo nazis in charlottesville repeatedly. That you lie about that, shows that you know you need to lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. They are a neo-Nazi group.
> 
> 2. All you have to look at is then Chief of Staff General Kelly with his face buried in his hands. Trump tried to equate neo-nazis and white supremacists with peaceful protestors who were assaulted with 1 killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not a Trump supporter, so don't go there when I tell you that you are wrong here.
> 
> The people who created the wallist religion (the whole wall worship thing) ARE nazis.  That is a fact beyond any dispute.  It is also a fact that the wallist religion predominates the effort that was made in Charlottesville.
> 
> Not all of the whites who attended the Charlottesville rally were violent white supremacists.  That is made self evident that the Charlottesville rally was a one and done event.  Contrast that to when the black community has their people shot or beaten in the streets.  The outcry and rallies are constant.
> 
> We do have a problem with foreigners coming to this country.  It is, however, one of our making.  But, the people have a RIGHT to protest and seek out change.  For anyone to say that all the Charlottesville protesters were white supremacists and so forth would be to claim that all black people are homosexuals just because the gay community marches with blacks when the black people feel their civil rights are being trampled on.
> 
> I wholly disagree with the neo nazis that are in charge of the nutty wall idea and I reject the principles of National Socialism.  At the same time, I care about my country, my race, my culture and the destiny of this nation.  I'm just not willing to step on the back of others to make my lot in life more pleasant.  Once you learn that, it will put us closer to sitting down and having a civil conversation that will lead to a solution all sides can live with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will tell you that you are wrong. The fact is that the white supremacists and neo-nazis were at the rally. If you rally alongside of them then you support them. The fact is that as long as you associate with neo-nazis and white supremacists, you support them. The Charlottesville protestors were laregely neo-nazis and white supremacists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Name one other time, in the last 50 years. that a white supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has been a marked rise in right wing hate groups since Trump's election. These groups have been mainlined. The Republicans are forced to march to Trump's march and that is decidedly racist.
Click to expand...


That would not be so if the sheeple on the right could understand that Trump got his* proposed solutions* from neo-nazis.  Trump simply jumped on the bandwagon and because he's a rich hack, some people are following him as if his turds are nuggets of gold.

Trump does not have the only solution.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. They are a neo-Nazi group.
> 
> 2. All you have to look at is then Chief of Staff General Kelly with his face buried in his hands. Trump tried to equate neo-nazis and white supremacists with peaceful protestors who were assaulted with 1 killed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a Trump supporter, so don't go there when I tell you that you are wrong here.
> 
> The people who created the wallist religion (the whole wall worship thing) ARE nazis.  That is a fact beyond any dispute.  It is also a fact that the wallist religion predominates the effort that was made in Charlottesville.
> 
> Not all of the whites who attended the Charlottesville rally were violent white supremacists.  That is made self evident that the Charlottesville rally was a one and done event.  Contrast that to when the black community has their people shot or beaten in the streets.  The outcry and rallies are constant.
> 
> We do have a problem with foreigners coming to this country.  It is, however, one of our making.  But, the people have a RIGHT to protest and seek out change.  For anyone to say that all the Charlottesville protesters were white supremacists and so forth would be to claim that all black people are homosexuals just because the gay community marches with blacks when the black people feel their civil rights are being trampled on.
> 
> I wholly disagree with the neo nazis that are in charge of the nutty wall idea and I reject the principles of National Socialism.  At the same time, I care about my country, my race, my culture and the destiny of this nation.  I'm just not willing to step on the back of others to make my lot in life more pleasant.  Once you learn that, it will put us closer to sitting down and having a civil conversation that will lead to a solution all sides can live with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will tell you that you are wrong. The fact is that the white supremacists and neo-nazis were at the rally. If you rally alongside of them then you support them. The fact is that as long as you associate with neo-nazis and white supremacists, you support them. The Charlottesville protestors were laregely neo-nazis and white supremacists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then when Muslims, gays, transvestites, and atheists march in civil rights marches organized by black people it makes all blacks Muslims, gays, transvestites and atheists.  Logic has a funny way of working, don't it?
> 
> Granted, most of the people attracted to the nutty wall idea (neo-nazis) - which is what drew most people to that rally; however, there are other groups who are decent people, but have no real leadership.  If you're making a left wing argument, then when it comes to traitors, be careful of who YOU keep company with.  That guilt by association works both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that when you don't care whether your party has been taken over by the far right, it is far more than guilt by association. The Republican Party has been taken over by the alt-right and neo-nazis. The people who refuse to stand up to this are guilty by association.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, so "far right" that they want to control the border, and send foreign nationals who are here against the law, home!
> 
> 
> What radical terror!!!!
> 
> 
> LOL!!!!!!
Click to expand...


Legal (sic), _"illegal_"... WTH is the difference?  If someone is here, a piece of paper issued by a corrupt government out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption is not going to make them anything except another subject of the NEW WORLD ORDER.  As soon as that individual gets their citizenship, they will become a Democrat.

After that happens, they can tell Correll to shut his pie hole and shine their shoes.  He'll do it with a smile on his face and joy in his heart... Correll just wants others to share in the Hell he's creating for himself and generations to come.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Aba Incieni said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is the truth whether you like it or not. You can call it bullshit but you are the bullshit artist around here.
> 
> 
> 
> Your bullshit-ery is far greater than mine, if indeed I bullshit at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctuary cities do not assist people in breaking the law. They are not required to ask someone if they are citizens or not nor are they required to ask for their papers. Trump's lawsuit against California has been largely thrown out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The very fact sanctuary cities exist is proof you are just blowing smoke out of your backside whether you know it or not and I'm sure you have hypnotized yourself so as not to question the inherent illegality of a sanctuary refuge.
> Sanctuary hiding places serve no other purpose than to give people who are here illegally a place where they won't be ratted out by  I put this in nice bright letters so you wouldn't be able to avoid the truth.
> 
> The governor of California, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, etc. aren't allowed special dispensation so they can ignore the laws they don't want to follow. This isn't Jim Crow Alabama. They know what they do gives illegal immigrants vital assistance in avoiding the consequences of their illegal actions.
> They are willing and eager accomplices to crime. Here...I helped you out again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the dumb one as you clearly do not understand the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just extra special stupid. The Constitution doesn't give anyone, especially public officials who all must take oaths of office swearing they will uphold the law, permission to pick and choose the laws they want to enforce and they ones they will ignore like they are ordering off an ala carte menu. Don't insult me with your imbecilic garbage!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the dishonest imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the dishonest imbecile, most ironically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not illegal to not ask about someone's immigration status or their papers. You have no idea what a Jim Crow law is. These laws were declared illegal by the court. The courts have not said that states and local governments have to enforce immigration laws. They are not violating any court order.
> 
> You are the one that is uneducated and imbecilic. You are not even close to being right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I feel sorry for anyone that enters your brain damaged aura.
> I have already pointed out that merely by making yourself a sanctuary for criminals you are already declaring you are enabling and assisting people who are breaking the law. Hey, come and live here, you are saying to illegal immigrants...we won't tell La Migra you are here. You might as well be the gangster's girl friend who gives everybody a place to hide from the cops.
> 
> Nobody asks the Seattle City Council to check I.D.s or demand papers from anyone. That's a bullshit red herring.
> I would say it's beneath you, but it's really not.
> 
> _I know *exactly* what Jim Crow era policy was...ignoring civil rights laws that ended segregation because you didn't want to follow those laws! _It is precisely like sanctuary city policy...we will follow the laws we like and ignore the ones we don't like. So bend over and shove that up your bumble bee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the bullshit around here.
> 
> 1. State and local officials cannot be required to enforce immigration  law. Not asking someone's immigration status is not unlawful. The fact is that there is a clear boundary between the jurisdiction of federal and state law enforcement. The Supreme Court affirmed this in the  Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012). They set clear limits on states' ability to enforce federal immigration law even if a state wishes to do so. Your opinion has not been affirmed in any court.
> 
> 2. Your brain does not exist so anyone looking for it would be lost forever. Voters do not support Trump on immigration policy. The states that defied Jim Crow policies were defending policies that had been declared illegal by the courts. Not one court has called sanctuary cities illegal because they understand it does not break any laws. Your opinion has not been endorsed in any court of law as a federal judge tossed most of Trump's lawsuit against California.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These weren't state or local officials. They were a well-armed militia.
Click to expand...


A well armed militia does not have the *authority* to unilaterally decide what the law is and then become a separate LEO organization.  

The highest ranking Executive Officer of the state is the governor.  If that governor says a National Emergency does not exist;* it does not exist*.The state militia answers to the governor of that state.

These build the wall nutjobs are the very ones who allowed the government to set the legal precedent that undocumented foreigners have "_civil rights_"... AND that those _civil rights_ trump the property owners private property rights.  You've already duly noted that state and local officials cannot be forced to enforce federal immigration law.  Furthermore, the* United States Supreme Court has ruled that being in the United States without papers is not a crime*.

That is the Rule of Law.  I was an officer in this country's oldest and most continuous militia.  The fact that we've been around longer than any existing civilian militia, having outlasted the rest should tell you that what I'm saying is *NOT* opinion.  It is just the facts and any strategy used has to be employed subject to the parameters of the law.


----------



## Aba Incieni

Porter Rockwell said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is the truth whether you like it or not. You can call it bullshit but you are the bullshit artist around here.
> 
> 
> 
> Your bullshit-ery is far greater than mine, if indeed I bullshit at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctuary cities do not assist people in breaking the law. They are not required to ask someone if they are citizens or not nor are they required to ask for their papers. Trump's lawsuit against California has been largely thrown out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The very fact sanctuary cities exist is proof you are just blowing smoke out of your backside whether you know it or not and I'm sure you have hypnotized yourself so as not to question the inherent illegality of a sanctuary refuge.
> Sanctuary hiding places serve no other purpose than to give people who are here illegally a place where they won't be ratted out by  I put this in nice bright letters so you wouldn't be able to avoid the truth.
> 
> The governor of California, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, etc. aren't allowed special dispensation so they can ignore the laws they don't want to follow. This isn't Jim Crow Alabama. They know what they do gives illegal immigrants vital assistance in avoiding the consequences of their illegal actions.
> They are willing and eager accomplices to crime. Here...I helped you out again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the dumb one as you clearly do not understand the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just extra special stupid. The Constitution doesn't give anyone, especially public officials who all must take oaths of office swearing they will uphold the law, permission to pick and choose the laws they want to enforce and they ones they will ignore like they are ordering off an ala carte menu. Don't insult me with your imbecilic garbage!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the dishonest imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the dishonest imbecile, most ironically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not illegal to not ask about someone's immigration status or their papers. You have no idea what a Jim Crow law is. These laws were declared illegal by the court. The courts have not said that states and local governments have to enforce immigration laws. They are not violating any court order.
> 
> You are the one that is uneducated and imbecilic. You are not even close to being right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I feel sorry for anyone that enters your brain damaged aura.
> I have already pointed out that merely by making yourself a sanctuary for criminals you are already declaring you are enabling and assisting people who are breaking the law. Hey, come and live here, you are saying to illegal immigrants...we won't tell La Migra you are here. You might as well be the gangster's girl friend who gives everybody a place to hide from the cops.
> 
> Nobody asks the Seattle City Council to check I.D.s or demand papers from anyone. That's a bullshit red herring.
> I would say it's beneath you, but it's really not.
> 
> _I know *exactly* what Jim Crow era policy was...ignoring civil rights laws that ended segregation because you didn't want to follow those laws! _It is precisely like sanctuary city policy...we will follow the laws we like and ignore the ones we don't like. So bend over and shove that up your bumble bee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the bullshit around here.
> 
> 1. State and local officials cannot be required to enforce immigration  law. Not asking someone's immigration status is not unlawful. The fact is that there is a clear boundary between the jurisdiction of federal and state law enforcement. The Supreme Court affirmed this in the  Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012). They set clear limits on states' ability to enforce federal immigration law even if a state wishes to do so. Your opinion has not been affirmed in any court.
> 
> 2. Your brain does not exist so anyone looking for it would be lost forever. Voters do not support Trump on immigration policy. The states that defied Jim Crow policies were defending policies that had been declared illegal by the courts. Not one court has called sanctuary cities illegal because they understand it does not break any laws. Your opinion has not been endorsed in any court of law as a federal judge tossed most of Trump's lawsuit against California.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These weren't state or local officials. They were a well-armed militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A well armed militia does not have the *authority* to unilaterally decide what the law is and then become a separate LEO organization.
> 
> The highest ranking Executive Officer of the state is the governor.  If that governor says a National Emergency does not exist;* it does not exist*.The state militia answers to the governor of that state.
> 
> These build the wall nutjobs are the very ones who allowed the government to set the legal precedent that undocumented foreigners have "_civil rights_"... AND that those _civil rights_ trump the property owners private property rights.  You've already duly noted that state and local officials cannot be forced to enforce federal immigration law.  Furthermore, the* United States Supreme Court has ruled that being in the United States without papers is not a crime*.
> 
> That is the Rule of Law.  I was an officer in this country's oldest and most continuous militia.  The fact that we've been around longer than any existing civilian militia, having outlasted the rest should tell you that what I'm saying is *NOT* opinion.  It is just the facts and any strategy used has to be employed subject to the parameters of the law.
Click to expand...

Citizen's arrest.


----------



## busybee01

Correll said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. They are a neo-Nazi group.
> 
> 2. All you have to look at is then Chief of Staff General Kelly with his face buried in his hands. Trump tried to equate neo-nazis and white supremacists with peaceful protestors who were assaulted with 1 killed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a Trump supporter, so don't go there when I tell you that you are wrong here.
> 
> The people who created the wallist religion (the whole wall worship thing) ARE nazis.  That is a fact beyond any dispute.  It is also a fact that the wallist religion predominates the effort that was made in Charlottesville.
> 
> Not all of the whites who attended the Charlottesville rally were violent white supremacists.  That is made self evident that the Charlottesville rally was a one and done event.  Contrast that to when the black community has their people shot or beaten in the streets.  The outcry and rallies are constant.
> 
> We do have a problem with foreigners coming to this country.  It is, however, one of our making.  But, the people have a RIGHT to protest and seek out change.  For anyone to say that all the Charlottesville protesters were white supremacists and so forth would be to claim that all black people are homosexuals just because the gay community marches with blacks when the black people feel their civil rights are being trampled on.
> 
> I wholly disagree with the neo nazis that are in charge of the nutty wall idea and I reject the principles of National Socialism.  At the same time, I care about my country, my race, my culture and the destiny of this nation.  I'm just not willing to step on the back of others to make my lot in life more pleasant.  Once you learn that, it will put us closer to sitting down and having a civil conversation that will lead to a solution all sides can live with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will tell you that you are wrong. The fact is that the white supremacists and neo-nazis were at the rally. If you rally alongside of them then you support them. The fact is that as long as you associate with neo-nazis and white supremacists, you support them. The Charlottesville protestors were laregely neo-nazis and white supremacists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then when Muslims, gays, transvestites, and atheists march in civil rights marches organized by black people it makes all blacks Muslims, gays, transvestites and atheists.  Logic has a funny way of working, don't it?
> 
> Granted, most of the people attracted to the nutty wall idea (neo-nazis) - which is what drew most people to that rally; however, there are other groups who are decent people, but have no real leadership.  If you're making a left wing argument, then when it comes to traitors, be careful of who YOU keep company with.  That guilt by association works both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that when you don't care whether your party has been taken over by the far right, it is far more than guilt by association. The Republican Party has been taken over by the alt-right and neo-nazis. The people who refuse to stand up to this are guilty by association.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, so "far right" that they want to control the border, and send foreign nationals who are here against the law, home!
> 
> 
> What radical terror!!!!
> 
> 
> LOL!!!!!!
Click to expand...


It has nothing to do with controlling the border. The reason you fear them is they are likely to be Democrat supporters. You people fear anyone who is not white. You also use the same tactics that evil people like Hitler used. Attempt to dehumanize them. Blame them and others like Muslims for the problems this country.
Try to use fear that somehow unarmed women and children are a threat to this country. 

Trump tried to use these scare tactics in the 2018 election. The result was a Republican loss of the House and a smaller than expected gain in the Senate. Voters do not support a wall, support asylum laws as they currently are and support dreamers. They reject your right wing hatred.

California is a good example of the Republican Party's future under Trump.  Whites are a smaller majority with a significant number of minorities such as Asians, blacks and hispanics. Republicans lost Asians, Blacks and Hispanics in the 2018 midterms.


----------



## busybee01

Jitss617 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. They are a neo-Nazi group.
> 
> 2. All you have to look at is then Chief of Staff General Kelly with his face buried in his hands. Trump tried to equate neo-nazis and white supremacists with peaceful protestors who were assaulted with 1 killed.
> 
> 
> 
> You are factually wrong.. it’s on video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are factually incorrect. The Proud Boys assaulted several people. That is why they were arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they were assulted .. they confronted the racist militant kkk groups now called antifia. They protect free speech
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys did the assault. They used disproportionate force against the protestors. If they had called the police, then the protestors might have been guilty of misdemeanor assault. However they took the law into their own hands and committed felony assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proud boys assulted anti Americans who are out to assault proud Americans. They protect us
Click to expand...


You are so much bullshit. Typical far right wing nut.


----------



## busybee01

Aba Incieni said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is the truth whether you like it or not. You can call it bullshit but you are the bullshit artist around here.
> 
> 
> 
> Your bullshit-ery is far greater than mine, if indeed I bullshit at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctuary cities do not assist people in breaking the law. They are not required to ask someone if they are citizens or not nor are they required to ask for their papers. Trump's lawsuit against California has been largely thrown out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The very fact sanctuary cities exist is proof you are just blowing smoke out of your backside whether you know it or not and I'm sure you have hypnotized yourself so as not to question the inherent illegality of a sanctuary refuge.
> Sanctuary hiding places serve no other purpose than to give people who are here illegally a place where they won't be ratted out by  I put this in nice bright letters so you wouldn't be able to avoid the truth.
> 
> The governor of California, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, etc. aren't allowed special dispensation so they can ignore the laws they don't want to follow. This isn't Jim Crow Alabama. They know what they do gives illegal immigrants vital assistance in avoiding the consequences of their illegal actions.
> They are willing and eager accomplices to crime. Here...I helped you out again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the dumb one as you clearly do not understand the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just extra special stupid. The Constitution doesn't give anyone, especially public officials who all must take oaths of office swearing they will uphold the law, permission to pick and choose the laws they want to enforce and they ones they will ignore like they are ordering off an ala carte menu. Don't insult me with your imbecilic garbage!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the dishonest imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the dishonest imbecile, most ironically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not illegal to not ask about someone's immigration status or their papers. You have no idea what a Jim Crow law is. These laws were declared illegal by the court. The courts have not said that states and local governments have to enforce immigration laws. They are not violating any court order.
> 
> You are the one that is uneducated and imbecilic. You are not even close to being right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I feel sorry for anyone that enters your brain damaged aura.
> I have already pointed out that merely by making yourself a sanctuary for criminals you are already declaring you are enabling and assisting people who are breaking the law. Hey, come and live here, you are saying to illegal immigrants...we won't tell La Migra you are here. You might as well be the gangster's girl friend who gives everybody a place to hide from the cops.
> 
> Nobody asks the Seattle City Council to check I.D.s or demand papers from anyone. That's a bullshit red herring.
> I would say it's beneath you, but it's really not.
> 
> _I know *exactly* what Jim Crow era policy was...ignoring civil rights laws that ended segregation because you didn't want to follow those laws! _It is precisely like sanctuary city policy...we will follow the laws we like and ignore the ones we don't like. So bend over and shove that up your bumble bee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the bullshit around here.
> 
> 1. State and local officials cannot be required to enforce immigration  law. Not asking someone's immigration status is not unlawful. The fact is that there is a clear boundary between the jurisdiction of federal and state law enforcement. The Supreme Court affirmed this in the  Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012). They set clear limits on states' ability to enforce federal immigration law even if a state wishes to do so. Your opinion has not been affirmed in any court.
> 
> 2. Your brain does not exist so anyone looking for it would be lost forever. Voters do not support Trump on immigration policy. The states that defied Jim Crow policies were defending policies that had been declared illegal by the courts. Not one court has called sanctuary cities illegal because they understand it does not break any laws. Your opinion has not been endorsed in any court of law as a federal judge tossed most of Trump's lawsuit against California.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These weren't state or local officials. They were a well-armed militia.
Click to expand...


They cannot take the law into their own hands. They are not trained in law enforcement nor can they be held accountable for their actions as law enforcement officers can be.


----------



## Aba Incieni

busybee01 said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is the truth whether you like it or not. You can call it bullshit but you are the bullshit artist around here.
> 
> 
> 
> Your bullshit-ery is far greater than mine, if indeed I bullshit at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctuary cities do not assist people in breaking the law. They are not required to ask someone if they are citizens or not nor are they required to ask for their papers. Trump's lawsuit against California has been largely thrown out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The very fact sanctuary cities exist is proof you are just blowing smoke out of your backside whether you know it or not and I'm sure you have hypnotized yourself so as not to question the inherent illegality of a sanctuary refuge.
> Sanctuary hiding places serve no other purpose than to give people who are here illegally a place where they won't be ratted out by  I put this in nice bright letters so you wouldn't be able to avoid the truth.
> 
> The governor of California, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, etc. aren't allowed special dispensation so they can ignore the laws they don't want to follow. This isn't Jim Crow Alabama. They know what they do gives illegal immigrants vital assistance in avoiding the consequences of their illegal actions.
> They are willing and eager accomplices to crime. Here...I helped you out again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the dumb one as you clearly do not understand the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just extra special stupid. The Constitution doesn't give anyone, especially public officials who all must take oaths of office swearing they will uphold the law, permission to pick and choose the laws they want to enforce and they ones they will ignore like they are ordering off an ala carte menu. Don't insult me with your imbecilic garbage!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the dishonest imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the dishonest imbecile, most ironically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not illegal to not ask about someone's immigration status or their papers. You have no idea what a Jim Crow law is. These laws were declared illegal by the court. The courts have not said that states and local governments have to enforce immigration laws. They are not violating any court order.
> 
> You are the one that is uneducated and imbecilic. You are not even close to being right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I feel sorry for anyone that enters your brain damaged aura.
> I have already pointed out that merely by making yourself a sanctuary for criminals you are already declaring you are enabling and assisting people who are breaking the law. Hey, come and live here, you are saying to illegal immigrants...we won't tell La Migra you are here. You might as well be the gangster's girl friend who gives everybody a place to hide from the cops.
> 
> Nobody asks the Seattle City Council to check I.D.s or demand papers from anyone. That's a bullshit red herring.
> I would say it's beneath you, but it's really not.
> 
> _I know *exactly* what Jim Crow era policy was...ignoring civil rights laws that ended segregation because you didn't want to follow those laws! _It is precisely like sanctuary city policy...we will follow the laws we like and ignore the ones we don't like. So bend over and shove that up your bumble bee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the bullshit around here.
> 
> 1. State and local officials cannot be required to enforce immigration  law. Not asking someone's immigration status is not unlawful. The fact is that there is a clear boundary between the jurisdiction of federal and state law enforcement. The Supreme Court affirmed this in the  Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012). They set clear limits on states' ability to enforce federal immigration law even if a state wishes to do so. Your opinion has not been affirmed in any court.
> 
> 2. Your brain does not exist so anyone looking for it would be lost forever. Voters do not support Trump on immigration policy. The states that defied Jim Crow policies were defending policies that had been declared illegal by the courts. Not one court has called sanctuary cities illegal because they understand it does not break any laws. Your opinion has not been endorsed in any court of law as a federal judge tossed most of Trump's lawsuit against California.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These weren't state or local officials. They were a well-armed militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They cannot take the law into their own hands. They are not trained in law enforcement nor can they be held accountable for their actions as law enforcement officers can be.
Click to expand...

Can't be held accountable? Sounds like they get off scot free.


----------



## busybee01

Correll said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. They are a neo-Nazi group.
> 
> 2. All you have to look at is then Chief of Staff General Kelly with his face buried in his hands. Trump tried to equate neo-nazis and white supremacists with peaceful protestors who were assaulted with 1 killed.
> 
> 
> 
> You are factually wrong.. it’s on video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are factually incorrect. The Proud Boys assaulted several people. That is why they were arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they were assulted .. they confronted the racist militant kkk groups now called antifia. They protect free speech
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys did the assault. They used disproportionate force against the protestors. If they had called the police, then the protestors might have been guilty of misdemeanor assault. However they took the law into their own hands and committed felony assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such disproportionate force that not one injury was recorded or treated.
> 
> 
> Your support of antifa, makes you the fascist.
Click to expand...


To attack anyone physically for knocking off a hat is clearly disproportionate force. 

You are a fascist and a criminal. Antifa is your boogeyman. How many people has Antifa killed vs right wing extremists like yourself.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Aba Incieni said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is the truth whether you like it or not. You can call it bullshit but you are the bullshit artist around here.
> 
> 
> 
> Your bullshit-ery is far greater than mine, if indeed I bullshit at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctuary cities do not assist people in breaking the law. They are not required to ask someone if they are citizens or not nor are they required to ask for their papers. Trump's lawsuit against California has been largely thrown out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The very fact sanctuary cities exist is proof you are just blowing smoke out of your backside whether you know it or not and I'm sure you have hypnotized yourself so as not to question the inherent illegality of a sanctuary refuge.
> Sanctuary hiding places serve no other purpose than to give people who are here illegally a place where they won't be ratted out by  I put this in nice bright letters so you wouldn't be able to avoid the truth.
> 
> The governor of California, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, etc. aren't allowed special dispensation so they can ignore the laws they don't want to follow. This isn't Jim Crow Alabama. They know what they do gives illegal immigrants vital assistance in avoiding the consequences of their illegal actions.
> They are willing and eager accomplices to crime. Here...I helped you out again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the dumb one as you clearly do not understand the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just extra special stupid. The Constitution doesn't give anyone, especially public officials who all must take oaths of office swearing they will uphold the law, permission to pick and choose the laws they want to enforce and they ones they will ignore like they are ordering off an ala carte menu. Don't insult me with your imbecilic garbage!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the dishonest imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the dishonest imbecile, most ironically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not illegal to not ask about someone's immigration status or their papers. You have no idea what a Jim Crow law is. These laws were declared illegal by the court. The courts have not said that states and local governments have to enforce immigration laws. They are not violating any court order.
> 
> You are the one that is uneducated and imbecilic. You are not even close to being right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I feel sorry for anyone that enters your brain damaged aura.
> I have already pointed out that merely by making yourself a sanctuary for criminals you are already declaring you are enabling and assisting people who are breaking the law. Hey, come and live here, you are saying to illegal immigrants...we won't tell La Migra you are here. You might as well be the gangster's girl friend who gives everybody a place to hide from the cops.
> 
> Nobody asks the Seattle City Council to check I.D.s or demand papers from anyone. That's a bullshit red herring.
> I would say it's beneath you, but it's really not.
> 
> _I know *exactly* what Jim Crow era policy was...ignoring civil rights laws that ended segregation because you didn't want to follow those laws! _It is precisely like sanctuary city policy...we will follow the laws we like and ignore the ones we don't like. So bend over and shove that up your bumble bee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the bullshit around here.
> 
> 1. State and local officials cannot be required to enforce immigration  law. Not asking someone's immigration status is not unlawful. The fact is that there is a clear boundary between the jurisdiction of federal and state law enforcement. The Supreme Court affirmed this in the  Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012). They set clear limits on states' ability to enforce federal immigration law even if a state wishes to do so. Your opinion has not been affirmed in any court.
> 
> 2. Your brain does not exist so anyone looking for it would be lost forever. Voters do not support Trump on immigration policy. The states that defied Jim Crow policies were defending policies that had been declared illegal by the courts. Not one court has called sanctuary cities illegal because they understand it does not break any laws. Your opinion has not been endorsed in any court of law as a federal judge tossed most of Trump's lawsuit against California.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These weren't state or local officials. They were a well-armed militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A well armed militia does not have the *authority* to unilaterally decide what the law is and then become a separate LEO organization.
> 
> The highest ranking Executive Officer of the state is the governor.  If that governor says a National Emergency does not exist;* it does not exist*.The state militia answers to the governor of that state.
> 
> These build the wall nutjobs are the very ones who allowed the government to set the legal precedent that undocumented foreigners have "_civil rights_"... AND that those _civil rights_ trump the property owners private property rights.  You've already duly noted that state and local officials cannot be forced to enforce federal immigration law.  Furthermore, the* United States Supreme Court has ruled that being in the United States without papers is not a crime*.
> 
> That is the Rule of Law.  I was an officer in this country's oldest and most continuous militia.  The fact that we've been around longer than any existing civilian militia, having outlasted the rest should tell you that what I'm saying is *NOT* opinion.  It is just the facts and any strategy used has to be employed subject to the parameters of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Citizen's arrest.
Click to expand...


What part of *it is not a crime* to be present without papers do you have a problem understand?

In order to do a citizen's arrest, you have to have a crime.  While it is against the law to cross the border, if the officials don't witness the act, then NO CRIME EXISTS.  It is a civil issue of which you cannot act.

But, go ahead.  I've been advising militia groups not to try that stupid crap for well over three decades.  I know a LOT of former militia folks doing time in federal prison.  Feel free to ignore sound counsel.  Maybe Trump will pardon you.


----------



## BWK

Jitss617 said:


> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?


Who's going to pick their vegetables? It sure as hell isn't going to be a bunch of lazy ass militia.


----------



## busybee01

Aba Incieni said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is the truth whether you like it or not. You can call it bullshit but you are the bullshit artist around here.
> 
> 
> 
> Your bullshit-ery is far greater than mine, if indeed I bullshit at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctuary cities do not assist people in breaking the law. They are not required to ask someone if they are citizens or not nor are they required to ask for their papers. Trump's lawsuit against California has been largely thrown out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The very fact sanctuary cities exist is proof you are just blowing smoke out of your backside whether you know it or not and I'm sure you have hypnotized yourself so as not to question the inherent illegality of a sanctuary refuge.
> Sanctuary hiding places serve no other purpose than to give people who are here illegally a place where they won't be ratted out by  I put this in nice bright letters so you wouldn't be able to avoid the truth.
> 
> The governor of California, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, etc. aren't allowed special dispensation so they can ignore the laws they don't want to follow. This isn't Jim Crow Alabama. They know what they do gives illegal immigrants vital assistance in avoiding the consequences of their illegal actions.
> They are willing and eager accomplices to crime. Here...I helped you out again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the dumb one as you clearly do not understand the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just extra special stupid. The Constitution doesn't give anyone, especially public officials who all must take oaths of office swearing they will uphold the law, permission to pick and choose the laws they want to enforce and they ones they will ignore like they are ordering off an ala carte menu. Don't insult me with your imbecilic garbage!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the dishonest imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the dishonest imbecile, most ironically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not illegal to not ask about someone's immigration status or their papers. You have no idea what a Jim Crow law is. These laws were declared illegal by the court. The courts have not said that states and local governments have to enforce immigration laws. They are not violating any court order.
> 
> You are the one that is uneducated and imbecilic. You are not even close to being right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I feel sorry for anyone that enters your brain damaged aura.
> I have already pointed out that merely by making yourself a sanctuary for criminals you are already declaring you are enabling and assisting people who are breaking the law. Hey, come and live here, you are saying to illegal immigrants...we won't tell La Migra you are here. You might as well be the gangster's girl friend who gives everybody a place to hide from the cops.
> 
> Nobody asks the Seattle City Council to check I.D.s or demand papers from anyone. That's a bullshit red herring.
> I would say it's beneath you, but it's really not.
> 
> _I know *exactly* what Jim Crow era policy was...ignoring civil rights laws that ended segregation because you didn't want to follow those laws! _It is precisely like sanctuary city policy...we will follow the laws we like and ignore the ones we don't like. So bend over and shove that up your bumble bee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the bullshit around here.
> 
> 1. State and local officials cannot be required to enforce immigration  law. Not asking someone's immigration status is not unlawful. The fact is that there is a clear boundary between the jurisdiction of federal and state law enforcement. The Supreme Court affirmed this in the  Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012). They set clear limits on states' ability to enforce federal immigration law even if a state wishes to do so. Your opinion has not been affirmed in any court.
> 
> 2. Your brain does not exist so anyone looking for it would be lost forever. Voters do not support Trump on immigration policy. The states that defied Jim Crow policies were defending policies that had been declared illegal by the courts. Not one court has called sanctuary cities illegal because they understand it does not break any laws. Your opinion has not been endorsed in any court of law as a federal judge tossed most of Trump's lawsuit against California.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These weren't state or local officials. They were a well-armed militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They cannot take the law into their own hands. They are not trained in law enforcement nor can they be held accountable for their actions as law enforcement officers can be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can't be held accountable? Sounds like they get off scot free.
Click to expand...


Law enforcement officials are held to certain standards and rules. If they violate that then they can be held accountable. Militias are unaccountable. These militias need to be arrested if they continue this.


----------



## Aba Incieni

Porter Rockwell said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your bullshit-ery is far greater than mine, if indeed I bullshit at all.
> 
> The very fact sanctuary cities exist is proof you are just blowing smoke out of your backside whether you know it or not and I'm sure you have hypnotized yourself so as not to question the inherent illegality of a sanctuary refuge.
> Sanctuary hiding places serve no other purpose than to give people who are here illegally a place where they won't be ratted out by  I put this in nice bright letters so you wouldn't be able to avoid the truth.
> 
> The governor of California, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, etc. aren't allowed special dispensation so they can ignore the laws they don't want to follow. This isn't Jim Crow Alabama. They know what they do gives illegal immigrants vital assistance in avoiding the consequences of their illegal actions.
> They are willing and eager accomplices to crime. Here...I helped you out again.
> 
> 
> That's just extra special stupid. The Constitution doesn't give anyone, especially public officials who all must take oaths of office swearing they will uphold the law, permission to pick and choose the laws they want to enforce and they ones they will ignore like they are ordering off an ala carte menu. Don't insult me with your imbecilic garbage!
> 
> Says the dishonest imbecile, most ironically.
> 
> I feel sorry for anyone that enters your brain damaged aura.
> I have already pointed out that merely by making yourself a sanctuary for criminals you are already declaring you are enabling and assisting people who are breaking the law. Hey, come and live here, you are saying to illegal immigrants...we won't tell La Migra you are here. You might as well be the gangster's girl friend who gives everybody a place to hide from the cops.
> 
> Nobody asks the Seattle City Council to check I.D.s or demand papers from anyone. That's a bullshit red herring.
> I would say it's beneath you, but it's really not.
> 
> _I know *exactly* what Jim Crow era policy was...ignoring civil rights laws that ended segregation because you didn't want to follow those laws! _It is precisely like sanctuary city policy...we will follow the laws we like and ignore the ones we don't like. So bend over and shove that up your bumble bee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the bullshit around here.
> 
> 1. State and local officials cannot be required to enforce immigration  law. Not asking someone's immigration status is not unlawful. The fact is that there is a clear boundary between the jurisdiction of federal and state law enforcement. The Supreme Court affirmed this in the  Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012). They set clear limits on states' ability to enforce federal immigration law even if a state wishes to do so. Your opinion has not been affirmed in any court.
> 
> 2. Your brain does not exist so anyone looking for it would be lost forever. Voters do not support Trump on immigration policy. The states that defied Jim Crow policies were defending policies that had been declared illegal by the courts. Not one court has called sanctuary cities illegal because they understand it does not break any laws. Your opinion has not been endorsed in any court of law as a federal judge tossed most of Trump's lawsuit against California.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These weren't state or local officials. They were a well-armed militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A well armed militia does not have the *authority* to unilaterally decide what the law is and then become a separate LEO organization.
> 
> The highest ranking Executive Officer of the state is the governor.  If that governor says a National Emergency does not exist;* it does not exist*.The state militia answers to the governor of that state.
> 
> These build the wall nutjobs are the very ones who allowed the government to set the legal precedent that undocumented foreigners have "_civil rights_"... AND that those _civil rights_ trump the property owners private property rights.  You've already duly noted that state and local officials cannot be forced to enforce federal immigration law.  Furthermore, the* United States Supreme Court has ruled that being in the United States without papers is not a crime*.
> 
> That is the Rule of Law.  I was an officer in this country's oldest and most continuous militia.  The fact that we've been around longer than any existing civilian militia, having outlasted the rest should tell you that what I'm saying is *NOT* opinion.  It is just the facts and any strategy used has to be employed subject to the parameters of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Citizen's arrest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of *it is not a crime* to be present without papers do you have a problem understand?
> 
> In order to do a citizen's arrest, you have to have a crime.  While it is against the law to cross the border, if the officials don't witness the act, then NO CRIME EXISTS.  It is a civil issue of which you cannot act.
> 
> But, go ahead.  I've been advising militia groups not to try that stupid crap for well over three decades.  I know a LOT of former militia folks doing time in federal prison.  Feel free to ignore sound counsel.  Maybe Trump will pardon you.
Click to expand...

Hey you're the one who claims they can't be held accountable. Make up your dizzy mind.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Aba Incieni said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is the truth whether you like it or not. You can call it bullshit but you are the bullshit artist around here.
> 
> 
> 
> Your bullshit-ery is far greater than mine, if indeed I bullshit at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctuary cities do not assist people in breaking the law. They are not required to ask someone if they are citizens or not nor are they required to ask for their papers. Trump's lawsuit against California has been largely thrown out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The very fact sanctuary cities exist is proof you are just blowing smoke out of your backside whether you know it or not and I'm sure you have hypnotized yourself so as not to question the inherent illegality of a sanctuary refuge.
> Sanctuary hiding places serve no other purpose than to give people who are here illegally a place where they won't be ratted out by  I put this in nice bright letters so you wouldn't be able to avoid the truth.
> 
> The governor of California, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, etc. aren't allowed special dispensation so they can ignore the laws they don't want to follow. This isn't Jim Crow Alabama. They know what they do gives illegal immigrants vital assistance in avoiding the consequences of their illegal actions.
> They are willing and eager accomplices to crime. Here...I helped you out again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the dumb one as you clearly do not understand the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just extra special stupid. The Constitution doesn't give anyone, especially public officials who all must take oaths of office swearing they will uphold the law, permission to pick and choose the laws they want to enforce and they ones they will ignore like they are ordering off an ala carte menu. Don't insult me with your imbecilic garbage!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the dishonest imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the dishonest imbecile, most ironically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not illegal to not ask about someone's immigration status or their papers. You have no idea what a Jim Crow law is. These laws were declared illegal by the court. The courts have not said that states and local governments have to enforce immigration laws. They are not violating any court order.
> 
> You are the one that is uneducated and imbecilic. You are not even close to being right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I feel sorry for anyone that enters your brain damaged aura.
> I have already pointed out that merely by making yourself a sanctuary for criminals you are already declaring you are enabling and assisting people who are breaking the law. Hey, come and live here, you are saying to illegal immigrants...we won't tell La Migra you are here. You might as well be the gangster's girl friend who gives everybody a place to hide from the cops.
> 
> Nobody asks the Seattle City Council to check I.D.s or demand papers from anyone. That's a bullshit red herring.
> I would say it's beneath you, but it's really not.
> 
> _I know *exactly* what Jim Crow era policy was...ignoring civil rights laws that ended segregation because you didn't want to follow those laws! _It is precisely like sanctuary city policy...we will follow the laws we like and ignore the ones we don't like. So bend over and shove that up your bumble bee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the bullshit around here.
> 
> 1. State and local officials cannot be required to enforce immigration  law. Not asking someone's immigration status is not unlawful. The fact is that there is a clear boundary between the jurisdiction of federal and state law enforcement. The Supreme Court affirmed this in the  Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012). They set clear limits on states' ability to enforce federal immigration law even if a state wishes to do so. Your opinion has not been affirmed in any court.
> 
> 2. Your brain does not exist so anyone looking for it would be lost forever. Voters do not support Trump on immigration policy. The states that defied Jim Crow policies were defending policies that had been declared illegal by the courts. Not one court has called sanctuary cities illegal because they understand it does not break any laws. Your opinion has not been endorsed in any court of law as a federal judge tossed most of Trump's lawsuit against California.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These weren't state or local officials. They were a well-armed militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They cannot take the law into their own hands. They are not trained in law enforcement nor can they be held accountable for their actions as law enforcement officers can be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can't be held accountable? Sounds like they get off scot free.
Click to expand...


Would you mind explaining something to me?  Put some thought into this.  The Declaration of Independence says:

"_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain* unalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."

Now, here is court precedent on Rights:

“_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

A few more synonyms for those bolded words would be irrevocable, God given, untouchable.  I could cite you a *LOT* of precedent.  

If a man is born with an *unalienable* Right, and if Liberty is a Right bestowed upon us by a *Creator*, bearing in mind that the presupposition BEFORE such a thing as a citizen of the U.S. existed, who in the Hell is getting off scot free (sic) of anything?


----------



## Aba Incieni

Porter Rockwell said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your bullshit-ery is far greater than mine, if indeed I bullshit at all.
> 
> The very fact sanctuary cities exist is proof you are just blowing smoke out of your backside whether you know it or not and I'm sure you have hypnotized yourself so as not to question the inherent illegality of a sanctuary refuge.
> Sanctuary hiding places serve no other purpose than to give people who are here illegally a place where they won't be ratted out by  I put this in nice bright letters so you wouldn't be able to avoid the truth.
> 
> The governor of California, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, etc. aren't allowed special dispensation so they can ignore the laws they don't want to follow. This isn't Jim Crow Alabama. They know what they do gives illegal immigrants vital assistance in avoiding the consequences of their illegal actions.
> They are willing and eager accomplices to crime. Here...I helped you out again.
> 
> 
> That's just extra special stupid. The Constitution doesn't give anyone, especially public officials who all must take oaths of office swearing they will uphold the law, permission to pick and choose the laws they want to enforce and they ones they will ignore like they are ordering off an ala carte menu. Don't insult me with your imbecilic garbage!
> 
> Says the dishonest imbecile, most ironically.
> 
> I feel sorry for anyone that enters your brain damaged aura.
> I have already pointed out that merely by making yourself a sanctuary for criminals you are already declaring you are enabling and assisting people who are breaking the law. Hey, come and live here, you are saying to illegal immigrants...we won't tell La Migra you are here. You might as well be the gangster's girl friend who gives everybody a place to hide from the cops.
> 
> Nobody asks the Seattle City Council to check I.D.s or demand papers from anyone. That's a bullshit red herring.
> I would say it's beneath you, but it's really not.
> 
> _I know *exactly* what Jim Crow era policy was...ignoring civil rights laws that ended segregation because you didn't want to follow those laws! _It is precisely like sanctuary city policy...we will follow the laws we like and ignore the ones we don't like. So bend over and shove that up your bumble bee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the bullshit around here.
> 
> 1. State and local officials cannot be required to enforce immigration  law. Not asking someone's immigration status is not unlawful. The fact is that there is a clear boundary between the jurisdiction of federal and state law enforcement. The Supreme Court affirmed this in the  Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012). They set clear limits on states' ability to enforce federal immigration law even if a state wishes to do so. Your opinion has not been affirmed in any court.
> 
> 2. Your brain does not exist so anyone looking for it would be lost forever. Voters do not support Trump on immigration policy. The states that defied Jim Crow policies were defending policies that had been declared illegal by the courts. Not one court has called sanctuary cities illegal because they understand it does not break any laws. Your opinion has not been endorsed in any court of law as a federal judge tossed most of Trump's lawsuit against California.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These weren't state or local officials. They were a well-armed militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They cannot take the law into their own hands. They are not trained in law enforcement nor can they be held accountable for their actions as law enforcement officers can be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can't be held accountable? Sounds like they get off scot free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you mind explaining something to me?  Put some thought into this.  The Declaration of Independence says:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain* unalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Now, here is court precedent on Rights:
> 
> “_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
> 
> A few more synonyms for those bolded words would be irrevocable, God given, untouchable.  I could cite you a *LOT* of precedent.
> 
> If a man is born with an *unalienable* Right, and if Liberty is a Right bestowed upon us by a *Creator*, bearing in mind that the presupposition BEFORE such a thing as a citizen of the U.S. existed, who in the Hell is getting off scot free (sic) of anything?
Click to expand...

Those who are said to be unaccountable. Derp.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. They are a neo-Nazi group.
> 
> 2. All you have to look at is then Chief of Staff General Kelly with his face buried in his hands. Trump tried to equate neo-nazis and white supremacists with peaceful protestors who were assaulted with 1 killed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a Trump supporter, so don't go there when I tell you that you are wrong here.
> 
> The people who created the wallist religion (the whole wall worship thing) ARE nazis.  That is a fact beyond any dispute.  It is also a fact that the wallist religion predominates the effort that was made in Charlottesville.
> 
> Not all of the whites who attended the Charlottesville rally were violent white supremacists.  That is made self evident that the Charlottesville rally was a one and done event.  Contrast that to when the black community has their people shot or beaten in the streets.  The outcry and rallies are constant.
> 
> We do have a problem with foreigners coming to this country.  It is, however, one of our making.  But, the people have a RIGHT to protest and seek out change.  For anyone to say that all the Charlottesville protesters were white supremacists and so forth would be to claim that all black people are homosexuals just because the gay community marches with blacks when the black people feel their civil rights are being trampled on.
> 
> I wholly disagree with the neo nazis that are in charge of the nutty wall idea and I reject the principles of National Socialism.  At the same time, I care about my country, my race, my culture and the destiny of this nation.  I'm just not willing to step on the back of others to make my lot in life more pleasant.  Once you learn that, it will put us closer to sitting down and having a civil conversation that will lead to a solution all sides can live with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will tell you that you are wrong. The fact is that the white supremacists and neo-nazis were at the rally. If you rally alongside of them then you support them. The fact is that as long as you associate with neo-nazis and white supremacists, you support them. The Charlottesville protestors were laregely neo-nazis and white supremacists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Name one other time, in the last 50 years. that a white supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has been a marked rise in right wing hate groups since Trump's election. These groups have been mainlined. The Republicans are forced to march to Trump's march and that is decidedly racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that could not cite another time that a whit supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
> 
> 
> Because whtie supremacists are an insignificant fringe and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your vile lies about Trump being racist, is just you being an asshole.
Click to expand...



Okay, I'll give you your little point, but it comes at a price.  If we believe the media, Trump's big rallies were virtually empty streets because the MSM said so.  

I know that the white supremacists own you lock, stock and barrel.  You can't get a fresh of breath of fresh air until one of them farts because you have your nose that far up their ass.

You are also a pathological liar.  I've stated the fact that Trump is riding the coat-tails of neo nazis.  I've NEVER said the man is a racist.  He's playing racists just like you.  I wonder whether it's worse being an asshole OR a complete dumb ass like you.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Aba Incieni said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the bullshit around here.
> 
> 1. State and local officials cannot be required to enforce immigration  law. Not asking someone's immigration status is not unlawful. The fact is that there is a clear boundary between the jurisdiction of federal and state law enforcement. The Supreme Court affirmed this in the  Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012). They set clear limits on states' ability to enforce federal immigration law even if a state wishes to do so. Your opinion has not been affirmed in any court.
> 
> 2. Your brain does not exist so anyone looking for it would be lost forever. Voters do not support Trump on immigration policy. The states that defied Jim Crow policies were defending policies that had been declared illegal by the courts. Not one court has called sanctuary cities illegal because they understand it does not break any laws. Your opinion has not been endorsed in any court of law as a federal judge tossed most of Trump's lawsuit against California.,
> 
> 
> 
> These weren't state or local officials. They were a well-armed militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A well armed militia does not have the *authority* to unilaterally decide what the law is and then become a separate LEO organization.
> 
> The highest ranking Executive Officer of the state is the governor.  If that governor says a National Emergency does not exist;* it does not exist*.The state militia answers to the governor of that state.
> 
> These build the wall nutjobs are the very ones who allowed the government to set the legal precedent that undocumented foreigners have "_civil rights_"... AND that those _civil rights_ trump the property owners private property rights.  You've already duly noted that state and local officials cannot be forced to enforce federal immigration law.  Furthermore, the* United States Supreme Court has ruled that being in the United States without papers is not a crime*.
> 
> That is the Rule of Law.  I was an officer in this country's oldest and most continuous militia.  The fact that we've been around longer than any existing civilian militia, having outlasted the rest should tell you that what I'm saying is *NOT* opinion.  It is just the facts and any strategy used has to be employed subject to the parameters of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Citizen's arrest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of *it is not a crime* to be present without papers do you have a problem understand?
> 
> In order to do a citizen's arrest, you have to have a crime.  While it is against the law to cross the border, if the officials don't witness the act, then NO CRIME EXISTS.  It is a civil issue of which you cannot act.
> 
> But, go ahead.  I've been advising militia groups not to try that stupid crap for well over three decades.  I know a LOT of former militia folks doing time in federal prison.  Feel free to ignore sound counsel.  Maybe Trump will pardon you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey you're the one who claims they can't be held accountable. Make up your dizzy mind.
Click to expand...


What do you want people to be held accountable for?  Coming here and taking a job willingly offered?  Renting a house that a landlord willingly rented to them?  You think it should be a crime to take a job and feed your kids?


----------



## Aba Incieni

Porter Rockwell said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> These weren't state or local officials. They were a well-armed militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A well armed militia does not have the *authority* to unilaterally decide what the law is and then become a separate LEO organization.
> 
> The highest ranking Executive Officer of the state is the governor.  If that governor says a National Emergency does not exist;* it does not exist*.The state militia answers to the governor of that state.
> 
> These build the wall nutjobs are the very ones who allowed the government to set the legal precedent that undocumented foreigners have "_civil rights_"... AND that those _civil rights_ trump the property owners private property rights.  You've already duly noted that state and local officials cannot be forced to enforce federal immigration law.  Furthermore, the* United States Supreme Court has ruled that being in the United States without papers is not a crime*.
> 
> That is the Rule of Law.  I was an officer in this country's oldest and most continuous militia.  The fact that we've been around longer than any existing civilian militia, having outlasted the rest should tell you that what I'm saying is *NOT* opinion.  It is just the facts and any strategy used has to be employed subject to the parameters of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Citizen's arrest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of *it is not a crime* to be present without papers do you have a problem understand?
> 
> In order to do a citizen's arrest, you have to have a crime.  While it is against the law to cross the border, if the officials don't witness the act, then NO CRIME EXISTS.  It is a civil issue of which you cannot act.
> 
> But, go ahead.  I've been advising militia groups not to try that stupid crap for well over three decades.  I know a LOT of former militia folks doing time in federal prison.  Feel free to ignore sound counsel.  Maybe Trump will pardon you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey you're the one who claims they can't be held accountable. Make up your dizzy mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you want people to be held accountable for?  Coming here and taking a job willingly offered?  Renting a house that a landlord willingly rented to them?  You think it should be a crime to take a job and feed your kids?
Click to expand...

I didn't say it. Your argument is with that busy bee poster.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Aba Incieni said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the bullshit around here.
> 
> 1. State and local officials cannot be required to enforce immigration  law. Not asking someone's immigration status is not unlawful. The fact is that there is a clear boundary between the jurisdiction of federal and state law enforcement. The Supreme Court affirmed this in the  Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012). They set clear limits on states' ability to enforce federal immigration law even if a state wishes to do so. Your opinion has not been affirmed in any court.
> 
> 2. Your brain does not exist so anyone looking for it would be lost forever. Voters do not support Trump on immigration policy. The states that defied Jim Crow policies were defending policies that had been declared illegal by the courts. Not one court has called sanctuary cities illegal because they understand it does not break any laws. Your opinion has not been endorsed in any court of law as a federal judge tossed most of Trump's lawsuit against California.,
> 
> 
> 
> These weren't state or local officials. They were a well-armed militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They cannot take the law into their own hands. They are not trained in law enforcement nor can they be held accountable for their actions as law enforcement officers can be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can't be held accountable? Sounds like they get off scot free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you mind explaining something to me?  Put some thought into this.  The Declaration of Independence says:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain* unalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Now, here is court precedent on Rights:
> 
> “_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
> 
> A few more synonyms for those bolded words would be irrevocable, God given, untouchable.  I could cite you a *LOT* of precedent.
> 
> If a man is born with an *unalienable* Right, and if Liberty is a Right bestowed upon us by a *Creator*, bearing in mind that the presupposition BEFORE such a thing as a citizen of the U.S. existed, who in the Hell is getting off scot free (sic) of anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those who are said to be unaccountable. Derp.
Click to expand...


What a fricking cowardly response!  According to the Chief Actuary of the Socialist Security Administration, 75 percent of the undocumented foreigners here pay the federal tax (they cannot possibly get around the other taxes.)  That's pretty damn accountable.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Aba Incieni said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> A well armed militia does not have the *authority* to unilaterally decide what the law is and then become a separate LEO organization.
> 
> The highest ranking Executive Officer of the state is the governor.  If that governor says a National Emergency does not exist;* it does not exist*.The state militia answers to the governor of that state.
> 
> These build the wall nutjobs are the very ones who allowed the government to set the legal precedent that undocumented foreigners have "_civil rights_"... AND that those _civil rights_ trump the property owners private property rights.  You've already duly noted that state and local officials cannot be forced to enforce federal immigration law.  Furthermore, the* United States Supreme Court has ruled that being in the United States without papers is not a crime*.
> 
> That is the Rule of Law.  I was an officer in this country's oldest and most continuous militia.  The fact that we've been around longer than any existing civilian militia, having outlasted the rest should tell you that what I'm saying is *NOT* opinion.  It is just the facts and any strategy used has to be employed subject to the parameters of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> Citizen's arrest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of *it is not a crime* to be present without papers do you have a problem understand?
> 
> In order to do a citizen's arrest, you have to have a crime.  While it is against the law to cross the border, if the officials don't witness the act, then NO CRIME EXISTS.  It is a civil issue of which you cannot act.
> 
> But, go ahead.  I've been advising militia groups not to try that stupid crap for well over three decades.  I know a LOT of former militia folks doing time in federal prison.  Feel free to ignore sound counsel.  Maybe Trump will pardon you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey you're the one who claims they can't be held accountable. Make up your dizzy mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you want people to be held accountable for?  Coming here and taking a job willingly offered?  Renting a house that a landlord willingly rented to them?  You think it should be a crime to take a job and feed your kids?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say it. Your argument is with that busy bee poster.
Click to expand...


I'm losing track of whose argument is what.


----------



## Aba Incieni

Porter Rockwell said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> These weren't state or local officials. They were a well-armed militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They cannot take the law into their own hands. They are not trained in law enforcement nor can they be held accountable for their actions as law enforcement officers can be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can't be held accountable? Sounds like they get off scot free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you mind explaining something to me?  Put some thought into this.  The Declaration of Independence says:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain* unalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Now, here is court precedent on Rights:
> 
> “_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
> 
> A few more synonyms for those bolded words would be irrevocable, God given, untouchable.  I could cite you a *LOT* of precedent.
> 
> If a man is born with an *unalienable* Right, and if Liberty is a Right bestowed upon us by a *Creator*, bearing in mind that the presupposition BEFORE such a thing as a citizen of the U.S. existed, who in the Hell is getting off scot free (sic) of anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those who are said to be unaccountable. Derp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a fricking cowardly response!  According to the Chief Actuary of the Socialist Security Administration, 75 percent of the undocumented foreigners here pay the federal tax (they cannot possibly get around the other taxes.)  That's pretty damn accountable.
Click to expand...

So argue with busy bee about it.


----------



## Aba Incieni

Porter Rockwell said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> Citizen's arrest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of *it is not a crime* to be present without papers do you have a problem understand?
> 
> In order to do a citizen's arrest, you have to have a crime.  While it is against the law to cross the border, if the officials don't witness the act, then NO CRIME EXISTS.  It is a civil issue of which you cannot act.
> 
> But, go ahead.  I've been advising militia groups not to try that stupid crap for well over three decades.  I know a LOT of former militia folks doing time in federal prison.  Feel free to ignore sound counsel.  Maybe Trump will pardon you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey you're the one who claims they can't be held accountable. Make up your dizzy mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you want people to be held accountable for?  Coming here and taking a job willingly offered?  Renting a house that a landlord willingly rented to them?  You think it should be a crime to take a job and feed your kids?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say it. Your argument is with that busy bee poster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm losing track of whose argument is what.
Click to expand...

I can see that.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Aba Incieni said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They cannot take the law into their own hands. They are not trained in law enforcement nor can they be held accountable for their actions as law enforcement officers can be.
> 
> 
> 
> Can't be held accountable? Sounds like they get off scot free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you mind explaining something to me?  Put some thought into this.  The Declaration of Independence says:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain* unalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Now, here is court precedent on Rights:
> 
> “_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
> 
> A few more synonyms for those bolded words would be irrevocable, God given, untouchable.  I could cite you a *LOT* of precedent.
> 
> If a man is born with an *unalienable* Right, and if Liberty is a Right bestowed upon us by a *Creator*, bearing in mind that the presupposition BEFORE such a thing as a citizen of the U.S. existed, who in the Hell is getting off scot free (sic) of anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those who are said to be unaccountable. Derp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a fricking cowardly response!  According to the Chief Actuary of the Socialist Security Administration, 75 percent of the undocumented foreigners here pay the federal tax (they cannot possibly get around the other taxes.)  That's pretty damn accountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So argue with busy bee about it.
Click to expand...


I did ask you a question.  I'm not here to argue.  I leave that to Correll.  I love watching the guy dodge, duck, deflect, lie, misrepresent, and start strawman arguments (like claiming I said Trump is a racist.)


----------



## Aba Incieni

Porter Rockwell said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't be held accountable? Sounds like they get off scot free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you mind explaining something to me?  Put some thought into this.  The Declaration of Independence says:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain* unalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Now, here is court precedent on Rights:
> 
> “_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
> 
> A few more synonyms for those bolded words would be irrevocable, God given, untouchable.  I could cite you a *LOT* of precedent.
> 
> If a man is born with an *unalienable* Right, and if Liberty is a Right bestowed upon us by a *Creator*, bearing in mind that the presupposition BEFORE such a thing as a citizen of the U.S. existed, who in the Hell is getting off scot free (sic) of anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those who are said to be unaccountable. Derp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a fricking cowardly response!  According to the Chief Actuary of the Socialist Security Administration, 75 percent of the undocumented foreigners here pay the federal tax (they cannot possibly get around the other taxes.)  That's pretty damn accountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So argue with busy bee about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did ask you a question.  I'm not here to argue.  I leave that to Correll.  I love watching the guy dodge, duck, deflect, lie, misrepresent, and start strawman arguments (like claiming I said Trump is a racist.)
Click to expand...

The answer is they are unaccountable, according to that busy bee poster. You're talking in circles now.


----------



## Jitss617

busybee01 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are factually wrong.. it’s on video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are factually incorrect. The Proud Boys assaulted several people. That is why they were arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they were assulted .. they confronted the racist militant kkk groups now called antifia. They protect free speech
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys did the assault. They used disproportionate force against the protestors. If they had called the police, then the protestors might have been guilty of misdemeanor assault. However they took the law into their own hands and committed felony assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proud boys assulted anti Americans who are out to assault proud Americans. They protect us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so much bullshit. Typical far right wing nut.
Click to expand...

Umm have you seen trump rallies.. women get attacked by democrats.


----------



## Jitss617

BWK said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Who's going to pick their vegetables? It sure as hell isn't going to be a bunch of lazy ass militia.
Click to expand...

I love when Democrats are exposed for racisim


----------



## Correll

busybee01 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a Trump supporter, so don't go there when I tell you that you are wrong here.
> 
> The people who created the wallist religion (the whole wall worship thing) ARE nazis.  That is a fact beyond any dispute.  It is also a fact that the wallist religion predominates the effort that was made in Charlottesville.
> 
> Not all of the whites who attended the Charlottesville rally were violent white supremacists.  That is made self evident that the Charlottesville rally was a one and done event.  Contrast that to when the black community has their people shot or beaten in the streets.  The outcry and rallies are constant.
> 
> We do have a problem with foreigners coming to this country.  It is, however, one of our making.  But, the people have a RIGHT to protest and seek out change.  For anyone to say that all the Charlottesville protesters were white supremacists and so forth would be to claim that all black people are homosexuals just because the gay community marches with blacks when the black people feel their civil rights are being trampled on.
> 
> I wholly disagree with the neo nazis that are in charge of the nutty wall idea and I reject the principles of National Socialism.  At the same time, I care about my country, my race, my culture and the destiny of this nation.  I'm just not willing to step on the back of others to make my lot in life more pleasant.  Once you learn that, it will put us closer to sitting down and having a civil conversation that will lead to a solution all sides can live with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will tell you that you are wrong. The fact is that the white supremacists and neo-nazis were at the rally. If you rally alongside of them then you support them. The fact is that as long as you associate with neo-nazis and white supremacists, you support them. The Charlottesville protestors were laregely neo-nazis and white supremacists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Name one other time, in the last 50 years. that a white supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has been a marked rise in right wing hate groups since Trump's election. These groups have been mainlined. The Republicans are forced to march to Trump's march and that is decidedly racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that could not cite another time that a whit supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
> 
> 
> Because whtie supremacists are an insignificant fringe and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your vile lies about Trump being racist, is just you being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who is a vile liar. The fact is that since Trump's election, far right haters on the rise. They have committed numerous acts of violence by killing people and plotting to kill Trump's political opponents. Republicans refuse to hold Trump accountable.
> 
> You are the asshole who has his tongue so far up Trump's ass that you have blown your brains out.
> 
> One such example is Corey Stewart. He got the Republican nomination despite his ties to white supremacists. He still got 1,368,451 votes in losing. That is a huge number of people who ignored or supported him even with his ties to white supremacists.
Click to expand...




1. THe claim that violence, at least from the right, is on the rise, is vile demagogue panic mongering.  

2. Trump is not responsible for the little violence coming from the right.

3. My political support of Trump is quite reasonable, considering his policies support my interests and the nation's. You are an asshole.

4. Just review his wikapedia page. Saw no connections to white supremacists. Pointing out that "half the violence" at charlottesville was from the Left, is hardly "ties to white supremacists. Support your vile claim or apologize.


----------



## Correll

busybee01 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> s if
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys were assaulted and defended themselves. That is why no arrests were made that night.
> 
> 
> It was not until vile dem politicians saw a change to punish people for daring to stand up to the lefty mob, that they were arrested, days later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong they reviewed the tape. Just because someone knocks a hat off your head does not give you the right to beat someone to a pulp. The force used has to be proportional. If it is not then it is felony assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They reviewed the tape and ignored the context of days of harassment, vandalism and threats of attacks. And as to being beaten to a pulp, medical care was offered and refused by the antifa supposedly beaten to a pulp "victims".
> 
> 
> This is politically motivated arrests and prosecution and a gross miscarriage of justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a miscarriage of justice. It is justice. You have proved that you re a part of the radical right wing so you are totally wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I explained why I believed that arrests were a miscarriage of justice.
> 
> 
> All you did, was cowardly avoid addressing my points, and repeated your initial position.
> 
> 
> THat is the logical fallacy of Argument by Assertion. YOur post is invalid, and you lose.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> They reviewed the tape and ignored the context of days of harassment, vandalism and threats of attacks. And as to being beaten to a pulp, medical care was offered and refused by the antifa supposedly beaten to a pulp "victims".
> 
> 
> This is politically motivated arrests and prosecution and a gross miscarriage of justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have stated your opinion. Try using the law. In claiming self defense, proportional force must be used. Someone's hat was knocked off. That does not allow someone to beat someone.
> 
> *Proportional Response*
> 
> Self-defense law requires the response to match the level of the threat in question. In other words, a person can only employ as much force as required to remove the threat. If the threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat. If, however, the threat involves only minor force and the person claiming self-defense uses force that could cause grievous bodily harm or death, the claim of self-defense will fail.
> 
> Self-Defense Law: Overview - FindLaw
> 
> I don't have to address your points because I understand the law. You do not.
Click to expand...



Said the man still pretending to not know that the antifa mob had been harassing and threatening and attacking the Proud Boys for days leading up to this attack.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. So it took some time for US to live up to our ideals. That does not change the fact that of the Ideals that we were founded on.
> 
> 
> 2. Race, religion, Oppression, ect. ect ect ect, was the norm at the time. You might as well say that nation was founded on the planting and eating of food.  I reject your narrative of history. It is self serving and self defeating.
> 
> 3 The tens of millions of illegals living in this country, prove that we do not have a secure border. I would be happy to militarize it, and see if that secures it. If not, I promise to apologize and admit I was wrong. We can then demilitarize it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've already been proven wrong.  In 1953 Congress began talking about _Operation Wetback_.  By 1954 they were rounding up every undocumented foreigner they could find.  In less than five years, the unemployment rate* doubled!* .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOthing in my post made any point about employment. You brought that up to avoid addressing what I actually said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir, *YOU'VE* been avoiding what I have asked.
> 
> I'm presuming we're a nation of laws and that even the illegally ratified laws are in place.  You haven't been able to deal in reality.  You don't understand the difference between what America was founded on what it evolved into (which, contrary to your opinion, is NOT a good thing.)
> 
> Your infantile analogies do not address the many links I've posted.  You and I both know you don't know all the different sides to this.  The bottom line, whether you like it or not, the Preamble to the Constitution reads:
> 
> "_We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and *secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,* do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America_."
> 
> I'm sorry that Constitution does not fit your narrative.  You will watch your country go down in flames because you cannot make a simple connection.  America cannot be a nation that is everything to everybody.  Someone* WILL* be pushed out.  This is the last president that is going to see it your way during your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not making any sense.
> 
> 
> You complain about the effects of Third World immigration, while attacking the idea of fighting against Third World immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am fighting against* proposed SOCIALIST SOLUTIONS DREAMED UP BY NEO - NAZIS*.
> 
> What in the Hell is it you don't understand about that?  What is it that makes you unable to realize that you are handing this country over to the third world with a strategy designed to implode?
Click to expand...




The massive immigration is handing this country over to the Third World.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a Trump supporter, so don't go there when I tell you that you are wrong here.
> 
> The people who created the wallist religion (the whole wall worship thing) ARE nazis.  That is a fact beyond any dispute.  It is also a fact that the wallist religion predominates the effort that was made in Charlottesville.
> 
> Not all of the whites who attended the Charlottesville rally were violent white supremacists.  That is made self evident that the Charlottesville rally was a one and done event.  Contrast that to when the black community has their people shot or beaten in the streets.  The outcry and rallies are constant.
> 
> We do have a problem with foreigners coming to this country.  It is, however, one of our making.  But, the people have a RIGHT to protest and seek out change.  For anyone to say that all the Charlottesville protesters were white supremacists and so forth would be to claim that all black people are homosexuals just because the gay community marches with blacks when the black people feel their civil rights are being trampled on.
> 
> I wholly disagree with the neo nazis that are in charge of the nutty wall idea and I reject the principles of National Socialism.  At the same time, I care about my country, my race, my culture and the destiny of this nation.  I'm just not willing to step on the back of others to make my lot in life more pleasant.  Once you learn that, it will put us closer to sitting down and having a civil conversation that will lead to a solution all sides can live with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will tell you that you are wrong. The fact is that the white supremacists and neo-nazis were at the rally. If you rally alongside of them then you support them. The fact is that as long as you associate with neo-nazis and white supremacists, you support them. The Charlottesville protestors were laregely neo-nazis and white supremacists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then when Muslims, gays, transvestites, and atheists march in civil rights marches organized by black people it makes all blacks Muslims, gays, transvestites and atheists.  Logic has a funny way of working, don't it?
> 
> Granted, most of the people attracted to the nutty wall idea (neo-nazis) - which is what drew most people to that rally; however, there are other groups who are decent people, but have no real leadership.  If you're making a left wing argument, then when it comes to traitors, be careful of who YOU keep company with.  That guilt by association works both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that when you don't care whether your party has been taken over by the far right, it is far more than guilt by association. The Republican Party has been taken over by the alt-right and neo-nazis. The people who refuse to stand up to this are guilty by association.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, so "far right" that they want to control the border, and send foreign nationals who are here against the law, home!
> 
> 
> What radical terror!!!!
> 
> 
> LOL!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legal (sic), _"illegal_"... WTH is the difference?  If someone is here, a piece of paper issued by a corrupt government out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption is not going to make them anything except another subject of the NEW WORLD ORDER.  As soon as that individual gets their citizenship, they will become a Democrat.
> 
> After that happens, they can tell Correll to shut his pie hole and shine their shoes.  He'll do it with a smile on his face and joy in his heart... Correll just wants others to share in the Hell he's creating for himself and generations to come.
Click to expand...




Your point about the legal vs illegal has some validity, and I would be happy to address it.


BUT, the post you hit reply to, was pointing out that lack of radical-ness in wanting to send the foreigners home. 


That was the point, and you failed to address it. That was unreasonable and unfair of you.


----------



## Correll

busybee01 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a Trump supporter, so don't go there when I tell you that you are wrong here.
> 
> The people who created the wallist religion (the whole wall worship thing) ARE nazis.  That is a fact beyond any dispute.  It is also a fact that the wallist religion predominates the effort that was made in Charlottesville.
> 
> Not all of the whites who attended the Charlottesville rally were violent white supremacists.  That is made self evident that the Charlottesville rally was a one and done event.  Contrast that to when the black community has their people shot or beaten in the streets.  The outcry and rallies are constant.
> 
> We do have a problem with foreigners coming to this country.  It is, however, one of our making.  But, the people have a RIGHT to protest and seek out change.  For anyone to say that all the Charlottesville protesters were white supremacists and so forth would be to claim that all black people are homosexuals just because the gay community marches with blacks when the black people feel their civil rights are being trampled on.
> 
> I wholly disagree with the neo nazis that are in charge of the nutty wall idea and I reject the principles of National Socialism.  At the same time, I care about my country, my race, my culture and the destiny of this nation.  I'm just not willing to step on the back of others to make my lot in life more pleasant.  Once you learn that, it will put us closer to sitting down and having a civil conversation that will lead to a solution all sides can live with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will tell you that you are wrong. The fact is that the white supremacists and neo-nazis were at the rally. If you rally alongside of them then you support them. The fact is that as long as you associate with neo-nazis and white supremacists, you support them. The Charlottesville protestors were laregely neo-nazis and white supremacists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then when Muslims, gays, transvestites, and atheists march in civil rights marches organized by black people it makes all blacks Muslims, gays, transvestites and atheists.  Logic has a funny way of working, don't it?
> 
> Granted, most of the people attracted to the nutty wall idea (neo-nazis) - which is what drew most people to that rally; however, there are other groups who are decent people, but have no real leadership.  If you're making a left wing argument, then when it comes to traitors, be careful of who YOU keep company with.  That guilt by association works both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that when you don't care whether your party has been taken over by the far right, it is far more than guilt by association. The Republican Party has been taken over by the alt-right and neo-nazis. The people who refuse to stand up to this are guilty by association.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, so "far right" that they want to control the border, and send foreign nationals who are here against the law, home!
> 
> 
> What radical terror!!!!
> 
> 
> LOL!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with controlling the border. The reason you fear them is they are likely to be Democrat supporters. You people fear anyone who is not white. You also use the same tactics that evil people like Hitler used. Attempt to dehumanize them. Blame them and others like Muslims for the problems this country.
> Try to use fear that somehow unarmed women and children are a threat to this country.
> 
> Trump tried to use these scare tactics in the 2018 election. The result was a Republican loss of the House and a smaller than expected gain in the Senate. Voters do not support a wall, support asylum laws as they currently are and support dreamers. They reject your right wing hatred.
> 
> California is a good example of the Republican Party's future under Trump.  Whites are a smaller majority with a significant number of minorities such as Asians, blacks and hispanics. Republicans lost Asians, Blacks and Hispanics in the 2018 midterms.
Click to expand...




So, I point out that you are panic mongering about simply sending people here illegally HOME, and you call us nazis?


That completely makes my point, thanks.


Also, you are all over the place. You accuse me of only being afraid of them because of race, and then gloat because they will lead to massive political change against my interests. Are you truly that lacking in self awareness or simply being dishonest?

Voters do not support the Wall, because they have been race demagogued by people like you, over and over again. Massive, rapid political and cultural change is not to be embraced without consideration on whether or not is it change for the GOOD. and that is what we are doing. 

(and don't deny the change, after just gloating on it, in your last post, libby)


You are a race baiting asshole.


----------



## Correll

busybee01 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are factually wrong.. it’s on video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are factually incorrect. The Proud Boys assaulted several people. That is why they were arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they were assulted .. they confronted the racist militant kkk groups now called antifia. They protect free speech
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys did the assault. They used disproportionate force against the protestors. If they had called the police, then the protestors might have been guilty of misdemeanor assault. However they took the law into their own hands and committed felony assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such disproportionate force that not one injury was recorded or treated.
> 
> 
> Your support of antifa, makes you the fascist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To attack anyone physically for knocking off a hat is clearly disproportionate force.
> 
> You are a fascist and a criminal. Antifa is your boogeyman. How many people has Antifa killed vs right wing extremists like yourself.
Click to expand...



Antifa has been very lucky in their use of force, not aware of anyone dying yet. Other lefties, such as black lives matter, or lone wolf types, not so much. 


If you want to pretend that only DEATH counts, then tell me how many people the Proud Boys have killed? lol!!!



Antifa has openly stated that they use violence to suppress political speech they don't like.

THe Proud Boys have stated that they will defend themselves. 


Even you don't claim that the Proud BOys instigated the physical confrontation in NYC. 

Antifa did. As is their stated norm.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a Trump supporter, so don't go there when I tell you that you are wrong here.
> 
> The people who created the wallist religion (the whole wall worship thing) ARE nazis.  That is a fact beyond any dispute.  It is also a fact that the wallist religion predominates the effort that was made in Charlottesville.
> 
> Not all of the whites who attended the Charlottesville rally were violent white supremacists.  That is made self evident that the Charlottesville rally was a one and done event.  Contrast that to when the black community has their people shot or beaten in the streets.  The outcry and rallies are constant.
> 
> We do have a problem with foreigners coming to this country.  It is, however, one of our making.  But, the people have a RIGHT to protest and seek out change.  For anyone to say that all the Charlottesville protesters were white supremacists and so forth would be to claim that all black people are homosexuals just because the gay community marches with blacks when the black people feel their civil rights are being trampled on.
> 
> I wholly disagree with the neo nazis that are in charge of the nutty wall idea and I reject the principles of National Socialism.  At the same time, I care about my country, my race, my culture and the destiny of this nation.  I'm just not willing to step on the back of others to make my lot in life more pleasant.  Once you learn that, it will put us closer to sitting down and having a civil conversation that will lead to a solution all sides can live with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will tell you that you are wrong. The fact is that the white supremacists and neo-nazis were at the rally. If you rally alongside of them then you support them. The fact is that as long as you associate with neo-nazis and white supremacists, you support them. The Charlottesville protestors were laregely neo-nazis and white supremacists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Name one other time, in the last 50 years. that a white supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has been a marked rise in right wing hate groups since Trump's election. These groups have been mainlined. The Republicans are forced to march to Trump's march and that is decidedly racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that could not cite another time that a whit supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
> 
> 
> Because whtie supremacists are an insignificant fringe and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your vile lies about Trump being racist, is just you being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I'll give you your little point, but it comes at a price.  If we believe the media, Trump's big rallies were virtually empty streets because the MSM said so.
> 
> I know that the white supremacists own you lock, stock and barrel.  You can't get a fresh of breath of fresh air until one of them farts because you have your nose that far up their ass.
> 
> You are also a pathological liar.  I've stated the fact that Trump is riding the coat-tails of neo nazis.  I've NEVER said the man is a racist.  He's playing racists just like you.  I wonder whether it's worse being an asshole OR a complete dumb ass like you.
Click to expand...



Here is a picture of a Trump rally with hundreds, if not thousands of supporters. It took me seconds to find.








FUnny, how different that looks from a normal white supremacist rally.










Weird how different they look. Strange how the neo nazis themselves can't get more than a few dozens, while Trump, supposedly drawing on them as a based, gets thousands...


Mmmm,


----------



## busybee01

Jitss617 said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are factually incorrect. The Proud Boys assaulted several people. That is why they were arrested.
> 
> 
> 
> And they were assulted .. they confronted the racist militant kkk groups now called antifia. They protect free speech
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys did the assault. They used disproportionate force against the protestors. If they had called the police, then the protestors might have been guilty of misdemeanor assault. However they took the law into their own hands and committed felony assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proud boys assulted anti Americans who are out to assault proud Americans. They protect us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so much bullshit. Typical far right wing nut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm have you seen trump rallies.. women get attacked by democrats.
Click to expand...


Umm have you seen people killed in mosques and synagogues  by far right wing extremists.


----------



## Jitss617

busybee01 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they were assulted .. they confronted the racist militant kkk groups now called antifia. They protect free speech
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys did the assault. They used disproportionate force against the protestors. If they had called the police, then the protestors might have been guilty of misdemeanor assault. However they took the law into their own hands and committed felony assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proud boys assulted anti Americans who are out to assault proud Americans. They protect us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so much bullshit. Typical far right wing nut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm have you seen trump rallies.. women get attacked by democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Umm have you seen people killed in mosques and synagogues  by far right wing extremists.
Click to expand...

Women attacked at trump , and  free speech  rallies happens all the time.. mosques are opens daily preaching to cut the heads off Americans.. doesn’t surprise me Americans fight back


----------



## Jitss617

busybee01 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they were assulted .. they confronted the racist militant kkk groups now called antifia. They protect free speech
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Proud Boys did the assault. They used disproportionate force against the protestors. If they had called the police, then the protestors might have been guilty of misdemeanor assault. However they took the law into their own hands and committed felony assault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proud boys assulted anti Americans who are out to assault proud Americans. They protect us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so much bullshit. Typical far right wing nut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm have you seen trump rallies.. women get attacked by democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Umm have you seen people killed in mosques and synagogues  by far right wing extremists.
Click to expand...

Anyone saying to kill Americans in terrorist attacks  should be killed no?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will tell you that you are wrong. The fact is that the white supremacists and neo-nazis were at the rally. If you rally alongside of them then you support them. The fact is that as long as you associate with neo-nazis and white supremacists, you support them. The Charlottesville protestors were laregely neo-nazis and white supremacists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one other time, in the last 50 years. that a white supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has been a marked rise in right wing hate groups since Trump's election. These groups have been mainlined. The Republicans are forced to march to Trump's march and that is decidedly racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that could not cite another time that a whit supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
> 
> 
> Because whtie supremacists are an insignificant fringe and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your vile lies about Trump being racist, is just you being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who is a vile liar. The fact is that since Trump's election, far right haters on the rise. They have committed numerous acts of violence by killing people and plotting to kill Trump's political opponents. Republicans refuse to hold Trump accountable.
> 
> You are the asshole who has his tongue so far up Trump's ass that you have blown your brains out.
> 
> One such example is Corey Stewart. He got the Republican nomination despite his ties to white supremacists. He still got 1,368,451 votes in losing. That is a huge number of people who ignored or supported him even with his ties to white supremacists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe claim that violence, at least from the right, is on the rise, is vile demagogue panic mongering.
> 
> 2. Trump is not responsible for the little violence coming from the right.
> 
> 3. My political support of Trump is quite reasonable, considering his policies support my interests and the nation's. You are an asshole.
> 
> 4. Just review his wikapedia page. Saw no connections to white supremacists. Pointing out that "half the violence" at charlottesville was from the Left, is hardly "ties to white supremacists. Support your vile claim or apologize.
Click to expand...


Did it ever dawn on you that you can never make your point without being the first to start name calling?  Did you ever think that maybe you're projecting and it's really YOU that is an asshole?  Of course you didn't.  You didn't think.  That's why you still support Trump after he took a giant dump on the Constitution.

If not for white supremacists, Trump would have NO support for the nutty wall idea which is the


Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've already been proven wrong.  In 1953 Congress began talking about _Operation Wetback_.  By 1954 they were rounding up every undocumented foreigner they could find.  In less than five years, the unemployment rate* doubled!* .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOthing in my post made any point about employment. You brought that up to avoid addressing what I actually said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir, *YOU'VE* been avoiding what I have asked.
> 
> I'm presuming we're a nation of laws and that even the illegally ratified laws are in place.  You haven't been able to deal in reality.  You don't understand the difference between what America was founded on what it evolved into (which, contrary to your opinion, is NOT a good thing.)
> 
> Your infantile analogies do not address the many links I've posted.  You and I both know you don't know all the different sides to this.  The bottom line, whether you like it or not, the Preamble to the Constitution reads:
> 
> "_We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and *secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,* do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America_."
> 
> I'm sorry that Constitution does not fit your narrative.  You will watch your country go down in flames because you cannot make a simple connection.  America cannot be a nation that is everything to everybody.  Someone* WILL* be pushed out.  This is the last president that is going to see it your way during your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not making any sense.
> 
> 
> You complain about the effects of Third World immigration, while attacking the idea of fighting against Third World immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am fighting against* proposed SOCIALIST SOLUTIONS DREAMED UP BY NEO - NAZIS*.
> 
> What in the Hell is it you don't understand about that?  What is it that makes you unable to realize that you are handing this country over to the third world with a strategy designed to implode?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The massive immigration is handing this country over to the Third World.
Click to expand...


It's *YOUR* side that wants to make citizens out of them; it's *YOUR *side that let the precedent stand that undocumented foreigners had civil rights that trumped private property owners rights.  It was *YOUR* side that lost the United States Supreme Court case wherein the high Court ruled that being in the United States without documentation *is not a crime*.  Additionally Printz v. U.S. was started by conservative right wingers and the United States Supreme Court ruled in that case that state and local governments cannot be forced into enforcing federal laws.

So, we're agreed on the problem, but you think you're entitled to avoid being held accountable for the strategies of *YOUR *side???

Immigration = citizenship.  That is how the third world is taking over and THAT is the primary disagreement we have.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will tell you that you are wrong. The fact is that the white supremacists and neo-nazis were at the rally. If you rally alongside of them then you support them. The fact is that as long as you associate with neo-nazis and white supremacists, you support them. The Charlottesville protestors were laregely neo-nazis and white supremacists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then when Muslims, gays, transvestites, and atheists march in civil rights marches organized by black people it makes all blacks Muslims, gays, transvestites and atheists.  Logic has a funny way of working, don't it?
> 
> Granted, most of the people attracted to the nutty wall idea (neo-nazis) - which is what drew most people to that rally; however, there are other groups who are decent people, but have no real leadership.  If you're making a left wing argument, then when it comes to traitors, be careful of who YOU keep company with.  That guilt by association works both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that when you don't care whether your party has been taken over by the far right, it is far more than guilt by association. The Republican Party has been taken over by the alt-right and neo-nazis. The people who refuse to stand up to this are guilty by association.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, so "far right" that they want to control the border, and send foreign nationals who are here against the law, home!
> 
> 
> What radical terror!!!!
> 
> 
> LOL!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legal (sic), _"illegal_"... WTH is the difference?  If someone is here, a piece of paper issued by a corrupt government out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption is not going to make them anything except another subject of the NEW WORLD ORDER.  As soon as that individual gets their citizenship, they will become a Democrat.
> 
> After that happens, they can tell Correll to shut his pie hole and shine their shoes.  He'll do it with a smile on his face and joy in his heart... Correll just wants others to share in the Hell he's creating for himself and generations to come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point about the legal vs illegal has some validity, and I would be happy to address it.
> 
> 
> BUT, the post you hit reply to, was pointing out that lack of radical-ness in wanting to send the foreigners home.
> 
> 
> That was the point, and you failed to address it. That was unreasonable and unfair of you.
Click to expand...


I don't know what kind of answer you want.  We've discussed this umpteen times.  When the Declaration of Independence was signed, it contained the following:

"_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their *Creator* with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."

Either you believe in those foundational principles or you don't.  It's not multiple choice.  Either man derives his Rights (especially Liberty in this case) from a Creator or he does not.  Which is it?  An *unalienable* Right is not given by government.  *Unalienable* Rights are absolute and above the law.   It is the meaning of the word, sir.

*Unalienable* Rights cannot apply to citizens only.  The reason being, when the Declaration of Independence was signed, there were *NO American Citizens*.  Not one, single solitary citizen signed that document.  It says *ALL* men are created equal and *ALL* men have those Rights conferred upon them by a Creator.

When people come here to partake of opportunities willingly offered; to work a job;  to buy and sell, I see no problem.  When people like you think that means these people must become a part of the body politic, *THAT* is where we part company.  But, right now you should focus on the Rights of man.  Either you believe in Liberty or you don't.  Citizenship and being part of the body politic are privileges controlled by government.  For that reason, I do not agree with the assault on private property Rights your sides supports.  I don't think the children of non-citizens have any "_right_" to a free public education.  I don't support wholesale citizenship as your side does.

So, what answer, exactly are you looking for?


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one other time, in the last 50 years. that a white supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There has been a marked rise in right wing hate groups since Trump's election. These groups have been mainlined. The Republicans are forced to march to Trump's march and that is decidedly racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that could not cite another time that a whit supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
> 
> 
> Because whtie supremacists are an insignificant fringe and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your vile lies about Trump being racist, is just you being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who is a vile liar. The fact is that since Trump's election, far right haters on the rise. They have committed numerous acts of violence by killing people and plotting to kill Trump's political opponents. Republicans refuse to hold Trump accountable.
> 
> You are the asshole who has his tongue so far up Trump's ass that you have blown your brains out.
> 
> One such example is Corey Stewart. He got the Republican nomination despite his ties to white supremacists. He still got 1,368,451 votes in losing. That is a huge number of people who ignored or supported him even with his ties to white supremacists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe claim that violence, at least from the right, is on the rise, is vile demagogue panic mongering.
> 
> 2. Trump is not responsible for the little violence coming from the right.
> 
> 3. My political support of Trump is quite reasonable, considering his policies support my interests and the nation's. You are an asshole.
> 
> 4. Just review his wikapedia page. Saw no connections to white supremacists. Pointing out that "half the violence" at charlottesville was from the Left, is hardly "ties to white supremacists. Support your vile claim or apologize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it ever dawn on you that you can never make your point without being the first to start name calling?  Did you ever think that maybe you're projecting and it's really YOU that is an asshole?  Of course you didn't.  You didn't think.  That's why you still support Trump after he took a giant dump on the Constitution.
> 
> If not for white supremacists, Trump would have NO support for the nutty wall idea which is the
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOthing in my post made any point about employment. You brought that up to avoid addressing what I actually said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir, *YOU'VE* been avoiding what I have asked.
> 
> I'm presuming we're a nation of laws and that even the illegally ratified laws are in place.  You haven't been able to deal in reality.  You don't understand the difference between what America was founded on what it evolved into (which, contrary to your opinion, is NOT a good thing.)
> 
> Your infantile analogies do not address the many links I've posted.  You and I both know you don't know all the different sides to this.  The bottom line, whether you like it or not, the Preamble to the Constitution reads:
> 
> "_We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and *secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,* do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America_."
> 
> I'm sorry that Constitution does not fit your narrative.  You will watch your country go down in flames because you cannot make a simple connection.  America cannot be a nation that is everything to everybody.  Someone* WILL* be pushed out.  This is the last president that is going to see it your way during your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not making any sense.
> 
> 
> You complain about the effects of Third World immigration, while attacking the idea of fighting against Third World immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am fighting against* proposed SOCIALIST SOLUTIONS DREAMED UP BY NEO - NAZIS*.
> 
> What in the Hell is it you don't understand about that?  What is it that makes you unable to realize that you are handing this country over to the third world with a strategy designed to implode?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The massive immigration is handing this country over to the Third World.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's *YOUR* side that wants to make citizens out of them; it's *YOUR *side that let the precedent stand that undocumented foreigners had civil rights that trumped private property owners rights.  It was *YOUR* side that lost the United States Supreme Court case wherein the high Court ruled that being in the United States without documentation *is not a crime*.  Additionally Printz v. U.S. was started by conservative right wingers and the United States Supreme Court ruled in that case that state and local governments cannot be forced into enforcing federal laws.
> 
> So, we're agreed on the problem, but you think you're entitled to avoid being held accountable for the strategies of *YOUR *side???
> 
> Immigration = citizenship.  That is how the third world is taking over and THAT is the primary disagreement we have.
Click to expand...

with a record like theirs democrats should never complain about others shitting on the constitution,,,


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will tell you that you are wrong. The fact is that the white supremacists and neo-nazis were at the rally. If you rally alongside of them then you support them. The fact is that as long as you associate with neo-nazis and white supremacists, you support them. The Charlottesville protestors were laregely neo-nazis and white supremacists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one other time, in the last 50 years. that a white supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has been a marked rise in right wing hate groups since Trump's election. These groups have been mainlined. The Republicans are forced to march to Trump's march and that is decidedly racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that could not cite another time that a whit supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
> 
> 
> Because whtie supremacists are an insignificant fringe and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your vile lies about Trump being racist, is just you being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I'll give you your little point, but it comes at a price.  If we believe the media, Trump's big rallies were virtually empty streets because the MSM said so.
> 
> I know that the white supremacists own you lock, stock and barrel.  You can't get a fresh of breath of fresh air until one of them farts because you have your nose that far up their ass.
> 
> You are also a pathological liar.  I've stated the fact that Trump is riding the coat-tails of neo nazis.  I've NEVER said the man is a racist.  He's playing racists just like you.  I wonder whether it's worse being an asshole OR a complete dumb ass like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a picture of a Trump rally with hundreds, if not thousands of supporters. It took me seconds to find.
> 
> 
> View attachment 259634
> 
> 
> 
> FUnny, how different that looks from a normal white supremacist rally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how different they look. Strange how the neo nazis themselves can't get more than a few dozens, while Trump, supposedly drawing on them as a based, gets thousands...
> 
> 
> Mmmm,
Click to expand...



Back in the 1970s and 1980s we did not have the modern marvels you have today.  So, I cannot control what the media allowed to get out of their archives and into Internet stories.

I do have some pictures taken when I was a Justice of the Peace performing a wedding ceremony at a KKK rally.  There were over 450 robed klansmen at the rally, not counting their families and the couples other friends and relatives.  Stop by some time and I can show it to you.

Other than that, dude, if I wanted to be the asshole you are, I could do that song and dance that the photos were photoshopped and the MSM told the truth.


----------



## Aba Incieni

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then when Muslims, gays, transvestites, and atheists march in civil rights marches organized by black people it makes all blacks Muslims, gays, transvestites and atheists.  Logic has a funny way of working, don't it?
> 
> Granted, most of the people attracted to the nutty wall idea (neo-nazis) - which is what drew most people to that rally; however, there are other groups who are decent people, but have no real leadership.  If you're making a left wing argument, then when it comes to traitors, be careful of who YOU keep company with.  That guilt by association works both ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that when you don't care whether your party has been taken over by the far right, it is far more than guilt by association. The Republican Party has been taken over by the alt-right and neo-nazis. The people who refuse to stand up to this are guilty by association.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, so "far right" that they want to control the border, and send foreign nationals who are here against the law, home!
> 
> 
> What radical terror!!!!
> 
> 
> LOL!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legal (sic), _"illegal_"... WTH is the difference?  If someone is here, a piece of paper issued by a corrupt government out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption is not going to make them anything except another subject of the NEW WORLD ORDER.  As soon as that individual gets their citizenship, they will become a Democrat.
> 
> After that happens, they can tell Correll to shut his pie hole and shine their shoes.  He'll do it with a smile on his face and joy in his heart... Correll just wants others to share in the Hell he's creating for himself and generations to come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point about the legal vs illegal has some validity, and I would be happy to address it.
> 
> 
> BUT, the post you hit reply to, was pointing out that lack of radical-ness in wanting to send the foreigners home.
> 
> 
> That was the point, and you failed to address it. That was unreasonable and unfair of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what kind of answer you want.  We've discussed this umpteen times.  When the Declaration of Independence was signed, it contained the following:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their *Creator* with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Either you believe in those foundational principles or you don't.  It's not multiple choice.  Either man derives his Rights (especially Liberty in this case) from a Creator or he does not.  Which is it?  An *unalienable* Right is not given by government.  *Unalienable* Rights are absolute and above the law.   It is the meaning of the word, sir.
> 
> *Unalienable* Rights cannot apply to citizens only.  The reason being, when the Declaration of Independence was signed, there were *NO American Citizens*.  Not one, single solitary citizen signed that document.  It says *ALL* men are created equal and *ALL* men have those Rights conferred upon them by a Creator.
> 
> When people come here to partake of opportunities willingly offered; to work a job;  to buy and sell, I see no problem.  When people like you think that means these people must become a part of the body politic, *THAT* is where we part company.  But, right now you should focus on the Rights of man.  Either you believe in Liberty or you don't.  Citizenship and being part of the body politic are privileges controlled by government.  For that reason, I do not agree with the assault on private property Rights your sides supports.  I don't think the children of non-citizens have any "_right_" to a free public education.  I don't support wholesale citizenship as your side does.
> 
> So, what answer, exactly are you looking for?
Click to expand...

Which inalienable right gives me the freedom to move into your living room?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There has been a marked rise in right wing hate groups since Trump's election. These groups have been mainlined. The Republicans are forced to march to Trump's march and that is decidedly racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that could not cite another time that a whit supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
> 
> 
> Because whtie supremacists are an insignificant fringe and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your vile lies about Trump being racist, is just you being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who is a vile liar. The fact is that since Trump's election, far right haters on the rise. They have committed numerous acts of violence by killing people and plotting to kill Trump's political opponents. Republicans refuse to hold Trump accountable.
> 
> You are the asshole who has his tongue so far up Trump's ass that you have blown your brains out.
> 
> One such example is Corey Stewart. He got the Republican nomination despite his ties to white supremacists. He still got 1,368,451 votes in losing. That is a huge number of people who ignored or supported him even with his ties to white supremacists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe claim that violence, at least from the right, is on the rise, is vile demagogue panic mongering.
> 
> 2. Trump is not responsible for the little violence coming from the right.
> 
> 3. My political support of Trump is quite reasonable, considering his policies support my interests and the nation's. You are an asshole.
> 
> 4. Just review his wikapedia page. Saw no connections to white supremacists. Pointing out that "half the violence" at charlottesville was from the Left, is hardly "ties to white supremacists. Support your vile claim or apologize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it ever dawn on you that you can never make your point without being the first to start name calling?  Did you ever think that maybe you're projecting and it's really YOU that is an asshole?  Of course you didn't.  You didn't think.  That's why you still support Trump after he took a giant dump on the Constitution.
> 
> If not for white supremacists, Trump would have NO support for the nutty wall idea which is the
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> No sir, *YOU'VE* been avoiding what I have asked.
> 
> I'm presuming we're a nation of laws and that even the illegally ratified laws are in place.  You haven't been able to deal in reality.  You don't understand the difference between what America was founded on what it evolved into (which, contrary to your opinion, is NOT a good thing.)
> 
> Your infantile analogies do not address the many links I've posted.  You and I both know you don't know all the different sides to this.  The bottom line, whether you like it or not, the Preamble to the Constitution reads:
> 
> "_We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and *secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,* do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America_."
> 
> I'm sorry that Constitution does not fit your narrative.  You will watch your country go down in flames because you cannot make a simple connection.  America cannot be a nation that is everything to everybody.  Someone* WILL* be pushed out.  This is the last president that is going to see it your way during your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not making any sense.
> 
> 
> You complain about the effects of Third World immigration, while attacking the idea of fighting against Third World immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am fighting against* proposed SOCIALIST SOLUTIONS DREAMED UP BY NEO - NAZIS*.
> 
> What in the Hell is it you don't understand about that?  What is it that makes you unable to realize that you are handing this country over to the third world with a strategy designed to implode?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The massive immigration is handing this country over to the Third World.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's *YOUR* side that wants to make citizens out of them; it's *YOUR *side that let the precedent stand that undocumented foreigners had civil rights that trumped private property owners rights.  It was *YOUR* side that lost the United States Supreme Court case wherein the high Court ruled that being in the United States without documentation *is not a crime*.  Additionally Printz v. U.S. was started by conservative right wingers and the United States Supreme Court ruled in that case that state and local governments cannot be forced into enforcing federal laws.
> 
> So, we're agreed on the problem, but you think you're entitled to avoid being held accountable for the strategies of *YOUR *side???
> 
> Immigration = citizenship.  That is how the third world is taking over and THAT is the primary disagreement we have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with a record like theirs democrats should never complain about others shitting on the constitution,,,
Click to expand...


The double talk coming from the right is amazingly mind boggling.

Correll seems to be the major spokesman here, so this is where he and I stand:

1)  He claims the foundational principles of America were racist yet Correll parrots the same, identical talking points that Bill Clinton did.


So, if the Democrats are racists, the divide and conquer message parroted by the right is equally racist .The wallists are using the Democrats message

2)  Wallists are committed to ending private property Rights

3)  Wallists hate the Fourth Amendment

Yep. They are taking a giant dump on the Constitution.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Aba Incieni said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that when you don't care whether your party has been taken over by the far right, it is far more than guilt by association. The Republican Party has been taken over by the alt-right and neo-nazis. The people who refuse to stand up to this are guilty by association.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, so "far right" that they want to control the border, and send foreign nationals who are here against the law, home!
> 
> 
> What radical terror!!!!
> 
> 
> LOL!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legal (sic), _"illegal_"... WTH is the difference?  If someone is here, a piece of paper issued by a corrupt government out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption is not going to make them anything except another subject of the NEW WORLD ORDER.  As soon as that individual gets their citizenship, they will become a Democrat.
> 
> After that happens, they can tell Correll to shut his pie hole and shine their shoes.  He'll do it with a smile on his face and joy in his heart... Correll just wants others to share in the Hell he's creating for himself and generations to come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point about the legal vs illegal has some validity, and I would be happy to address it.
> 
> 
> BUT, the post you hit reply to, was pointing out that lack of radical-ness in wanting to send the foreigners home.
> 
> 
> That was the point, and you failed to address it. That was unreasonable and unfair of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what kind of answer you want.  We've discussed this umpteen times.  When the Declaration of Independence was signed, it contained the following:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their *Creator* with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Either you believe in those foundational principles or you don't.  It's not multiple choice.  Either man derives his Rights (especially Liberty in this case) from a Creator or he does not.  Which is it?  An *unalienable* Right is not given by government.  *Unalienable* Rights are absolute and above the law.   It is the meaning of the word, sir.
> 
> *Unalienable* Rights cannot apply to citizens only.  The reason being, when the Declaration of Independence was signed, there were *NO American Citizens*.  Not one, single solitary citizen signed that document.  It says *ALL* men are created equal and *ALL* men have those Rights conferred upon them by a Creator.
> 
> When people come here to partake of opportunities willingly offered; to work a job;  to buy and sell, I see no problem.  When people like you think that means these people must become a part of the body politic, *THAT* is where we part company.  But, right now you should focus on the Rights of man.  Either you believe in Liberty or you don't.  Citizenship and being part of the body politic are privileges controlled by government.  For that reason, I do not agree with the assault on private property Rights your sides supports.  I don't think the children of non-citizens have any "_right_" to a free public education.  I don't support wholesale citizenship as your side does.
> 
> So, what answer, exactly are you looking for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which inalienable right gives me the freedom to move into your living room?
Click to expand...


I'm not discussing inalienable rights.  Never mentioned them.  I made it bold so even a blind man could see it... *UNALIENABLE* Rights.

Tell me who is in your living room and I will personally kick them out.  If you're talking about the state, it is their prerogative to invite whomever they deem worthy.  If you disagree with their assessment, vote against whatever governor you have.


----------



## Aba Incieni

Porter Rockwell said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, so "far right" that they want to control the border, and send foreign nationals who are here against the law, home!
> 
> 
> What radical terror!!!!
> 
> 
> LOL!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Legal (sic), _"illegal_"... WTH is the difference?  If someone is here, a piece of paper issued by a corrupt government out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption is not going to make them anything except another subject of the NEW WORLD ORDER.  As soon as that individual gets their citizenship, they will become a Democrat.
> 
> After that happens, they can tell Correll to shut his pie hole and shine their shoes.  He'll do it with a smile on his face and joy in his heart... Correll just wants others to share in the Hell he's creating for himself and generations to come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point about the legal vs illegal has some validity, and I would be happy to address it.
> 
> 
> BUT, the post you hit reply to, was pointing out that lack of radical-ness in wanting to send the foreigners home.
> 
> 
> That was the point, and you failed to address it. That was unreasonable and unfair of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what kind of answer you want.  We've discussed this umpteen times.  When the Declaration of Independence was signed, it contained the following:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their *Creator* with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Either you believe in those foundational principles or you don't.  It's not multiple choice.  Either man derives his Rights (especially Liberty in this case) from a Creator or he does not.  Which is it?  An *unalienable* Right is not given by government.  *Unalienable* Rights are absolute and above the law.   It is the meaning of the word, sir.
> 
> *Unalienable* Rights cannot apply to citizens only.  The reason being, when the Declaration of Independence was signed, there were *NO American Citizens*.  Not one, single solitary citizen signed that document.  It says *ALL* men are created equal and *ALL* men have those Rights conferred upon them by a Creator.
> 
> When people come here to partake of opportunities willingly offered; to work a job;  to buy and sell, I see no problem.  When people like you think that means these people must become a part of the body politic, *THAT* is where we part company.  But, right now you should focus on the Rights of man.  Either you believe in Liberty or you don't.  Citizenship and being part of the body politic are privileges controlled by government.  For that reason, I do not agree with the assault on private property Rights your sides supports.  I don't think the children of non-citizens have any "_right_" to a free public education.  I don't support wholesale citizenship as your side does.
> 
> So, what answer, exactly are you looking for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which inalienable right gives me the freedom to move into your living room?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not discussing inalienable rights.  Never mentioned them.  I made it bold so even a blind man could see it... *UNALIENABLE* Rights.
> 
> Tell me who is in your living room and I will personally kick them out.  If you're talking about the state, it is their prerogative to invite whomever they deem worthy.  If you disagree with their assessment, vote against whatever governor you have.
Click to expand...

Which of those rights gives anyone the freedom to take what belongs to some one else?

A job, a government benefit, healthcare, a place to live...anything.


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that could not cite another time that a whit supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
> 
> 
> Because whtie supremacists are an insignificant fringe and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your vile lies about Trump being racist, is just you being an asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who is a vile liar. The fact is that since Trump's election, far right haters on the rise. They have committed numerous acts of violence by killing people and plotting to kill Trump's political opponents. Republicans refuse to hold Trump accountable.
> 
> You are the asshole who has his tongue so far up Trump's ass that you have blown your brains out.
> 
> One such example is Corey Stewart. He got the Republican nomination despite his ties to white supremacists. He still got 1,368,451 votes in losing. That is a huge number of people who ignored or supported him even with his ties to white supremacists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe claim that violence, at least from the right, is on the rise, is vile demagogue panic mongering.
> 
> 2. Trump is not responsible for the little violence coming from the right.
> 
> 3. My political support of Trump is quite reasonable, considering his policies support my interests and the nation's. You are an asshole.
> 
> 4. Just review his wikapedia page. Saw no connections to white supremacists. Pointing out that "half the violence" at charlottesville was from the Left, is hardly "ties to white supremacists. Support your vile claim or apologize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it ever dawn on you that you can never make your point without being the first to start name calling?  Did you ever think that maybe you're projecting and it's really YOU that is an asshole?  Of course you didn't.  You didn't think.  That's why you still support Trump after he took a giant dump on the Constitution.
> 
> If not for white supremacists, Trump would have NO support for the nutty wall idea which is the
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not making any sense.
> 
> 
> You complain about the effects of Third World immigration, while attacking the idea of fighting against Third World immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am fighting against* proposed SOCIALIST SOLUTIONS DREAMED UP BY NEO - NAZIS*.
> 
> What in the Hell is it you don't understand about that?  What is it that makes you unable to realize that you are handing this country over to the third world with a strategy designed to implode?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The massive immigration is handing this country over to the Third World.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's *YOUR* side that wants to make citizens out of them; it's *YOUR *side that let the precedent stand that undocumented foreigners had civil rights that trumped private property owners rights.  It was *YOUR* side that lost the United States Supreme Court case wherein the high Court ruled that being in the United States without documentation *is not a crime*.  Additionally Printz v. U.S. was started by conservative right wingers and the United States Supreme Court ruled in that case that state and local governments cannot be forced into enforcing federal laws.
> 
> So, we're agreed on the problem, but you think you're entitled to avoid being held accountable for the strategies of *YOUR *side???
> 
> Immigration = citizenship.  That is how the third world is taking over and THAT is the primary disagreement we have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with a record like theirs democrats should never complain about others shitting on the constitution,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The double talk coming from the right is amazingly mind boggling.
> 
> Correll seems to be the major spokesman here, so this is where he and I stand:
> 
> 1)  He claims the foundational principles of America were racist yet Correll parrots the same, identical talking points that Bill Clinton did.
> 
> 
> So, if the Democrats are racists, the divide and conquer message parroted by the right is equally racist .The wallists are using the Democrats message
> 
> 2)  Wallists are committed to ending private property Rights
> 
> 3)  Wallists hate the Fourth Amendment
> 
> Yep. They are taking a giant dump on the Constitution.
Click to expand...



whats a wallist??? I presume you are referring to people that want a wall,,,

and at no time have I ever heard of anyone but those on the left wanting to end property rights or the 4th,,,

thats been the democrats and republicans that want that,,,

I think you problem is you see things in a binary world which it is not,,,

try to stop being partisan and look at what the law is as written,,,its a good starting point


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Aba Incieni said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Legal (sic), _"illegal_"... WTH is the difference?  If someone is here, a piece of paper issued by a corrupt government out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption is not going to make them anything except another subject of the NEW WORLD ORDER.  As soon as that individual gets their citizenship, they will become a Democrat.
> 
> After that happens, they can tell Correll to shut his pie hole and shine their shoes.  He'll do it with a smile on his face and joy in his heart... Correll just wants others to share in the Hell he's creating for himself and generations to come.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point about the legal vs illegal has some validity, and I would be happy to address it.
> 
> 
> BUT, the post you hit reply to, was pointing out that lack of radical-ness in wanting to send the foreigners home.
> 
> 
> That was the point, and you failed to address it. That was unreasonable and unfair of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what kind of answer you want.  We've discussed this umpteen times.  When the Declaration of Independence was signed, it contained the following:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their *Creator* with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Either you believe in those foundational principles or you don't.  It's not multiple choice.  Either man derives his Rights (especially Liberty in this case) from a Creator or he does not.  Which is it?  An *unalienable* Right is not given by government.  *Unalienable* Rights are absolute and above the law.   It is the meaning of the word, sir.
> 
> *Unalienable* Rights cannot apply to citizens only.  The reason being, when the Declaration of Independence was signed, there were *NO American Citizens*.  Not one, single solitary citizen signed that document.  It says *ALL* men are created equal and *ALL* men have those Rights conferred upon them by a Creator.
> 
> When people come here to partake of opportunities willingly offered; to work a job;  to buy and sell, I see no problem.  When people like you think that means these people must become a part of the body politic, *THAT* is where we part company.  But, right now you should focus on the Rights of man.  Either you believe in Liberty or you don't.  Citizenship and being part of the body politic are privileges controlled by government.  For that reason, I do not agree with the assault on private property Rights your sides supports.  I don't think the children of non-citizens have any "_right_" to a free public education.  I don't support wholesale citizenship as your side does.
> 
> So, what answer, exactly are you looking for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which inalienable right gives me the freedom to move into your living room?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not discussing inalienable rights.  Never mentioned them.  I made it bold so even a blind man could see it... *UNALIENABLE* Rights.
> 
> Tell me who is in your living room and I will personally kick them out.  If you're talking about the state, it is their prerogative to invite whomever they deem worthy.  If you disagree with their assessment, vote against whatever governor you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of those rights gives anyone the freedom to take what belongs to some one else?
> 
> A job, a government benefit, healthcare, a place to live...anything.
Click to expand...



A job is created in the private sector.  WHO owns the job?

Undocumented foreigners do not qualify for most healthcare

If a renter has the money for a house or apartment how is that relative you YOUR living room?


----------



## busybee01

Correll said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will tell you that you are wrong. The fact is that the white supremacists and neo-nazis were at the rally. If you rally alongside of them then you support them. The fact is that as long as you associate with neo-nazis and white supremacists, you support them. The Charlottesville protestors were laregely neo-nazis and white supremacists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one other time, in the last 50 years. that a white supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has been a marked rise in right wing hate groups since Trump's election. These groups have been mainlined. The Republicans are forced to march to Trump's march and that is decidedly racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that could not cite another time that a whit supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
> 
> 
> Because whtie supremacists are an insignificant fringe and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your vile lies about Trump being racist, is just you being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who is a vile liar. The fact is that since Trump's election, far right haters on the rise. They have committed numerous acts of violence by killing people and plotting to kill Trump's political opponents. Republicans refuse to hold Trump accountable.
> 
> You are the asshole who has his tongue so far up Trump's ass that you have blown your brains out.
> 
> One such example is Corey Stewart. He got the Republican nomination despite his ties to white supremacists. He still got 1,368,451 votes in losing. That is a huge number of people who ignored or supported him even with his ties to white supremacists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe claim that violence, at least from the right, is on the rise, is vile demagogue panic mongering.
> 
> 2. Trump is not responsible for the little violence coming from the right.
> 
> 3. My political support of Trump is quite reasonable, considering his policies support my interests and the nation's. You are an asshole.
> 
> 4. Just review his wikapedia page. Saw no connections to white supremacists. Pointing out that "half the violence" at charlottesville was from the Left, is hardly "ties to white supremacists. Support your vile claim or apologize.
Click to expand...


1. It shows how much of a liar you are. A rightwinger shot up a synagogue in Pittsburgh. A rightwinger shot up a mosque in Australia. A rightwinger sent mail bombs. A rightwinger was arrested for stockpiling weapons and had plans to use them to kill figures like Pelosi and Joe Scarborough. A rightwinger shot up a newsroom in Annapolis. Rightwingers killed a person in Charlottesville. That is a sampling. The only corresponding act would be the shooting of Scalise.

2. The fact is that the white supremacists and neo-nazis see Trump as their friend in the White House. Trump has cut funding of law enforcement's attempts to fight right wing violence.

3. It is reasonable if you are a white supremacist or neo-Nazi. Trump's policies hurt the country's interest.

4. Stewart has numerous ties to white supremacists and denounced them only after he won the nomination. He has been pictured with them and even hired them to work for his gubernatorial run. The fact is that half of the violence was not committed by the left. I don't apologize to dirty stinking racists and any party that supports them should be destroyed.


----------



## Aba Incieni

Porter Rockwell said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your point about the legal vs illegal has some validity, and I would be happy to address it.
> 
> 
> BUT, the post you hit reply to, was pointing out that lack of radical-ness in wanting to send the foreigners home.
> 
> 
> That was the point, and you failed to address it. That was unreasonable and unfair of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what kind of answer you want.  We've discussed this umpteen times.  When the Declaration of Independence was signed, it contained the following:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their *Creator* with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Either you believe in those foundational principles or you don't.  It's not multiple choice.  Either man derives his Rights (especially Liberty in this case) from a Creator or he does not.  Which is it?  An *unalienable* Right is not given by government.  *Unalienable* Rights are absolute and above the law.   It is the meaning of the word, sir.
> 
> *Unalienable* Rights cannot apply to citizens only.  The reason being, when the Declaration of Independence was signed, there were *NO American Citizens*.  Not one, single solitary citizen signed that document.  It says *ALL* men are created equal and *ALL* men have those Rights conferred upon them by a Creator.
> 
> When people come here to partake of opportunities willingly offered; to work a job;  to buy and sell, I see no problem.  When people like you think that means these people must become a part of the body politic, *THAT* is where we part company.  But, right now you should focus on the Rights of man.  Either you believe in Liberty or you don't.  Citizenship and being part of the body politic are privileges controlled by government.  For that reason, I do not agree with the assault on private property Rights your sides supports.  I don't think the children of non-citizens have any "_right_" to a free public education.  I don't support wholesale citizenship as your side does.
> 
> So, what answer, exactly are you looking for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which inalienable right gives me the freedom to move into your living room?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not discussing inalienable rights.  Never mentioned them.  I made it bold so even a blind man could see it... *UNALIENABLE* Rights.
> 
> Tell me who is in your living room and I will personally kick them out.  If you're talking about the state, it is their prerogative to invite whomever they deem worthy.  If you disagree with their assessment, vote against whatever governor you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of those rights gives anyone the freedom to take what belongs to some one else?
> 
> A job, a government benefit, healthcare, a place to live...anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A job is created in the private sector.  WHO owns the job?
> 
> Undocumented foreigners do not qualify for most healthcare
> 
> If a renter has the money for a house or apartment how is that relative you YOUR living room?
Click to expand...

I asked you first.


----------



## busybee01

Correll said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> s if
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong they reviewed the tape. Just because someone knocks a hat off your head does not give you the right to beat someone to a pulp. The force used has to be proportional. If it is not then it is felony assault.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They reviewed the tape and ignored the context of days of harassment, vandalism and threats of attacks. And as to being beaten to a pulp, medical care was offered and refused by the antifa supposedly beaten to a pulp "victims".
> 
> 
> This is politically motivated arrests and prosecution and a gross miscarriage of justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a miscarriage of justice. It is justice. You have proved that you re a part of the radical right wing so you are totally wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I explained why I believed that arrests were a miscarriage of justice.
> 
> 
> All you did, was cowardly avoid addressing my points, and repeated your initial position.
> 
> 
> THat is the logical fallacy of Argument by Assertion. YOur post is invalid, and you lose.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> They reviewed the tape and ignored the context of days of harassment, vandalism and threats of attacks. And as to being beaten to a pulp, medical care was offered and refused by the antifa supposedly beaten to a pulp "victims".
> 
> 
> This is politically motivated arrests and prosecution and a gross miscarriage of justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have stated your opinion. Try using the law. In claiming self defense, proportional force must be used. Someone's hat was knocked off. That does not allow someone to beat someone.
> 
> *Proportional Response*
> 
> Self-defense law requires the response to match the level of the threat in question. In other words, a person can only employ as much force as required to remove the threat. If the threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat. If, however, the threat involves only minor force and the person claiming self-defense uses force that could cause grievous bodily harm or death, the claim of self-defense will fail.
> 
> Self-Defense Law: Overview - FindLaw
> 
> I don't have to address your points because I understand the law. You do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man still pretending to not know that the antifa mob had been harassing and threatening and attacking the Proud Boys for days leading up to this attack.
Click to expand...


Said the man who clearly does not understand the laws regarding self-defense. The Proud Boys were properly charged.


----------



## busybee01

Correll said:


> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will tell you that you are wrong. The fact is that the white supremacists and neo-nazis were at the rally. If you rally alongside of them then you support them. The fact is that as long as you associate with neo-nazis and white supremacists, you support them. The Charlottesville protestors were laregely neo-nazis and white supremacists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then when Muslims, gays, transvestites, and atheists march in civil rights marches organized by black people it makes all blacks Muslims, gays, transvestites and atheists.  Logic has a funny way of working, don't it?
> 
> Granted, most of the people attracted to the nutty wall idea (neo-nazis) - which is what drew most people to that rally; however, there are other groups who are decent people, but have no real leadership.  If you're making a left wing argument, then when it comes to traitors, be careful of who YOU keep company with.  That guilt by association works both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is that when you don't care whether your party has been taken over by the far right, it is far more than guilt by association. The Republican Party has been taken over by the alt-right and neo-nazis. The people who refuse to stand up to this are guilty by association.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, so "far right" that they want to control the border, and send foreign nationals who are here against the law, home!
> 
> 
> What radical terror!!!!
> 
> 
> LOL!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with controlling the border. The reason you fear them is they are likely to be Democrat supporters. You people fear anyone who is not white. You also use the same tactics that evil people like Hitler used. Attempt to dehumanize them. Blame them and others like Muslims for the problems this country.
> Try to use fear that somehow unarmed women and children are a threat to this country.
> 
> Trump tried to use these scare tactics in the 2018 election. The result was a Republican loss of the House and a smaller than expected gain in the Senate. Voters do not support a wall, support asylum laws as they currently are and support dreamers. They reject your right wing hatred.
> 
> California is a good example of the Republican Party's future under Trump.  Whites are a smaller majority with a significant number of minorities such as Asians, blacks and hispanics. Republicans lost Asians, Blacks and Hispanics in the 2018 midterms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I point out that you are panic mongering about simply sending people here illegally HOME, and you call us nazis?
> 
> 
> That completely makes my point, thanks.
> 
> 
> Also, you are all over the place. You accuse me of only being afraid of them because of race, and then gloat because they will lead to massive political change against my interests. Are you truly that lacking in self awareness or simply being dishonest?
> 
> Voters do not support the Wall, because they have been race demagogued by people like you, over and over again. Massive, rapid political and cultural change is not to be embraced without consideration on whether or not is it change for the GOOD. and that is what we are doing.
> 
> (and don't deny the change, after just gloating on it, in your last post, libby)
> 
> 
> You are a race baiting asshole.
Click to expand...


You use the same tactics that the nazis used to seize power. However the American people did not buy it in 2018 and will not buy it in 2020. These people are not breaking laws by entering the country to declare asylum. They have a strong case due to the power the drug cartels hold thanks to America's appetite for drugs.

You have continued to show your hateful attitude.

Putting you white supremacists and neo-nazis out of business is a good thing. You are the one who is dishonest.

Worth noting that Ronald Reagan would be a liberal compared to you and you would accuse him of being a liberal. Disagreeing with garbage like you does not make one a liberal. It shows someone is in their right mind unlike you.

You are the racist asshole.

Voters do not support a wall. They do not support making asylum harder to apply for. They support Dreamers. That is because they are smarter than you think they are. They are not swayed by your demogogary.  The trouble is that ordinary people are not as hateful as you are.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Aba Incieni said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what kind of answer you want.  We've discussed this umpteen times.  When the Declaration of Independence was signed, it contained the following:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their *Creator* with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Either you believe in those foundational principles or you don't.  It's not multiple choice.  Either man derives his Rights (especially Liberty in this case) from a Creator or he does not.  Which is it?  An *unalienable* Right is not given by government.  *Unalienable* Rights are absolute and above the law.   It is the meaning of the word, sir.
> 
> *Unalienable* Rights cannot apply to citizens only.  The reason being, when the Declaration of Independence was signed, there were *NO American Citizens*.  Not one, single solitary citizen signed that document.  It says *ALL* men are created equal and *ALL* men have those Rights conferred upon them by a Creator.
> 
> When people come here to partake of opportunities willingly offered; to work a job;  to buy and sell, I see no problem.  When people like you think that means these people must become a part of the body politic, *THAT* is where we part company.  But, right now you should focus on the Rights of man.  Either you believe in Liberty or you don't.  Citizenship and being part of the body politic are privileges controlled by government.  For that reason, I do not agree with the assault on private property Rights your sides supports.  I don't think the children of non-citizens have any "_right_" to a free public education.  I don't support wholesale citizenship as your side does.
> 
> So, what answer, exactly are you looking for?
> 
> 
> 
> Which inalienable right gives me the freedom to move into your living room?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not discussing inalienable rights.  Never mentioned them.  I made it bold so even a blind man could see it... *UNALIENABLE* Rights.
> 
> Tell me who is in your living room and I will personally kick them out.  If you're talking about the state, it is their prerogative to invite whomever they deem worthy.  If you disagree with their assessment, vote against whatever governor you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of those rights gives anyone the freedom to take what belongs to some one else?
> 
> A job, a government benefit, healthcare, a place to live...anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A job is created in the private sector.  WHO owns the job?
> 
> Undocumented foreigners do not qualify for most healthcare
> 
> If a renter has the money for a house or apartment how is that relative you YOUR living room?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked you first.
Click to expand...


Are you serious or do you want to be exposed?

Just like intellectual property Rights (like when a songwriter writes a song), the person who creates the job owns it.  Jobs belong to the employer that creates it.

That is where Correll and I part company on our first issue.  The definition of socialism is when the government controls labor and distribution.  Then you can say that the people own the jobs.  In our de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic, the employer owns the job.  

I can tell you that what I build, create, or bring into existence belongs to me and I'm not giving it up to a swinging soul unless I want to.  What belongs to me, individually, belongs to me.

Your turn.


----------



## Aba Incieni

Porter Rockwell said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which inalienable right gives me the freedom to move into your living room?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not discussing inalienable rights.  Never mentioned them.  I made it bold so even a blind man could see it... *UNALIENABLE* Rights.
> 
> Tell me who is in your living room and I will personally kick them out.  If you're talking about the state, it is their prerogative to invite whomever they deem worthy.  If you disagree with their assessment, vote against whatever governor you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of those rights gives anyone the freedom to take what belongs to some one else?
> 
> A job, a government benefit, healthcare, a place to live...anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A job is created in the private sector.  WHO owns the job?
> 
> Undocumented foreigners do not qualify for most healthcare
> 
> If a renter has the money for a house or apartment how is that relative you YOUR living room?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked you first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious or do you want to be exposed?
> 
> Just like intellectual property Rights (like when a songwriter writes a song), the person who creates the job owns it.  Jobs belong to the employer that creates it.
> 
> That is where Correll and I part company on our first issue.  The definition of socialism is when the government controls labor and distribution.  Then you can say that the people own the jobs.  In our de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic, the employer owns the job.
> 
> I can tell you that what I build, create, or bring into existence belongs to me and I'm not giving it up to a swinging soul unless I want to.  What belongs to me, individually, belongs to me.
> 
> Your turn.
Click to expand...

Which of the unalienable rights listed gives me the right to move into your living room?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

busybee01 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then when Muslims, gays, transvestites, and atheists march in civil rights marches organized by black people it makes all blacks Muslims, gays, transvestites and atheists.  Logic has a funny way of working, don't it?
> 
> Granted, most of the people attracted to the nutty wall idea (neo-nazis) - which is what drew most people to that rally; however, there are other groups who are decent people, but have no real leadership.  If you're making a left wing argument, then when it comes to traitors, be careful of who YOU keep company with.  That guilt by association works both ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that when you don't care whether your party has been taken over by the far right, it is far more than guilt by association. The Republican Party has been taken over by the alt-right and neo-nazis. The people who refuse to stand up to this are guilty by association.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, so "far right" that they want to control the border, and send foreign nationals who are here against the law, home!
> 
> 
> What radical terror!!!!
> 
> 
> LOL!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with controlling the border. The reason you fear them is they are likely to be Democrat supporters. You people fear anyone who is not white. You also use the same tactics that evil people like Hitler used. Attempt to dehumanize them. Blame them and others like Muslims for the problems this country.
> Try to use fear that somehow unarmed women and children are a threat to this country.
> 
> Trump tried to use these scare tactics in the 2018 election. The result was a Republican loss of the House and a smaller than expected gain in the Senate. Voters do not support a wall, support asylum laws as they currently are and support dreamers. They reject your right wing hatred.
> 
> California is a good example of the Republican Party's future under Trump.  Whites are a smaller majority with a significant number of minorities such as Asians, blacks and hispanics. Republicans lost Asians, Blacks and Hispanics in the 2018 midterms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I point out that you are panic mongering about simply sending people here illegally HOME, and you call us nazis?
> 
> 
> That completely makes my point, thanks.
> 
> 
> Also, you are all over the place. You accuse me of only being afraid of them because of race, and then gloat because they will lead to massive political change against my interests. Are you truly that lacking in self awareness or simply being dishonest?
> 
> Voters do not support the Wall, because they have been race demagogued by people like you, over and over again. Massive, rapid political and cultural change is not to be embraced without consideration on whether or not is it change for the GOOD. and that is what we are doing.
> 
> (and don't deny the change, after just gloating on it, in your last post, libby)
> 
> 
> You are a race baiting asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You use the same tactics that the nazis used to seize power. However the American people did not buy it in 2018 and will not buy it in 2020. These people are not breaking laws by entering the country to declare asylum. They have a strong case due to the power the drug cartels hold thanks to America's appetite for drugs.
> 
> You have continued to show your hateful attitude.
> 
> Putting you white supremacists and neo-nazis out of business is a good thing. You are the one who is dishonest.
> 
> Worth noting that Ronald Reagan would be a liberal compared to you and you would accuse him of being a liberal. Disagreeing with garbage like you does not make one a liberal. It shows someone is in their right mind unlike you.
> 
> You are the racist asshole.
> 
> Voters do not support a wall. They do not support making asylum harder to apply for. They support Dreamers. That is because they are smarter than you think they are. They are not swayed by your demogogary.  The trouble is that ordinary people are not as hateful as you are.
Click to expand...



I'd like to add something to your post:

When I was a teen, the Democrats occupied EVERY office in my area from city council to the county commissioners (including the Chairman.)  My state representative, state senator, U.S. Representative, and U.S. Senators were Democrats. 

The first county Republican Party meeting I went to had six attendees.  A little over a year later we won every election from the city all the way to the United States Senate and Ronald Reagan became president.  Since then I voted for a *single* Democrat (and that was for Public Service Commission)  and I've voted in *EVERY* election.  Today, while I fully concur that a problem exists with foreigners, the solutions proposed by people like Correll are clearly *National Socialist*.


I have stated over and over and over again that the whole wall idea was National Socialist and left wing from the start.  Look at who Correll gets his talking points from:  NEO NAZIS.  That is not name calling; it is telling you a *FACT*.  Corell and his ilk can spew the venomous hatred all they want, but the bottom line is, it was not until the neo nazis co-opted the civilian militias and then right wing groups and ultimately nut jobs like Trump was this idiocy EVER associated with the Republicans.

I believe we have a problem - just as Bush and Reagan noted.  The United States created the drug problem with our insatiable appetite for drugs and, consequently we are responsible for the drug cartels.

On economics, we tried mass deportations.  It failed miserably.  I too would like to see people get a permit, work, pay taxes and then go home.  I don't want them to follow any "_legal_" path to citizenship.   I want the U.S. to address the drug problem (legal and illegal drugs) and eliminate drugs from our culture.  THAT would cripple the drug cartels. 

For Correll and his supporters to call other names for not jumping on their bandwagon only shows their desperation.  Sooner or later the truth about who those hatemongers are and WHERE their ideas originated from is going to come out.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Aba Incieni said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not discussing inalienable rights.  Never mentioned them.  I made it bold so even a blind man could see it... *UNALIENABLE* Rights.
> 
> Tell me who is in your living room and I will personally kick them out.  If you're talking about the state, it is their prerogative to invite whomever they deem worthy.  If you disagree with their assessment, vote against whatever governor you have.
> 
> 
> 
> Which of those rights gives anyone the freedom to take what belongs to some one else?
> 
> A job, a government benefit, healthcare, a place to live...anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A job is created in the private sector.  WHO owns the job?
> 
> Undocumented foreigners do not qualify for most healthcare
> 
> If a renter has the money for a house or apartment how is that relative you YOUR living room?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked you first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious or do you want to be exposed?
> 
> Just like intellectual property Rights (like when a songwriter writes a song), the person who creates the job owns it.  Jobs belong to the employer that creates it.
> 
> That is where Correll and I part company on our first issue.  The definition of socialism is when the government controls labor and distribution.  Then you can say that the people own the jobs.  In our de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic, the employer owns the job.
> 
> I can tell you that what I build, create, or bring into existence belongs to me and I'm not giving it up to a swinging soul unless I want to.  What belongs to me, individually, belongs to me.
> 
> Your turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of the unalienable right listed gives me the right to move into your living room?
Click to expand...


Are you trying to move into my living room?  Dude, for real, if you have an issue, spit it out.  Do you want me to guess at what your cryptic nonsense means and then make the bullshit claim (as does Correll that you were not answered?)  Is that your game?


----------



## Aba Incieni

Porter Rockwell said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which of those rights gives anyone the freedom to take what belongs to some one else?
> 
> A job, a government benefit, healthcare, a place to live...anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A job is created in the private sector.  WHO owns the job?
> 
> Undocumented foreigners do not qualify for most healthcare
> 
> If a renter has the money for a house or apartment how is that relative you YOUR living room?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked you first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious or do you want to be exposed?
> 
> Just like intellectual property Rights (like when a songwriter writes a song), the person who creates the job owns it.  Jobs belong to the employer that creates it.
> 
> That is where Correll and I part company on our first issue.  The definition of socialism is when the government controls labor and distribution.  Then you can say that the people own the jobs.  In our de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic, the employer owns the job.
> 
> I can tell you that what I build, create, or bring into existence belongs to me and I'm not giving it up to a swinging soul unless I want to.  What belongs to me, individually, belongs to me.
> 
> Your turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of the unalienable right listed gives me the right to move into your living room?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to move into my living room?  Dude, for real, if you have an issue, spit it out.  Do you want me to guess at what your cryptic nonsense means and then make the bullshit claim (as does Correll that you were not answered?)  Is that your game?
Click to expand...

The question is simple. Your answer seems difficult.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Aba Incieni said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> A job is created in the private sector.  WHO owns the job?
> 
> Undocumented foreigners do not qualify for most healthcare
> 
> If a renter has the money for a house or apartment how is that relative you YOUR living room?
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you serious or do you want to be exposed?
> 
> Just like intellectual property Rights (like when a songwriter writes a song), the person who creates the job owns it.  Jobs belong to the employer that creates it.
> 
> That is where Correll and I part company on our first issue.  The definition of socialism is when the government controls labor and distribution.  Then you can say that the people own the jobs.  In our de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic, the employer owns the job.
> 
> I can tell you that what I build, create, or bring into existence belongs to me and I'm not giving it up to a swinging soul unless I want to.  What belongs to me, individually, belongs to me.
> 
> Your turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of the unalienable right listed gives me the right to move into your living room?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to move into my living room?  Dude, for real, if you have an issue, spit it out.  Do you want me to guess at what your cryptic nonsense means and then make the bullshit claim (as does Correll that you were not answered?)  Is that your game?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question is simple. Your answer seems difficult.
Click to expand...


It's obviously not that simple.  The wallists have been given all the statutory law *AND* the case law.  They have yet to understand how the precedents in case law prohibit them from doing the things they suggest.

Now you come with an idiotic analogy (be glad I'm not a screwed up dumb ass wallist yapping about logical fallacies and other such non sequitirs) and it does not follow.  But, let's play house.  Since I'm headed out of here for the night, I want you to think about something I said earlier.  Give me your answer and I will fully answer your question consistent with what you tell me.  I have to know what presupposition we're starting off with:

"_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain* unalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."

Now, here is court precedent on Rights:

“_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

A few more synonyms for those bolded words would be irrevocable, God given, untouchable. I could cite you a *LOT* of precedent.

If a man is born with an *unalienable* Right, and if Liberty is a Right bestowed upon us by a *Creator*, bearing in mind that the presupposition BEFORE such a thing as a citizen of the U.S. existed, who in the Hell is getting off scot free (sic) of anything?

Do  you understand the concept of Liberty or shall I define it for you?

So, in plain and simple terms, tell me of YOUR understanding of *unalienable* Rights.


----------



## Aba Incieni

Porter Rockwell said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious or do you want to be exposed?
> 
> Just like intellectual property Rights (like when a songwriter writes a song), the person who creates the job owns it.  Jobs belong to the employer that creates it.
> 
> That is where Correll and I part company on our first issue.  The definition of socialism is when the government controls labor and distribution.  Then you can say that the people own the jobs.  In our de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic, the employer owns the job.
> 
> I can tell you that what I build, create, or bring into existence belongs to me and I'm not giving it up to a swinging soul unless I want to.  What belongs to me, individually, belongs to me.
> 
> Your turn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of the unalienable right listed gives me the right to move into your living room?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to move into my living room?  Dude, for real, if you have an issue, spit it out.  Do you want me to guess at what your cryptic nonsense means and then make the bullshit claim (as does Correll that you were not answered?)  Is that your game?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question is simple. Your answer seems difficult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obviously not that simple.  The wallists have been given all the statutory law *AND* the case law.  They have yet to understand how the precedents in case law prohibit them from doing the things they suggest.
> 
> Now you come with an idiotic analogy (be glad I'm not a screwed up dumb ass wallist yapping about logical fallacies and other such non sequitirs) and it does not follow.  But, let's play house.  Since I'm headed out of here for the night, I want you to think about something I said earlier.  Give me your answer and I will fully answer your question consistent with what you tell me.  I have to know what presupposition we're starting off with:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain* unalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Now, here is court precedent on Rights:
> 
> “_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
> 
> A few more synonyms for those bolded words would be irrevocable, God given, untouchable. I could cite you a *LOT* of precedent.
> 
> If a man is born with an *unalienable* Right, and if Liberty is a Right bestowed upon us by a *Creator*, bearing in mind that the presupposition BEFORE such a thing as a citizen of the U.S. existed, who in the Hell is getting off scot free (sic) of anything?
> 
> Do  you understand the concept of Liberty or shall I define it for you?
> 
> So, in plain and simple terms, tell me of YOUR understanding of *unalienable* Rights.
Click to expand...

Which of those unalienable rights allow me to move into your house.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Aba Incieni said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious or do you want to be exposed?
> 
> Just like intellectual property Rights (like when a songwriter writes a song), the person who creates the job owns it.  Jobs belong to the employer that creates it.
> 
> That is where Correll and I part company on our first issue.  The definition of socialism is when the government controls labor and distribution.  Then you can say that the people own the jobs.  In our de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic, the employer owns the job.
> 
> I can tell you that what I build, create, or bring into existence belongs to me and I'm not giving it up to a swinging soul unless I want to.  What belongs to me, individually, belongs to me.
> 
> Your turn.
> 
> 
> 
> Which of the unalienable right listed gives me the right to move into your living room?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to move into my living room?  Dude, for real, if you have an issue, spit it out.  Do you want me to guess at what your cryptic nonsense means and then make the bullshit claim (as does Correll that you were not answered?)  Is that your game?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question is simple. Your answer seems difficult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obviously not that simple.  The wallists have been given all the statutory law *AND* the case law.  They have yet to understand how the precedents in case law prohibit them from doing the things they suggest.
> 
> Now you come with an idiotic analogy (be glad I'm not a screwed up dumb ass wallist yapping about logical fallacies and other such non sequitirs) and it does not follow.  But, let's play house.  Since I'm headed out of here for the night, I want you to think about something I said earlier.  Give me your answer and I will fully answer your question consistent with what you tell me.  I have to know what presupposition we're starting off with:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain* unalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Now, here is court precedent on Rights:
> 
> “_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
> 
> A few more synonyms for those bolded words would be irrevocable, God given, untouchable. I could cite you a *LOT* of precedent.
> 
> If a man is born with an *unalienable* Right, and if Liberty is a Right bestowed upon us by a *Creator*, bearing in mind that the presupposition BEFORE such a thing as a citizen of the U.S. existed, who in the Hell is getting off scot free (sic) of anything?
> 
> Do  you understand the concept of Liberty or shall I define it for you?
> 
> So, in plain and simple terms, tell me of YOUR understanding of *unalienable* Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of those unalienable rights allow me to move into your house.
Click to expand...


You didn't bother to answer the question so that we can clarify the issue, so you are parroting debunked National Socialist B.S.  It's that simple.

Nobody is trying to move into your house; nobody is trying to move into my house; obviously nobody was in your living room and last I checked, the only person in my living room is my mother in law.

Dude, plain and simple,* you don't own this fricking country*.  We are not a democracy, so even if you had more people supporting your position (and I can assure you that you do not) that would not matter.  *NOBODY* is trying to take over your living room, your house, your bedroom or anything else.  Either *unalienable* Rights exist or they do not.  It's not a difficult question, but one you and your ilk avoid like a case if clap - and for an obvious reason.  It would expose the fact that you're liars or idiots.  Since you don't discuss your view in good faith, I don't know which because I don't know if you're dishonest, uneducated, stupid or just thinking you're winning some non-existent debate by using debunked lies and outright B.S.  Let me educate you for a change.

Liberty is an *unalienable* Right presupposed in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed to *ALL PERSONS* as per the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  Personally, I believe that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified, but *YOUR SIDE DOES NOT*.  Consequently, you must work within the parameters of the law if you believe in the Rule of Law - and the guys representing your talking points support the 14th Amendment.  You cannot have it both ways.

Liberty is defined as:

"_Freedom; *exemption from extraneous control*. The power of the will, in its moral *freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice*, and to direct the external acts of the individual *without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons. *See Booth v. Illinois, 1S4 U. S. 425, 22 Sup. Ct. 425, 46 L. Ed. 623 ; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 142. 24 L. Ed. 77; People v. Warden of City Prison. 157 N. Y. 116, 51 N. E. 1006. 43 L. R. A. 264, 68 Am. St. Rep. 7i_"  Black's Law Dictionary - the most authoritative law dictionary recognized in the legal community

What is LIBERTY? definition of LIBERTY (Black's Law Dictionary)

So, who in the HELL are you to tell me who I can and cannot hire?  Who are you to tell me who I can rent or not rent to?  Who do you think you are to tell each individual state who they may or may not invite?  Where, in the Constitution, do you get this idea that you and only you (and those who agree with you) have some mandate to impose on the free market when people are *willingly* engaging in free trade?  Who are you to decide for others when people are engaging in free trade versus allegations of an army come to take America by force? 

You cannot answer those questions.  You won't answer them.  You know to do so would further prove that all you have is what you mistakenly believe is* majority rule* -  and if the last mid term election did not give you a warning, you're in for one big fricking surprise in the next election cycle.  You need to get your head out of your ass so you have some answers, not a feeble attempt to play the great mind fuck - which you are woefully lacking in ability to do.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one other time, in the last 50 years. that a white supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There has been a marked rise in right wing hate groups since Trump's election. These groups have been mainlined. The Republicans are forced to march to Trump's march and that is decidedly racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that could not cite another time that a whit supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
> 
> 
> Because whtie supremacists are an insignificant fringe and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your vile lies about Trump being racist, is just you being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who is a vile liar. The fact is that since Trump's election, far right haters on the rise. They have committed numerous acts of violence by killing people and plotting to kill Trump's political opponents. Republicans refuse to hold Trump accountable.
> 
> You are the asshole who has his tongue so far up Trump's ass that you have blown your brains out.
> 
> One such example is Corey Stewart. He got the Republican nomination despite his ties to white supremacists. He still got 1,368,451 votes in losing. That is a huge number of people who ignored or supported him even with his ties to white supremacists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe claim that violence, at least from the right, is on the rise, is vile demagogue panic mongering.
> 
> 2. Trump is not responsible for the little violence coming from the right.
> 
> 3. My political support of Trump is quite reasonable, considering his policies support my interests and the nation's. You are an asshole.
> 
> 4. Just review his wikapedia page. Saw no connections to white supremacists. Pointing out that "half the violence" at charlottesville was from the Left, is hardly "ties to white supremacists. Support your vile claim or apologize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it ever dawn on you that you can never make your point without being the first to start name calling?  Did you ever think that maybe you're projecting and it's really YOU that is an asshole?  Of course you didn't.  You didn't think.  That's why you still support Trump after he took a giant dump on the Constitution.
> 
> If not for white supremacists, Trump would have NO support for the nutty wall idea which is the
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOthing in my post made any point about employment. You brought that up to avoid addressing what I actually said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir, *YOU'VE* been avoiding what I have asked.
> 
> I'm presuming we're a nation of laws and that even the illegally ratified laws are in place.  You haven't been able to deal in reality.  You don't understand the difference between what America was founded on what it evolved into (which, contrary to your opinion, is NOT a good thing.)
> 
> Your infantile analogies do not address the many links I've posted.  You and I both know you don't know all the different sides to this.  The bottom line, whether you like it or not, the Preamble to the Constitution reads:
> 
> "_We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and *secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,* do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America_."
> 
> I'm sorry that Constitution does not fit your narrative.  You will watch your country go down in flames because you cannot make a simple connection.  America cannot be a nation that is everything to everybody.  Someone* WILL* be pushed out.  This is the last president that is going to see it your way during your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not making any sense.
> 
> 
> You complain about the effects of Third World immigration, while attacking the idea of fighting against Third World immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am fighting against* proposed SOCIALIST SOLUTIONS DREAMED UP BY NEO - NAZIS*.
> 
> What in the Hell is it you don't understand about that?  What is it that makes you unable to realize that you are handing this country over to the third world with a strategy designed to implode?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The massive immigration is handing this country over to the Third World.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's *YOUR* side that wants to make citizens out of them; it's *YOUR *side that let the precedent stand that undocumented foreigners had civil rights that trumped private property owners rights.  It was *YOUR* side that lost the United States Supreme Court case wherein the high Court ruled that being in the United States without documentation *is not a crime*.  Additionally Printz v. U.S. was started by conservative right wingers and the United States Supreme Court ruled in that case that state and local governments cannot be forced into enforcing federal laws.
> 
> So, we're agreed on the problem, but you think you're entitled to avoid being held accountable for the strategies of *YOUR *side???
> 
> Immigration = citizenship.  That is how the third world is taking over and THAT is the primary disagreement we have.
Click to expand...




1. When some asshole starts throwing around the racist or the white supremacist accusation based on nothing but shit, they are the ones being assholes, and I respond accordingly.


2. I do not want to make citizens out of them. That is just something you keep trying to assign to me, based on your odd game of 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon. My point stands. The massive immigration is handing this country over to the Third World, and your game of blaming me for it, is irrelevant to that.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then when Muslims, gays, transvestites, and atheists march in civil rights marches organized by black people it makes all blacks Muslims, gays, transvestites and atheists.  Logic has a funny way of working, don't it?
> 
> Granted, most of the people attracted to the nutty wall idea (neo-nazis) - which is what drew most people to that rally; however, there are other groups who are decent people, but have no real leadership.  If you're making a left wing argument, then when it comes to traitors, be careful of who YOU keep company with.  That guilt by association works both ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that when you don't care whether your party has been taken over by the far right, it is far more than guilt by association. The Republican Party has been taken over by the alt-right and neo-nazis. The people who refuse to stand up to this are guilty by association.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, so "far right" that they want to control the border, and send foreign nationals who are here against the law, home!
> 
> 
> What radical terror!!!!
> 
> 
> LOL!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legal (sic), _"illegal_"... WTH is the difference?  If someone is here, a piece of paper issued by a corrupt government out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption is not going to make them anything except another subject of the NEW WORLD ORDER.  As soon as that individual gets their citizenship, they will become a Democrat.
> 
> After that happens, they can tell Correll to shut his pie hole and shine their shoes.  He'll do it with a smile on his face and joy in his heart... Correll just wants others to share in the Hell he's creating for himself and generations to come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point about the legal vs illegal has some validity, and I would be happy to address it.
> 
> 
> BUT, the post you hit reply to, was pointing out that lack of radical-ness in wanting to send the foreigners home.
> 
> 
> That was the point, and you failed to address it. That was unreasonable and unfair of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what kind of answer you want.  We've discussed this umpteen times.  When the Declaration of Independence was signed, it contained the following:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their *Creator* with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Either you believe in those foundational principles or you don't.  It's not multiple choice.  Either man derives his Rights (especially Liberty in this case) from a Creator or he does not.  Which is it?  An *unalienable* Right is not given by government.  *Unalienable* Rights are absolute and above the law.   It is the meaning of the word, sir.
> 
> *Unalienable* Rights cannot apply to citizens only.  The reason being, when the Declaration of Independence was signed, there were *NO American Citizens*.  Not one, single solitary citizen signed that document.  It says *ALL* men are created equal and *ALL* men have those Rights conferred upon them by a Creator.
> 
> When people come here to partake of opportunities willingly offered; to work a job;  to buy and sell, I see no problem.  When people like you think that means these people must become a part of the body politic, *THAT* is where we part company.  But, right now you should focus on the Rights of man.  Either you believe in Liberty or you don't.  Citizenship and being part of the body politic are privileges controlled by government.  For that reason, I do not agree with the assault on private property Rights your sides supports.  I don't think the children of non-citizens have any "_right_" to a free public education.  I don't support wholesale citizenship as your side does.
> 
> So, what answer, exactly are you looking for?
Click to expand...




That is sophistic nonsense that if taken seriously, completely shit cans not only the very concern of nations, but the right of self determination of all people.


AMERICANS have the right to decide who to invite to join our community and become part of us. 


This is not a denial of the rights of foreign citizens, because their right to self determination is as part of another equally sovereign group, (mostly Mexico.)


We, Americans have no inherent right to go join the Mexican nation, and they have no inherent right to come join ours.


This is a very simply concept.  NOrmally at this point, liberals pretend to not understand it and play stupid games.


I expect better from you on this.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one other time, in the last 50 years. that a white supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There has been a marked rise in right wing hate groups since Trump's election. These groups have been mainlined. The Republicans are forced to march to Trump's march and that is decidedly racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that could not cite another time that a whit supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
> 
> 
> Because whtie supremacists are an insignificant fringe and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your vile lies about Trump being racist, is just you being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I'll give you your little point, but it comes at a price.  If we believe the media, Trump's big rallies were virtually empty streets because the MSM said so.
> 
> I know that the white supremacists own you lock, stock and barrel.  You can't get a fresh of breath of fresh air until one of them farts because you have your nose that far up their ass.
> 
> You are also a pathological liar.  I've stated the fact that Trump is riding the coat-tails of neo nazis.  I've NEVER said the man is a racist.  He's playing racists just like you.  I wonder whether it's worse being an asshole OR a complete dumb ass like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a picture of a Trump rally with hundreds, if not thousands of supporters. It took me seconds to find.
> 
> 
> View attachment 259634
> 
> 
> 
> FUnny, how different that looks from a normal white supremacist rally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how different they look. Strange how the neo nazis themselves can't get more than a few dozens, while Trump, supposedly drawing on them as a based, gets thousands...
> 
> 
> Mmmm,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Back in the 1970s and 1980s we did not have the modern marvels you have today.  So, I cannot control what the media allowed to get out of their archives and into Internet stories.
> 
> I do have some pictures taken when I was a Justice of the Peace performing a wedding ceremony at a KKK rally.  There were over 450 robed klansmen at the rally, not counting their families and the couples other friends and relatives.  Stop by some time and I can show it to you.
> 
> Other than that, dude, if I wanted to be the asshole you are, I could do that song and dance that the photos were photoshopped and the MSM told the truth.
Click to expand...




IF the white supremacist were the base that gave Trump his support, they would be able to have rallies of the scale he does. 


They don't. Because they can't. 


They are an insignificant fringe. 


Your belief on this makes no sense at all.


Racism, at least white racism, is a tiny and unimportant force in American politics today.


Why are you afraid of this good news?


----------



## Correll

busybee01 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name one other time, in the last 50 years. that a white supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There has been a marked rise in right wing hate groups since Trump's election. These groups have been mainlined. The Republicans are forced to march to Trump's march and that is decidedly racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that could not cite another time that a whit supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
> 
> 
> Because whtie supremacists are an insignificant fringe and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your vile lies about Trump being racist, is just you being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who is a vile liar. The fact is that since Trump's election, far right haters on the rise. They have committed numerous acts of violence by killing people and plotting to kill Trump's political opponents. Republicans refuse to hold Trump accountable.
> 
> You are the asshole who has his tongue so far up Trump's ass that you have blown your brains out.
> 
> One such example is Corey Stewart. He got the Republican nomination despite his ties to white supremacists. He still got 1,368,451 votes in losing. That is a huge number of people who ignored or supported him even with his ties to white supremacists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe claim that violence, at least from the right, is on the rise, is vile demagogue panic mongering.
> 
> 2. Trump is not responsible for the little violence coming from the right.
> 
> 3. My political support of Trump is quite reasonable, considering his policies support my interests and the nation's. You are an asshole.
> 
> 4. Just review his wikapedia page. Saw no connections to white supremacists. Pointing out that "half the violence" at charlottesville was from the Left, is hardly "ties to white supremacists. Support your vile claim or apologize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. It shows how much of a liar you are. A rightwinger shot up a synagogue in Pittsburgh. A rightwinger shot up a mosque in Australia. A rightwinger sent mail bombs. A rightwinger was arrested for stockpiling weapons and had plans to use them to kill figures like Pelosi and Joe Scarborough. A rightwinger shot up a newsroom in Annapolis. Rightwingers killed a person in Charlottesville. That is a sampling. The only corresponding act would be the shooting of Scalise.
> 
> 2. The fact is that the white supremacists and neo-nazis see Trump as their friend in the White House. Trump has cut funding of law enforcement's attempts to fight right wing violence.
> 
> 3. It is reasonable if you are a white supremacist or neo-Nazi. Trump's policies hurt the country's interest.
> 
> 4. Stewart has numerous ties to white supremacists and denounced them only after he won the nomination. He has been pictured with them and even hired them to work for his gubernatorial run. The fact is that half of the violence was not committed by the left. I don't apologize to dirty stinking racists and any party that supports them should be destroyed.
Click to expand...




1. A sampling of 6 out of 7 billion. Big f-ing deal. You want to support your claim, give me some hard numbers, or stop making your claim.

2. Seems unlikely as he does not support anything they stand for. 

3. He wants to secure the border, and send unwelcome foreigners home. Those who pretend that that makes him a nazi, are fucking crazy. 

4. Nothing about that on his wikapedia page. I challenge you to support your claim that the Left did not commit "half the violence". You still have not supported any of your vile claims. YOu just keep spouting more shit, instead of backing up the shit you already spouted.


----------



## Correll

busybee01 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> s if
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> They reviewed the tape and ignored the context of days of harassment, vandalism and threats of attacks. And as to being beaten to a pulp, medical care was offered and refused by the antifa supposedly beaten to a pulp "victims".
> 
> 
> This is politically motivated arrests and prosecution and a gross miscarriage of justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a miscarriage of justice. It is justice. You have proved that you re a part of the radical right wing so you are totally wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I explained why I believed that arrests were a miscarriage of justice.
> 
> 
> All you did, was cowardly avoid addressing my points, and repeated your initial position.
> 
> 
> THat is the logical fallacy of Argument by Assertion. YOur post is invalid, and you lose.
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> They reviewed the tape and ignored the context of days of harassment, vandalism and threats of attacks. And as to being beaten to a pulp, medical care was offered and refused by the antifa supposedly beaten to a pulp "victims".
> 
> 
> This is politically motivated arrests and prosecution and a gross miscarriage of justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have stated your opinion. Try using the law. In claiming self defense, proportional force must be used. Someone's hat was knocked off. That does not allow someone to beat someone.
> 
> *Proportional Response*
> 
> Self-defense law requires the response to match the level of the threat in question. In other words, a person can only employ as much force as required to remove the threat. If the threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat. If, however, the threat involves only minor force and the person claiming self-defense uses force that could cause grievous bodily harm or death, the claim of self-defense will fail.
> 
> Self-Defense Law: Overview - FindLaw
> 
> I don't have to address your points because I understand the law. You do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man still pretending to not know that the antifa mob had been harassing and threatening and attacking the Proud Boys for days leading up to this attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Said the man who clearly does not understand the laws regarding self-defense. The Proud Boys were properly charged.
Click to expand...



Why did the New York City cops not arrest them that night, if their "crime" was so obvious?


----------



## Correll

busybee01 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then when Muslims, gays, transvestites, and atheists march in civil rights marches organized by black people it makes all blacks Muslims, gays, transvestites and atheists.  Logic has a funny way of working, don't it?
> 
> Granted, most of the people attracted to the nutty wall idea (neo-nazis) - which is what drew most people to that rally; however, there are other groups who are decent people, but have no real leadership.  If you're making a left wing argument, then when it comes to traitors, be careful of who YOU keep company with.  That guilt by association works both ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that when you don't care whether your party has been taken over by the far right, it is far more than guilt by association. The Republican Party has been taken over by the alt-right and neo-nazis. The people who refuse to stand up to this are guilty by association.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, so "far right" that they want to control the border, and send foreign nationals who are here against the law, home!
> 
> 
> What radical terror!!!!
> 
> 
> LOL!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with controlling the border. The reason you fear them is they are likely to be Democrat supporters. You people fear anyone who is not white. You also use the same tactics that evil people like Hitler used. Attempt to dehumanize them. Blame them and others like Muslims for the problems this country.
> Try to use fear that somehow unarmed women and children are a threat to this country.
> 
> Trump tried to use these scare tactics in the 2018 election. The result was a Republican loss of the House and a smaller than expected gain in the Senate. Voters do not support a wall, support asylum laws as they currently are and support dreamers. They reject your right wing hatred.
> 
> California is a good example of the Republican Party's future under Trump.  Whites are a smaller majority with a significant number of minorities such as Asians, blacks and hispanics. Republicans lost Asians, Blacks and Hispanics in the 2018 midterms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I point out that you are panic mongering about simply sending people here illegally HOME, and you call us nazis?
> 
> 
> That completely makes my point, thanks.
> 
> 
> Also, you are all over the place. You accuse me of only being afraid of them because of race, and then gloat because they will lead to massive political change against my interests. Are you truly that lacking in self awareness or simply being dishonest?
> 
> Voters do not support the Wall, because they have been race demagogued by people like you, over and over again. Massive, rapid political and cultural change is not to be embraced without consideration on whether or not is it change for the GOOD. and that is what we are doing.
> 
> (and don't deny the change, after just gloating on it, in your last post, libby)
> 
> 
> You are a race baiting asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You use the same tactics that the nazis used to seize power. However the American people did not buy it in 2018 and will not buy it in 2020. These people are not breaking laws by entering the country to declare asylum. They have a strong case due to the power the drug cartels hold thanks to America's appetite for drugs.
> 
> You have continued to show your hateful attitude.
> 
> Putting you white supremacists and neo-nazis out of business is a good thing. You are the one who is dishonest.
> 
> Worth noting that Ronald Reagan would be a liberal compared to you and you would accuse him of being a liberal. Disagreeing with garbage like you does not make one a liberal. It shows someone is in their right mind unlike you.
> 
> You are the racist asshole.
> 
> Voters do not support a wall. They do not support making asylum harder to apply for. They support Dreamers. That is because they are smarter than you think they are. They are not swayed by your demogogary.  The trouble is that ordinary people are not as hateful as you are.
Click to expand...




I challenge you to support your shit, and all you do it spout more shit. 


There is not one attempt in there to support any of the shit you have spouted.


It seems  you are one of those, more pathetic than average liberals, who actually believe that the way to support a bullshit accusation, is to spout more shit.



So, to summarize. YOu don't like Trump, or me, and you can't explain why. You are very angry and you say a lot of shit, but can't back any of it up.



Interestingly, you don't even have the concept of challenging me to back up anything I say. 


You live is a completely fact free world, where the very idea of logical discussion, is completely alien to you.


Indeed, I doubt you are getting one word in 5 as you read this.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There has been a marked rise in right wing hate groups since Trump's election. These groups have been mainlined. The Republicans are forced to march to Trump's march and that is decidedly racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that could not cite another time that a whit supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
> 
> 
> Because whtie supremacists are an insignificant fringe and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your vile lies about Trump being racist, is just you being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who is a vile liar. The fact is that since Trump's election, far right haters on the rise. They have committed numerous acts of violence by killing people and plotting to kill Trump's political opponents. Republicans refuse to hold Trump accountable.
> 
> You are the asshole who has his tongue so far up Trump's ass that you have blown your brains out.
> 
> One such example is Corey Stewart. He got the Republican nomination despite his ties to white supremacists. He still got 1,368,451 votes in losing. That is a huge number of people who ignored or supported him even with his ties to white supremacists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe claim that violence, at least from the right, is on the rise, is vile demagogue panic mongering.
> 
> 2. Trump is not responsible for the little violence coming from the right.
> 
> 3. My political support of Trump is quite reasonable, considering his policies support my interests and the nation's. You are an asshole.
> 
> 4. Just review his wikapedia page. Saw no connections to white supremacists. Pointing out that "half the violence" at charlottesville was from the Left, is hardly "ties to white supremacists. Support your vile claim or apologize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it ever dawn on you that you can never make your point without being the first to start name calling?  Did you ever think that maybe you're projecting and it's really YOU that is an asshole?  Of course you didn't.  You didn't think.  That's why you still support Trump after he took a giant dump on the Constitution.
> 
> If not for white supremacists, Trump would have NO support for the nutty wall idea which is the
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> No sir, *YOU'VE* been avoiding what I have asked.
> 
> I'm presuming we're a nation of laws and that even the illegally ratified laws are in place.  You haven't been able to deal in reality.  You don't understand the difference between what America was founded on what it evolved into (which, contrary to your opinion, is NOT a good thing.)
> 
> Your infantile analogies do not address the many links I've posted.  You and I both know you don't know all the different sides to this.  The bottom line, whether you like it or not, the Preamble to the Constitution reads:
> 
> "_We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and *secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,* do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America_."
> 
> I'm sorry that Constitution does not fit your narrative.  You will watch your country go down in flames because you cannot make a simple connection.  America cannot be a nation that is everything to everybody.  Someone* WILL* be pushed out.  This is the last president that is going to see it your way during your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not making any sense.
> 
> 
> You complain about the effects of Third World immigration, while attacking the idea of fighting against Third World immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am fighting against* proposed SOCIALIST SOLUTIONS DREAMED UP BY NEO - NAZIS*.
> 
> What in the Hell is it you don't understand about that?  What is it that makes you unable to realize that you are handing this country over to the third world with a strategy designed to implode?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The massive immigration is handing this country over to the Third World.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's *YOUR* side that wants to make citizens out of them; it's *YOUR *side that let the precedent stand that undocumented foreigners had civil rights that trumped private property owners rights.  It was *YOUR* side that lost the United States Supreme Court case wherein the high Court ruled that being in the United States without documentation *is not a crime*.  Additionally Printz v. U.S. was started by conservative right wingers and the United States Supreme Court ruled in that case that state and local governments cannot be forced into enforcing federal laws.
> 
> So, we're agreed on the problem, but you think you're entitled to avoid being held accountable for the strategies of *YOUR *side???
> 
> Immigration = citizenship.  That is how the third world is taking over and THAT is the primary disagreement we have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. When some asshole starts throwing around the racist or the white supremacist accusation based on nothing but shit, they are the ones being assholes, and I respond accordingly.
> 
> 
> 2. I do not want to make citizens out of them. That is just something you keep trying to assign to me, based on your odd game of 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon. My point stands. The massive immigration is handing this country over to the Third World, and your game of blaming me for it, is irrelevant to that.
Click to expand...



1)  You cannot change what *IS*.  Your position has its roots in National Socialist think tanks.  It is not bullshit my man, but cold hard facts.  And if you ever want to grow a set of balls and go with me, I can introduce you to them as I debated and discussed these issues with them, face to face, *decades* ago.  You persistently denying what is true makes you look like an idiot, so you resort to calling people names - names you don't call people in public... for if you did, we'd be reading about how someone fed you your teeth

2)  The *ONLY* thing you crow about is this _"legal"_ angle.  You claim to have no problem if people come here _"legally_."  It's a bullshit argument since it does not exist in constitutional law (as the Constitution was originally written and intended.)

If you don't understand the immigration laws, get with me in PM and I can start educating you.  What you advocate ultimately ends in citizenship.  THAT, sir, where your _"legal_" bullshit argument ultimately ends up at.


----------



## Aba Incieni

Porter Rockwell said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which of the unalienable right listed gives me the right to move into your living room?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to move into my living room?  Dude, for real, if you have an issue, spit it out.  Do you want me to guess at what your cryptic nonsense means and then make the bullshit claim (as does Correll that you were not answered?)  Is that your game?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question is simple. Your answer seems difficult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obviously not that simple.  The wallists have been given all the statutory law *AND* the case law.  They have yet to understand how the precedents in case law prohibit them from doing the things they suggest.
> 
> Now you come with an idiotic analogy (be glad I'm not a screwed up dumb ass wallist yapping about logical fallacies and other such non sequitirs) and it does not follow.  But, let's play house.  Since I'm headed out of here for the night, I want you to think about something I said earlier.  Give me your answer and I will fully answer your question consistent with what you tell me.  I have to know what presupposition we're starting off with:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain* unalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Now, here is court precedent on Rights:
> 
> “_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
> 
> A few more synonyms for those bolded words would be irrevocable, God given, untouchable. I could cite you a *LOT* of precedent.
> 
> If a man is born with an *unalienable* Right, and if Liberty is a Right bestowed upon us by a *Creator*, bearing in mind that the presupposition BEFORE such a thing as a citizen of the U.S. existed, who in the Hell is getting off scot free (sic) of anything?
> 
> Do  you understand the concept of Liberty or shall I define it for you?
> 
> So, in plain and simple terms, tell me of YOUR understanding of *unalienable* Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of those unalienable rights allow me to move into your house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't bother to answer the question so that we can clarify the issue, so you are parroting debunked National Socialist B.S.  It's that simple.
> 
> Nobody is trying to move into your house; nobody is trying to move into my house; obviously nobody was in your living room and last I checked, the only person in my living room is my mother in law.
> 
> Dude, plain and simple,* you don't own this fricking country*.  We are not a democracy, so even if you had more people supporting your position (and I can assure you that you do not) that would not matter.  *NOBODY* is trying to take over your living room, your house, your bedroom or anything else.  Either *unalienable* Rights exist or they do not.  It's not a difficult question, but one you and your ilk avoid like a case if clap - and for an obvious reason.  It would expose the fact that you're liars or idiots.  Since you don't discuss your view in good faith, I don't know which because I don't know if you're dishonest, uneducated, stupid or just thinking you're winning some non-existent debate by using debunked lies and outright B.S.  Let me educate you for a change.
> 
> Liberty is an *unalienable* Right presupposed in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed to *ALL PERSONS* as per the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  Personally, I believe that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified, but *YOUR SIDE DOES NOT*.  Consequently, you must work within the parameters of the law if you believe in the Rule of Law - and the guys representing your talking points support the 14th Amendment.  You cannot have it both ways.
> 
> Liberty is defined as:
> 
> "_Freedom; *exemption from extraneous control*. The power of the will, in its moral *freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice*, and to direct the external acts of the individual *without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons. *See Booth v. Illinois, 1S4 U. S. 425, 22 Sup. Ct. 425, 46 L. Ed. 623 ; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 142. 24 L. Ed. 77; People v. Warden of City Prison. 157 N. Y. 116, 51 N. E. 1006. 43 L. R. A. 264, 68 Am. St. Rep. 7i_"  Black's Law Dictionary - the most authoritative law dictionary recognized in the legal community
> 
> What is LIBERTY? definition of LIBERTY (Black's Law Dictionary)
> 
> So, who in the HELL are you to tell me who I can and cannot hire?  Who are you to tell me who I can rent or not rent to?  Who do you think you are to tell each individual state who they may or may not invite?  Where, in the Constitution, do you get this idea that you and only you (and those who agree with you) have some mandate to impose on the free market when people are *willingly* engaging in free trade?  Who are you to decide for others when people are engaging in free trade versus allegations of an army come to take America by force?
> 
> You cannot answer those questions.  You won't answer them.  You know to do so would further prove that all you have is what you mistakenly believe is* majority rule* -  and if the last mid term election did not give you a warning, you're in for one big fricking surprise in the next election cycle.  You need to get your head out of your ass so you have some answers, not a feeble attempt to play the great mind fuck - which you are woefully lacking in ability to do.
Click to expand...

No one has the right to take what doesn't belong to them.

No matter how many books you write.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There has been a marked rise in right wing hate groups since Trump's election. These groups have been mainlined. The Republicans are forced to march to Trump's march and that is decidedly racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that could not cite another time that a whit supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
> 
> 
> Because whtie supremacists are an insignificant fringe and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your vile lies about Trump being racist, is just you being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I'll give you your little point, but it comes at a price.  If we believe the media, Trump's big rallies were virtually empty streets because the MSM said so.
> 
> I know that the white supremacists own you lock, stock and barrel.  You can't get a fresh of breath of fresh air until one of them farts because you have your nose that far up their ass.
> 
> You are also a pathological liar.  I've stated the fact that Trump is riding the coat-tails of neo nazis.  I've NEVER said the man is a racist.  He's playing racists just like you.  I wonder whether it's worse being an asshole OR a complete dumb ass like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a picture of a Trump rally with hundreds, if not thousands of supporters. It took me seconds to find.
> 
> 
> View attachment 259634
> 
> 
> 
> FUnny, how different that looks from a normal white supremacist rally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how different they look. Strange how the neo nazis themselves can't get more than a few dozens, while Trump, supposedly drawing on them as a based, gets thousands...
> 
> 
> Mmmm,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Back in the 1970s and 1980s we did not have the modern marvels you have today.  So, I cannot control what the media allowed to get out of their archives and into Internet stories.
> 
> I do have some pictures taken when I was a Justice of the Peace performing a wedding ceremony at a KKK rally.  There were over 450 robed klansmen at the rally, not counting their families and the couples other friends and relatives.  Stop by some time and I can show it to you.
> 
> Other than that, dude, if I wanted to be the asshole you are, I could do that song and dance that the photos were photoshopped and the MSM told the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF the white supremacist were the base that gave Trump his support, they would be able to have rallies of the scale he does.
> 
> 
> They don't. Because they can't.
> 
> 
> They are an insignificant fringe.
> 
> 
> Your belief on this makes no sense at all.
> 
> 
> Racism, at least white racism, is a tiny and unimportant force in American politics today.
> 
> 
> Why are you afraid of this good news?
Click to expand...



Charlottesville.  One and done.

White supremacists know to lay low, play it cool, and not been seen.  Do you happen to know the other name for the Ku Klux Klan?   The nazis do and they have adopted some of the strategies the KKK use to employ.

Rallies are pure bullshit.  What counts is whether you can get your message out so people support you.  Trump lost the House of Representatives.  For every politician (IF one exists) that has bailed on the Democrats and switched parties, I can show you at least 5 that have switched from Republican to Democrat under Trump.  

Racism, both black and white, are dominant forces on both sides.  And, if watching every piece of American history get destroyed by the left is what you're after, hang with the left.  They will show you the way.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Aba Incieni said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to move into my living room?  Dude, for real, if you have an issue, spit it out.  Do you want me to guess at what your cryptic nonsense means and then make the bullshit claim (as does Correll that you were not answered?)  Is that your game?
> 
> 
> 
> The question is simple. Your answer seems difficult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obviously not that simple.  The wallists have been given all the statutory law *AND* the case law.  They have yet to understand how the precedents in case law prohibit them from doing the things they suggest.
> 
> Now you come with an idiotic analogy (be glad I'm not a screwed up dumb ass wallist yapping about logical fallacies and other such non sequitirs) and it does not follow.  But, let's play house.  Since I'm headed out of here for the night, I want you to think about something I said earlier.  Give me your answer and I will fully answer your question consistent with what you tell me.  I have to know what presupposition we're starting off with:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain* unalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Now, here is court precedent on Rights:
> 
> “_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
> 
> A few more synonyms for those bolded words would be irrevocable, God given, untouchable. I could cite you a *LOT* of precedent.
> 
> If a man is born with an *unalienable* Right, and if Liberty is a Right bestowed upon us by a *Creator*, bearing in mind that the presupposition BEFORE such a thing as a citizen of the U.S. existed, who in the Hell is getting off scot free (sic) of anything?
> 
> Do  you understand the concept of Liberty or shall I define it for you?
> 
> So, in plain and simple terms, tell me of YOUR understanding of *unalienable* Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of those unalienable rights allow me to move into your house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't bother to answer the question so that we can clarify the issue, so you are parroting debunked National Socialist B.S.  It's that simple.
> 
> Nobody is trying to move into your house; nobody is trying to move into my house; obviously nobody was in your living room and last I checked, the only person in my living room is my mother in law.
> 
> Dude, plain and simple,* you don't own this fricking country*.  We are not a democracy, so even if you had more people supporting your position (and I can assure you that you do not) that would not matter.  *NOBODY* is trying to take over your living room, your house, your bedroom or anything else.  Either *unalienable* Rights exist or they do not.  It's not a difficult question, but one you and your ilk avoid like a case if clap - and for an obvious reason.  It would expose the fact that you're liars or idiots.  Since you don't discuss your view in good faith, I don't know which because I don't know if you're dishonest, uneducated, stupid or just thinking you're winning some non-existent debate by using debunked lies and outright B.S.  Let me educate you for a change.
> 
> Liberty is an *unalienable* Right presupposed in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed to *ALL PERSONS* as per the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  Personally, I believe that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified, but *YOUR SIDE DOES NOT*.  Consequently, you must work within the parameters of the law if you believe in the Rule of Law - and the guys representing your talking points support the 14th Amendment.  You cannot have it both ways.
> 
> Liberty is defined as:
> 
> "_Freedom; *exemption from extraneous control*. The power of the will, in its moral *freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice*, and to direct the external acts of the individual *without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons. *See Booth v. Illinois, 1S4 U. S. 425, 22 Sup. Ct. 425, 46 L. Ed. 623 ; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 142. 24 L. Ed. 77; People v. Warden of City Prison. 157 N. Y. 116, 51 N. E. 1006. 43 L. R. A. 264, 68 Am. St. Rep. 7i_"  Black's Law Dictionary - the most authoritative law dictionary recognized in the legal community
> 
> What is LIBERTY? definition of LIBERTY (Black's Law Dictionary)
> 
> So, who in the HELL are you to tell me who I can and cannot hire?  Who are you to tell me who I can rent or not rent to?  Who do you think you are to tell each individual state who they may or may not invite?  Where, in the Constitution, do you get this idea that you and only you (and those who agree with you) have some mandate to impose on the free market when people are *willingly* engaging in free trade?  Who are you to decide for others when people are engaging in free trade versus allegations of an army come to take America by force?
> 
> You cannot answer those questions.  You won't answer them.  You know to do so would further prove that all you have is what you mistakenly believe is* majority rule* -  and if the last mid term election did not give you a warning, you're in for one big fricking surprise in the next election cycle.  You need to get your head out of your ass so you have some answers, not a feeble attempt to play the great mind fuck - which you are woefully lacking in ability to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one has the right to take what doesn't belong to them.
> 
> No matter how many books you write.
Click to expand...



I fully agree.  That is why it pisses me off when these lying National Socialists falsely accuse foreigners of "_stealing jobs_."  The employer owns the job; they can give it to whomever they damn well want (under the de jure / lawful / Constitution.  

You see, your side cannot show us, in the Constitution, where their authority to dictate to states comes from.  With respect to *NATURALIZATION* the federal government has limited constitutional authority:

"_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"_

The federal government has no jurisdiction over states as to who may and go or even become a *state* citizen AND there is no provision in the Constitution to limit Liberty to citizens.

Scott v. Sandford


----------



## Aba Incieni

Porter Rockwell said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is simple. Your answer seems difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's obviously not that simple.  The wallists have been given all the statutory law *AND* the case law.  They have yet to understand how the precedents in case law prohibit them from doing the things they suggest.
> 
> Now you come with an idiotic analogy (be glad I'm not a screwed up dumb ass wallist yapping about logical fallacies and other such non sequitirs) and it does not follow.  But, let's play house.  Since I'm headed out of here for the night, I want you to think about something I said earlier.  Give me your answer and I will fully answer your question consistent with what you tell me.  I have to know what presupposition we're starting off with:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain* unalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Now, here is court precedent on Rights:
> 
> “_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
> 
> A few more synonyms for those bolded words would be irrevocable, God given, untouchable. I could cite you a *LOT* of precedent.
> 
> If a man is born with an *unalienable* Right, and if Liberty is a Right bestowed upon us by a *Creator*, bearing in mind that the presupposition BEFORE such a thing as a citizen of the U.S. existed, who in the Hell is getting off scot free (sic) of anything?
> 
> Do  you understand the concept of Liberty or shall I define it for you?
> 
> So, in plain and simple terms, tell me of YOUR understanding of *unalienable* Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of those unalienable rights allow me to move into your house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't bother to answer the question so that we can clarify the issue, so you are parroting debunked National Socialist B.S.  It's that simple.
> 
> Nobody is trying to move into your house; nobody is trying to move into my house; obviously nobody was in your living room and last I checked, the only person in my living room is my mother in law.
> 
> Dude, plain and simple,* you don't own this fricking country*.  We are not a democracy, so even if you had more people supporting your position (and I can assure you that you do not) that would not matter.  *NOBODY* is trying to take over your living room, your house, your bedroom or anything else.  Either *unalienable* Rights exist or they do not.  It's not a difficult question, but one you and your ilk avoid like a case if clap - and for an obvious reason.  It would expose the fact that you're liars or idiots.  Since you don't discuss your view in good faith, I don't know which because I don't know if you're dishonest, uneducated, stupid or just thinking you're winning some non-existent debate by using debunked lies and outright B.S.  Let me educate you for a change.
> 
> Liberty is an *unalienable* Right presupposed in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed to *ALL PERSONS* as per the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  Personally, I believe that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified, but *YOUR SIDE DOES NOT*.  Consequently, you must work within the parameters of the law if you believe in the Rule of Law - and the guys representing your talking points support the 14th Amendment.  You cannot have it both ways.
> 
> Liberty is defined as:
> 
> "_Freedom; *exemption from extraneous control*. The power of the will, in its moral *freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice*, and to direct the external acts of the individual *without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons. *See Booth v. Illinois, 1S4 U. S. 425, 22 Sup. Ct. 425, 46 L. Ed. 623 ; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 142. 24 L. Ed. 77; People v. Warden of City Prison. 157 N. Y. 116, 51 N. E. 1006. 43 L. R. A. 264, 68 Am. St. Rep. 7i_"  Black's Law Dictionary - the most authoritative law dictionary recognized in the legal community
> 
> What is LIBERTY? definition of LIBERTY (Black's Law Dictionary)
> 
> So, who in the HELL are you to tell me who I can and cannot hire?  Who are you to tell me who I can rent or not rent to?  Who do you think you are to tell each individual state who they may or may not invite?  Where, in the Constitution, do you get this idea that you and only you (and those who agree with you) have some mandate to impose on the free market when people are *willingly* engaging in free trade?  Who are you to decide for others when people are engaging in free trade versus allegations of an army come to take America by force?
> 
> You cannot answer those questions.  You won't answer them.  You know to do so would further prove that all you have is what you mistakenly believe is* majority rule* -  and if the last mid term election did not give you a warning, you're in for one big fricking surprise in the next election cycle.  You need to get your head out of your ass so you have some answers, not a feeble attempt to play the great mind fuck - which you are woefully lacking in ability to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one has the right to take what doesn't belong to them.
> 
> No matter how many books you write.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I fully agree.  That is why it pisses me off when these lying National Socialists falsely accuse foreigners of "_stealing jobs_."  The employer owns the job; they can give it to whomever they damn well want (under the de jure / lawful / Constitution.
> 
> You see, your side cannot show us, in the Constitution, where their authority to dictate to states comes from.  With respect to *NATURALIZATION* the federal government has limited constitutional authority:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"_
> 
> The federal government has no jurisdiction over states as to who may and go or even become a *state* citizen AND there is no provision in the Constitution to limit Liberty to citizens.
> 
> Scott v. Sandford
Click to expand...

They take what doesn't belong to them by not paying taxes. No SS#. Thieves.

Glad you agree.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


> I fully agree. That is why it pisses me off when these lying National Socialists falsely accuse foreigners of "_stealing jobs_." The employer owns the job; they can give it to whomever they damn well want (under the de jure / lawful / Constitution.


*"Stealing"* is exactly what it is.
Somebody with no legal right to even be in the country itself and work here will work for 2/3 of what a native worker asks for (if that) and doesn't demand any sort of benefits.
It's theft and the native workers have been undercut so many times this way it's become a common experience.

An employer is not immune from US law and if someone wants to prosecute employers who knowingly hire illegals
it's all perfectly legal to do so. The idea the employer can hire whoever he wants is a ridiculous lie. It's a absurd fable informed by some bizarre politicized misinformation.

There's been a conspiracy to screw the American worker though and those good solid American republican establishment types don't want to end cheap uncomplaining labor. And the fucking socialist dogs on the left want their potential votes. So it's a conspiracy to give native workers the shaft, and you seem to like it that way.
How evil is that?




> You see, your side cannot show us, in the Constitution, where their authority to dictate to states comes from. With respect to *NATURALIZATION* the federal government has limited constitutional authority:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"_
> 
> The federal government has no jurisdiction over states as to who may and go or even become a *state* citizen AND there is no provision in the Constitution to limit Liberty to citizens.


When US states agree to enter the Union they do so acknowledging they will defer to federal law in certain vital areas and immigration is one of these areas.

To say the federal government has no jurisdiction over who may enter any of the fifty states and not is pure bullshit
inspired by pure imagination and willfully stupid stubbornness.
And there is no such things as a "state citizen". There are only US citizens that live in any one of our states.

Your endless lunacy and misinformation doesn't seem bounded by logic or facts.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fully agree. That is why it pisses me off when these lying National Socialists falsely accuse foreigners of "_stealing jobs_." The employer owns the job; they can give it to whomever they damn well want (under the de jure / lawful / Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> *"Stealing"* is exactly what it is.
> Somebody with no legal right to even be in the country itself and work here will work for 2/3 of what a native worker asks for (if that) and doesn't demand any sort of benefits.
> It's theft and the native workers have been undercut so many times this way it's become a common experience.
> 
> An employer is not immune from US law and if someone wants to prosecute employers who knowingly hire illegals
> it's all perfectly legal to do so. The idea the employer can hire whoever he wants is a ridiculous lie. It's a absurd fable informed by some bizarre politicized misinformation.
> 
> There's been a conspiracy to screw the American worker though and those good solid American republican establishment types don't want to end cheap uncomplaining labor. And the fucking socialist dogs on the left want their potential votes. So it's a conspiracy to give native workers the shaft, and you seem to like it that way.
> How evil is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see, your side cannot show us, in the Constitution, where their authority to dictate to states comes from. With respect to *NATURALIZATION* the federal government has limited constitutional authority:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"_
> 
> The federal government has no jurisdiction over states as to who may and go or even become a *state* citizen AND there is no provision in the Constitution to limit Liberty to citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When US states agree to enter the Union they do so acknowledging they will defer to federal law in certain vital areas and immigration is one of these areas.
> 
> To say the federal government has no jurisdiction over who may enter any of the fifty states and not is pure bullshit
> inspired by pure imagination and willfully stupid stubbornness.
> And there is no such things as a "state citizen". There are only US citizens that live in any one of our states.
> 
> Your endless lunacy and misinformation doesn't seem bounded by logic or facts.
Click to expand...


1)  You just made that same socialist argument, making an ass out of Correll once again.  So, you guys are either National Socialists or Bernie Sanders supporters?

2)  You don't have a Right to a job.  Get off your ass and earn your way

3)  When employers cannot hire whomever they like, you no longer live in a Republic, but have succumbed to the yoke of tyranny.  You  are making the arguments the liberals did when they demanded affirmative action, racial quota set asides, and reverse discrimination.  That is how you got in this mess in the first place

4)  Your ignorance of our laws and history make you a very dangerous person.  You are dangerous to Liberty, to the Constitution and to yourself


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fully agree. That is why it pisses me off when these lying National Socialists falsely accuse foreigners of "_stealing jobs_." The employer owns the job; they can give it to whomever they damn well want (under the de jure / lawful / Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> *"Stealing"* is exactly what it is.
> Somebody with no legal right to even be in the country itself and work here will work for 2/3 of what a native worker asks for (if that) and doesn't demand any sort of benefits.
> It's theft and the native workers have been undercut so many times this way it's become a common experience.
> 
> An employer is not immune from US law and if someone wants to prosecute employers who knowingly hire illegals
> it's all perfectly legal to do so. The idea the employer can hire whoever he wants is a ridiculous lie. It's a absurd fable informed by some bizarre politicized misinformation.
> 
> There's been a conspiracy to screw the American worker though and those good solid American republican establishment types don't want to end cheap uncomplaining labor. And the fucking socialist dogs on the left want their potential votes. So it's a conspiracy to give native workers the shaft, and you seem to like it that way.
> How evil is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see, your side cannot show us, in the Constitution, where their authority to dictate to states comes from. With respect to *NATURALIZATION* the federal government has limited constitutional authority:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"_
> 
> The federal government has no jurisdiction over states as to who may and go or even become a *state* citizen AND there is no provision in the Constitution to limit Liberty to citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When US states agree to enter the Union they do so acknowledging they will defer to federal law in certain vital areas and immigration is one of these areas.
> 
> To say the federal government has no jurisdiction over who may enter any of the fifty states and not is pure bullshit
> inspired by pure imagination and willfully stupid stubbornness.
> And there is no such things as a "state citizen". There are only US citizens that live in any one of our states.
> 
> Your endless lunacy and misinformation doesn't seem bounded by logic or facts.
Click to expand...


The states did no such thing.  I have given your dumb ass more than one opportunity to clear up the confusion.  Let's try once more:

Scott v. Sandford

That may take you a day to read as slow as you are, but it debunks every attack you've made against me.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Aba Incieni said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's obviously not that simple.  The wallists have been given all the statutory law *AND* the case law.  They have yet to understand how the precedents in case law prohibit them from doing the things they suggest.
> 
> Now you come with an idiotic analogy (be glad I'm not a screwed up dumb ass wallist yapping about logical fallacies and other such non sequitirs) and it does not follow.  But, let's play house.  Since I'm headed out of here for the night, I want you to think about something I said earlier.  Give me your answer and I will fully answer your question consistent with what you tell me.  I have to know what presupposition we're starting off with:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain* unalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Now, here is court precedent on Rights:
> 
> “_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
> 
> A few more synonyms for those bolded words would be irrevocable, God given, untouchable. I could cite you a *LOT* of precedent.
> 
> If a man is born with an *unalienable* Right, and if Liberty is a Right bestowed upon us by a *Creator*, bearing in mind that the presupposition BEFORE such a thing as a citizen of the U.S. existed, who in the Hell is getting off scot free (sic) of anything?
> 
> Do  you understand the concept of Liberty or shall I define it for you?
> 
> So, in plain and simple terms, tell me of YOUR understanding of *unalienable* Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Which of those unalienable rights allow me to move into your house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't bother to answer the question so that we can clarify the issue, so you are parroting debunked National Socialist B.S.  It's that simple.
> 
> Nobody is trying to move into your house; nobody is trying to move into my house; obviously nobody was in your living room and last I checked, the only person in my living room is my mother in law.
> 
> Dude, plain and simple,* you don't own this fricking country*.  We are not a democracy, so even if you had more people supporting your position (and I can assure you that you do not) that would not matter.  *NOBODY* is trying to take over your living room, your house, your bedroom or anything else.  Either *unalienable* Rights exist or they do not.  It's not a difficult question, but one you and your ilk avoid like a case if clap - and for an obvious reason.  It would expose the fact that you're liars or idiots.  Since you don't discuss your view in good faith, I don't know which because I don't know if you're dishonest, uneducated, stupid or just thinking you're winning some non-existent debate by using debunked lies and outright B.S.  Let me educate you for a change.
> 
> Liberty is an *unalienable* Right presupposed in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed to *ALL PERSONS* as per the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  Personally, I believe that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified, but *YOUR SIDE DOES NOT*.  Consequently, you must work within the parameters of the law if you believe in the Rule of Law - and the guys representing your talking points support the 14th Amendment.  You cannot have it both ways.
> 
> Liberty is defined as:
> 
> "_Freedom; *exemption from extraneous control*. The power of the will, in its moral *freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice*, and to direct the external acts of the individual *without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons. *See Booth v. Illinois, 1S4 U. S. 425, 22 Sup. Ct. 425, 46 L. Ed. 623 ; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 142. 24 L. Ed. 77; People v. Warden of City Prison. 157 N. Y. 116, 51 N. E. 1006. 43 L. R. A. 264, 68 Am. St. Rep. 7i_"  Black's Law Dictionary - the most authoritative law dictionary recognized in the legal community
> 
> What is LIBERTY? definition of LIBERTY (Black's Law Dictionary)
> 
> So, who in the HELL are you to tell me who I can and cannot hire?  Who are you to tell me who I can rent or not rent to?  Who do you think you are to tell each individual state who they may or may not invite?  Where, in the Constitution, do you get this idea that you and only you (and those who agree with you) have some mandate to impose on the free market when people are *willingly* engaging in free trade?  Who are you to decide for others when people are engaging in free trade versus allegations of an army come to take America by force?
> 
> You cannot answer those questions.  You won't answer them.  You know to do so would further prove that all you have is what you mistakenly believe is* majority rule* -  and if the last mid term election did not give you a warning, you're in for one big fricking surprise in the next election cycle.  You need to get your head out of your ass so you have some answers, not a feeble attempt to play the great mind fuck - which you are woefully lacking in ability to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one has the right to take what doesn't belong to them.
> 
> No matter how many books you write.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I fully agree.  That is why it pisses me off when these lying National Socialists falsely accuse foreigners of "_stealing jobs_."  The employer owns the job; they can give it to whomever they damn well want (under the de jure / lawful / Constitution.
> 
> You see, your side cannot show us, in the Constitution, where their authority to dictate to states comes from.  With respect to *NATURALIZATION* the federal government has limited constitutional authority:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"_
> 
> The federal government has no jurisdiction over states as to who may and go or even become a *state* citizen AND there is no provision in the Constitution to limit Liberty to citizens.
> 
> Scott v. Sandford
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They take what doesn't belong to them by not paying taxes. No SS#. Thieves.
> 
> Glad you agree.
Click to expand...



You're defending a plank out of the Communist Manifesto?  Really?  How freaking stupid is that!!!!!!!!!!

But, just for shits and giggles, according to the Chief Actuary of the Socialist Security Administration, over 75 percent of undocumented foreigners DO pay your dumb ass Socialist Security tax.  And if you had a brain in your head, you'd want to get rid of that Socialist Surveillance Number... I mean "_Social Security Number_" and thank ANYONE for helping end that unconstitutional theft of your labor.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


> The states did no such thing. I have given your dumb ass more than one opportunity to clear up the confusion. Let's try once more:
> 
> Scott v. Sandford
> 
> That may take you a day to read as slow as you are, but it debunks every attack you've made against me.


The states did *what? *What thing did they not do?

You might start by defining your terms and claims. That's what smart people do, anyway.

Is it possible you are using _slaves_ as an example that you think makes it okay for states to ignore immigration law?  That would be a very foolish thing to do.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that when you don't care whether your party has been taken over by the far right, it is far more than guilt by association. The Republican Party has been taken over by the alt-right and neo-nazis. The people who refuse to stand up to this are guilty by association.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, so "far right" that they want to control the border, and send foreign nationals who are here against the law, home!
> 
> 
> What radical terror!!!!
> 
> 
> LOL!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Legal (sic), _"illegal_"... WTH is the difference?  If someone is here, a piece of paper issued by a corrupt government out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption is not going to make them anything except another subject of the NEW WORLD ORDER.  As soon as that individual gets their citizenship, they will become a Democrat.
> 
> After that happens, they can tell Correll to shut his pie hole and shine their shoes.  He'll do it with a smile on his face and joy in his heart... Correll just wants others to share in the Hell he's creating for himself and generations to come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point about the legal vs illegal has some validity, and I would be happy to address it.
> 
> 
> BUT, the post you hit reply to, was pointing out that lack of radical-ness in wanting to send the foreigners home.
> 
> 
> That was the point, and you failed to address it. That was unreasonable and unfair of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what kind of answer you want.  We've discussed this umpteen times.  When the Declaration of Independence was signed, it contained the following:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their *Creator* with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Either you believe in those foundational principles or you don't.  It's not multiple choice.  Either man derives his Rights (especially Liberty in this case) from a Creator or he does not.  Which is it?  An *unalienable* Right is not given by government.  *Unalienable* Rights are absolute and above the law.   It is the meaning of the word, sir.
> 
> *Unalienable* Rights cannot apply to citizens only.  The reason being, when the Declaration of Independence was signed, there were *NO American Citizens*.  Not one, single solitary citizen signed that document.  It says *ALL* men are created equal and *ALL* men have those Rights conferred upon them by a Creator.
> 
> When people come here to partake of opportunities willingly offered; to work a job;  to buy and sell, I see no problem.  When people like you think that means these people must become a part of the body politic, *THAT* is where we part company.  But, right now you should focus on the Rights of man.  Either you believe in Liberty or you don't.  Citizenship and being part of the body politic are privileges controlled by government.  For that reason, I do not agree with the assault on private property Rights your sides supports.  I don't think the children of non-citizens have any "_right_" to a free public education.  I don't support wholesale citizenship as your side does.
> 
> So, what answer, exactly are you looking for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is sophistic nonsense that if taken seriously, completely shit cans not only the very concern of nations, but the right of self determination of all people.
> 
> 
> AMERICANS have the right to decide who to invite to join our community and become part of us.
> 
> 
> This is not a denial of the rights of foreign citizens, because their right to self determination is as part of another equally sovereign group, (mostly Mexico.)
> 
> 
> We, Americans have no inherent right to go join the Mexican nation, and they have no inherent right to come join ours.
> 
> 
> This is a very simply concept.  NOrmally at this point, liberals pretend to not understand it and play stupid games.
> 
> 
> I expect better from you on this.
Click to expand...



At this point I expect better from *YOU* on this point.  How many times have we been over this now?  Your lying bullshit has been debunked at least six times on this board.  

Each state has the right to decide who they want within their borders.  The word citizenship isn't in the Constitution.  Up to 1875 the *states* controlled their own immigration.   An illegal process took place (and I documented it for you) that infringed on states rights.  What did you get in return?  Ultimately affirmative action, racial quotas, preferential hiring schemes, reverse discrimination.  

After having been exposed to the facts more than half a dozen times, you still don't know shit about the law, your nation's history, nor how you are complicit in turning this country into a socialist shithole.

Scott v. Sandford


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The states did no such thing. I have given your dumb ass more than one opportunity to clear up the confusion. Let's try once more:
> 
> Scott v. Sandford
> 
> That may take you a day to read as slow as you are, but it debunks every attack you've made against me.
> 
> 
> 
> The states did *what? *What thing did they not do?
> 
> You might start by defining your terms and claims. That's what smart people do, anyway.
> 
> Is it possible you are using _slaves_ as an example that you think makes it okay for states to ignore immigration law?  That would be a very foolish thing to do.
Click to expand...


If you read the damn link, it will answer your question... and no it don't have shit to do with slaves.  Read beyond slavery.  Chief Justice Taney explains citizenship and the rights of states in unequivocal language.  I'm not going to summarize it so you can debate it.  You'll have to read it on your own.  If you want to be IN this discussion, at least know the very *bare bones basics*.

Scott v. Sandford


----------



## Aba Incieni

Porter Rockwell said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which of those unalienable rights allow me to move into your house.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't bother to answer the question so that we can clarify the issue, so you are parroting debunked National Socialist B.S.  It's that simple.
> 
> Nobody is trying to move into your house; nobody is trying to move into my house; obviously nobody was in your living room and last I checked, the only person in my living room is my mother in law.
> 
> Dude, plain and simple,* you don't own this fricking country*.  We are not a democracy, so even if you had more people supporting your position (and I can assure you that you do not) that would not matter.  *NOBODY* is trying to take over your living room, your house, your bedroom or anything else.  Either *unalienable* Rights exist or they do not.  It's not a difficult question, but one you and your ilk avoid like a case if clap - and for an obvious reason.  It would expose the fact that you're liars or idiots.  Since you don't discuss your view in good faith, I don't know which because I don't know if you're dishonest, uneducated, stupid or just thinking you're winning some non-existent debate by using debunked lies and outright B.S.  Let me educate you for a change.
> 
> Liberty is an *unalienable* Right presupposed in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed to *ALL PERSONS* as per the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  Personally, I believe that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified, but *YOUR SIDE DOES NOT*.  Consequently, you must work within the parameters of the law if you believe in the Rule of Law - and the guys representing your talking points support the 14th Amendment.  You cannot have it both ways.
> 
> Liberty is defined as:
> 
> "_Freedom; *exemption from extraneous control*. The power of the will, in its moral *freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice*, and to direct the external acts of the individual *without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons. *See Booth v. Illinois, 1S4 U. S. 425, 22 Sup. Ct. 425, 46 L. Ed. 623 ; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 142. 24 L. Ed. 77; People v. Warden of City Prison. 157 N. Y. 116, 51 N. E. 1006. 43 L. R. A. 264, 68 Am. St. Rep. 7i_"  Black's Law Dictionary - the most authoritative law dictionary recognized in the legal community
> 
> What is LIBERTY? definition of LIBERTY (Black's Law Dictionary)
> 
> So, who in the HELL are you to tell me who I can and cannot hire?  Who are you to tell me who I can rent or not rent to?  Who do you think you are to tell each individual state who they may or may not invite?  Where, in the Constitution, do you get this idea that you and only you (and those who agree with you) have some mandate to impose on the free market when people are *willingly* engaging in free trade?  Who are you to decide for others when people are engaging in free trade versus allegations of an army come to take America by force?
> 
> You cannot answer those questions.  You won't answer them.  You know to do so would further prove that all you have is what you mistakenly believe is* majority rule* -  and if the last mid term election did not give you a warning, you're in for one big fricking surprise in the next election cycle.  You need to get your head out of your ass so you have some answers, not a feeble attempt to play the great mind fuck - which you are woefully lacking in ability to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one has the right to take what doesn't belong to them.
> 
> No matter how many books you write.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I fully agree.  That is why it pisses me off when these lying National Socialists falsely accuse foreigners of "_stealing jobs_."  The employer owns the job; they can give it to whomever they damn well want (under the de jure / lawful / Constitution.
> 
> You see, your side cannot show us, in the Constitution, where their authority to dictate to states comes from.  With respect to *NATURALIZATION* the federal government has limited constitutional authority:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"_
> 
> The federal government has no jurisdiction over states as to who may and go or even become a *state* citizen AND there is no provision in the Constitution to limit Liberty to citizens.
> 
> Scott v. Sandford
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They take what doesn't belong to them by not paying taxes. No SS#. Thieves.
> 
> Glad you agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're defending a plank out of the Communist Manifesto?  Really?  How freaking stupid is that!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> But, just for shits and giggles, according to the Chief Actuary of the Socialist Security Administration, over 75 percent of undocumented foreigners DO pay your dumb ass Socialist Security tax.  And if you had a brain in your head, you'd want to get rid of that Socialist Surveillance Number... I mean "_Social Security Number_" and thank ANYONE for helping end that unconstitutional theft of your labor.
Click to expand...

If they pay SSI they're stealing a legit one, since only citizens are issued SS#s. Theives.

Glad you agree.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Aba Incieni said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't bother to answer the question so that we can clarify the issue, so you are parroting debunked National Socialist B.S.  It's that simple.
> 
> Nobody is trying to move into your house; nobody is trying to move into my house; obviously nobody was in your living room and last I checked, the only person in my living room is my mother in law.
> 
> Dude, plain and simple,* you don't own this fricking country*.  We are not a democracy, so even if you had more people supporting your position (and I can assure you that you do not) that would not matter.  *NOBODY* is trying to take over your living room, your house, your bedroom or anything else.  Either *unalienable* Rights exist or they do not.  It's not a difficult question, but one you and your ilk avoid like a case if clap - and for an obvious reason.  It would expose the fact that you're liars or idiots.  Since you don't discuss your view in good faith, I don't know which because I don't know if you're dishonest, uneducated, stupid or just thinking you're winning some non-existent debate by using debunked lies and outright B.S.  Let me educate you for a change.
> 
> Liberty is an *unalienable* Right presupposed in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed to *ALL PERSONS* as per the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  Personally, I believe that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified, but *YOUR SIDE DOES NOT*.  Consequently, you must work within the parameters of the law if you believe in the Rule of Law - and the guys representing your talking points support the 14th Amendment.  You cannot have it both ways.
> 
> Liberty is defined as:
> 
> "_Freedom; *exemption from extraneous control*. The power of the will, in its moral *freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice*, and to direct the external acts of the individual *without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons. *See Booth v. Illinois, 1S4 U. S. 425, 22 Sup. Ct. 425, 46 L. Ed. 623 ; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 142. 24 L. Ed. 77; People v. Warden of City Prison. 157 N. Y. 116, 51 N. E. 1006. 43 L. R. A. 264, 68 Am. St. Rep. 7i_"  Black's Law Dictionary - the most authoritative law dictionary recognized in the legal community
> 
> What is LIBERTY? definition of LIBERTY (Black's Law Dictionary)
> 
> So, who in the HELL are you to tell me who I can and cannot hire?  Who are you to tell me who I can rent or not rent to?  Who do you think you are to tell each individual state who they may or may not invite?  Where, in the Constitution, do you get this idea that you and only you (and those who agree with you) have some mandate to impose on the free market when people are *willingly* engaging in free trade?  Who are you to decide for others when people are engaging in free trade versus allegations of an army come to take America by force?
> 
> You cannot answer those questions.  You won't answer them.  You know to do so would further prove that all you have is what you mistakenly believe is* majority rule* -  and if the last mid term election did not give you a warning, you're in for one big fricking surprise in the next election cycle.  You need to get your head out of your ass so you have some answers, not a feeble attempt to play the great mind fuck - which you are woefully lacking in ability to do.
> 
> 
> 
> No one has the right to take what doesn't belong to them.
> 
> No matter how many books you write.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I fully agree.  That is why it pisses me off when these lying National Socialists falsely accuse foreigners of "_stealing jobs_."  The employer owns the job; they can give it to whomever they damn well want (under the de jure / lawful / Constitution.
> 
> You see, your side cannot show us, in the Constitution, where their authority to dictate to states comes from.  With respect to *NATURALIZATION* the federal government has limited constitutional authority:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"_
> 
> The federal government has no jurisdiction over states as to who may and go or even become a *state* citizen AND there is no provision in the Constitution to limit Liberty to citizens.
> 
> Scott v. Sandford
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They take what doesn't belong to them by not paying taxes. No SS#. Thieves.
> 
> Glad you agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're defending a plank out of the Communist Manifesto?  Really?  How freaking stupid is that!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> But, just for shits and giggles, according to the Chief Actuary of the Socialist Security Administration, over 75 percent of undocumented foreigners DO pay your dumb ass Socialist Security tax.  And if you had a brain in your head, you'd want to get rid of that Socialist Surveillance Number... I mean "_Social Security Number_" and thank ANYONE for helping end that unconstitutional theft of your labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they pay SSI they're stealing a legit one, since only citizens are issued SS#s. Theives.
> 
> Glad you agree.
Click to expand...


WRONG.  Many people get an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number.  That is how they end up getting money back on their American born children.  

There is something wrong with you for making National Socialist talking points sound like that's all you know AND then not reading a single link.  Can you wallists be any more uneducated!!!!

Let's go you one better.  Undocumented foreigners pay $13 BILLION DOLLARS every year into Socialist Security.  They will not draw out one thin dime in retirement.  When you guys start screwing with the checks of people on Socialist Security and disability - making their checks go south, they will have yet another reason to vote your side out of office.

Why in the Hell do you keep defending a plank out of the Communist Manifesto?


----------



## BlackFlag

Jitss617 said:


> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?


200?

Feds released 168,000 illegal immigrant family members into communities


----------



## Jitss617

BlackFlag said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 200?
> 
> Feds released 168,000 illegal immigrant family members into communities
Click to expand...

Don’t get comfortable haha


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that could not cite another time that a whit supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
> 
> 
> Because whtie supremacists are an insignificant fringe and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your vile lies about Trump being racist, is just you being an asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who is a vile liar. The fact is that since Trump's election, far right haters on the rise. They have committed numerous acts of violence by killing people and plotting to kill Trump's political opponents. Republicans refuse to hold Trump accountable.
> 
> You are the asshole who has his tongue so far up Trump's ass that you have blown your brains out.
> 
> One such example is Corey Stewart. He got the Republican nomination despite his ties to white supremacists. He still got 1,368,451 votes in losing. That is a huge number of people who ignored or supported him even with his ties to white supremacists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe claim that violence, at least from the right, is on the rise, is vile demagogue panic mongering.
> 
> 2. Trump is not responsible for the little violence coming from the right.
> 
> 3. My political support of Trump is quite reasonable, considering his policies support my interests and the nation's. You are an asshole.
> 
> 4. Just review his wikapedia page. Saw no connections to white supremacists. Pointing out that "half the violence" at charlottesville was from the Left, is hardly "ties to white supremacists. Support your vile claim or apologize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it ever dawn on you that you can never make your point without being the first to start name calling?  Did you ever think that maybe you're projecting and it's really YOU that is an asshole?  Of course you didn't.  You didn't think.  That's why you still support Trump after he took a giant dump on the Constitution.
> 
> If not for white supremacists, Trump would have NO support for the nutty wall idea which is the
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not making any sense.
> 
> 
> You complain about the effects of Third World immigration, while attacking the idea of fighting against Third World immigration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am fighting against* proposed SOCIALIST SOLUTIONS DREAMED UP BY NEO - NAZIS*.
> 
> What in the Hell is it you don't understand about that?  What is it that makes you unable to realize that you are handing this country over to the third world with a strategy designed to implode?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The massive immigration is handing this country over to the Third World.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's *YOUR* side that wants to make citizens out of them; it's *YOUR *side that let the precedent stand that undocumented foreigners had civil rights that trumped private property owners rights.  It was *YOUR* side that lost the United States Supreme Court case wherein the high Court ruled that being in the United States without documentation *is not a crime*.  Additionally Printz v. U.S. was started by conservative right wingers and the United States Supreme Court ruled in that case that state and local governments cannot be forced into enforcing federal laws.
> 
> So, we're agreed on the problem, but you think you're entitled to avoid being held accountable for the strategies of *YOUR *side???
> 
> Immigration = citizenship.  That is how the third world is taking over and THAT is the primary disagreement we have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. When some asshole starts throwing around the racist or the white supremacist accusation based on nothing but shit, they are the ones being assholes, and I respond accordingly.
> 
> 
> 2. I do not want to make citizens out of them. That is just something you keep trying to assign to me, based on your odd game of 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon. My point stands. The massive immigration is handing this country over to the Third World, and your game of blaming me for it, is irrelevant to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You cannot change what *IS*.  Your position has its roots in National Socialist think tanks.  It is not bullshit my man, but cold hard facts.  And if you ever want to grow a set of balls and go with me, I can introduce you to them as I debated and discussed these issues with them, face to face, *decades* ago.  You persistently denying what is true makes you look like an idiot, so you resort to calling people names - names you don't call people in public... for if you did, we'd be reading about how someone fed you your teeth
> 
> 2)  The *ONLY* thing you crow about is this _"legal"_ angle.  You claim to have no problem if people come here _"legally_."  It's a bullshit argument since it does not exist in constitutional law (as the Constitution was originally written and intended.)
> 
> If you don't understand the immigration laws, get with me in PM and I can start educating you.  What you advocate ultimately ends in citizenship.  THAT, sir, where your _"legal_" bullshit argument ultimately ends up at.
Click to expand...



1. The idea of controlling borders is not a Nazi idea. I have never had some one call me a nazi or a racist in public the way that some are so comfortable doing here. It seems that the assholes that like to call other people such names, are the ones that behave differently face to face.


2. This thread is about illegal immigration, hence my discussion of illegal immigration. But I do not support legal Third World immigration either. Indeed, i believe that we have had too much of all forms of immigration over the last 50 years.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that could not cite another time that a whit supremacist rally got hundreds of attendees.
> 
> 
> Because whtie supremacists are an insignificant fringe and you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your vile lies about Trump being racist, is just you being an asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I'll give you your little point, but it comes at a price.  If we believe the media, Trump's big rallies were virtually empty streets because the MSM said so.
> 
> I know that the white supremacists own you lock, stock and barrel.  You can't get a fresh of breath of fresh air until one of them farts because you have your nose that far up their ass.
> 
> You are also a pathological liar.  I've stated the fact that Trump is riding the coat-tails of neo nazis.  I've NEVER said the man is a racist.  He's playing racists just like you.  I wonder whether it's worse being an asshole OR a complete dumb ass like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a picture of a Trump rally with hundreds, if not thousands of supporters. It took me seconds to find.
> 
> 
> View attachment 259634
> 
> 
> 
> FUnny, how different that looks from a normal white supremacist rally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how different they look. Strange how the neo nazis themselves can't get more than a few dozens, while Trump, supposedly drawing on them as a based, gets thousands...
> 
> 
> Mmmm,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Back in the 1970s and 1980s we did not have the modern marvels you have today.  So, I cannot control what the media allowed to get out of their archives and into Internet stories.
> 
> I do have some pictures taken when I was a Justice of the Peace performing a wedding ceremony at a KKK rally.  There were over 450 robed klansmen at the rally, not counting their families and the couples other friends and relatives.  Stop by some time and I can show it to you.
> 
> Other than that, dude, if I wanted to be the asshole you are, I could do that song and dance that the photos were photoshopped and the MSM told the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF the white supremacist were the base that gave Trump his support, they would be able to have rallies of the scale he does.
> 
> 
> They don't. Because they can't.
> 
> 
> They are an insignificant fringe.
> 
> 
> Your belief on this makes no sense at all.
> 
> 
> Racism, at least white racism, is a tiny and unimportant force in American politics today.
> 
> 
> Why are you afraid of this good news?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Charlottesville.  One and done.
> 
> White supremacists know to lay low, play it cool, and not been seen.  Do you happen to know the other name for the Ku Klux Klan?   The nazis do and they have adopted some of the strategies the KKK use to employ.
> 
> Rallies are pure bullshit.  What counts is whether you can get your message out so people support you.  Trump lost the House of Representatives.  For every politician (IF one exists) that has bailed on the Democrats and switched parties, I can show you at least 5 that have switched from Republican to Democrat under Trump.
> 
> Racism, both black and white, are dominant forces on both sides.  And, if watching every piece of American history get destroyed by the left is what you're after, hang with the left.  They will show you the way.
Click to expand...




Charlottesville was dishonestly advertised about being about the historical statues that a bunch of lefties wanted to take down. That is the only way that white supremacist managed to get in the hundreds of attendees, and btw hundreds is still not the scale of the thousands that Trump got daily. 


And that was once and done. THey pulled it off once, and could not do it again the next year. 


White supremacist know that they need to lie in order to give themselves the appearance of relevance, and to that end their allies are the people, mostly liberal, but people like you too, 


who falsely smear mainstream republicans and conservatives, like Trump and/or myself, as being part of their movement. 



Trumps message on Trade and Immigration, would be, in a sane world, boring. 


Better trade balance and more jobs and send unwelcome people home?


Anyone that thinks that is radical or "nazi", is seriously delusional.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, so "far right" that they want to control the border, and send foreign nationals who are here against the law, home!
> 
> 
> What radical terror!!!!
> 
> 
> LOL!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Legal (sic), _"illegal_"... WTH is the difference?  If someone is here, a piece of paper issued by a corrupt government out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption is not going to make them anything except another subject of the NEW WORLD ORDER.  As soon as that individual gets their citizenship, they will become a Democrat.
> 
> After that happens, they can tell Correll to shut his pie hole and shine their shoes.  He'll do it with a smile on his face and joy in his heart... Correll just wants others to share in the Hell he's creating for himself and generations to come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point about the legal vs illegal has some validity, and I would be happy to address it.
> 
> 
> BUT, the post you hit reply to, was pointing out that lack of radical-ness in wanting to send the foreigners home.
> 
> 
> That was the point, and you failed to address it. That was unreasonable and unfair of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what kind of answer you want.  We've discussed this umpteen times.  When the Declaration of Independence was signed, it contained the following:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their *Creator* with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Either you believe in those foundational principles or you don't.  It's not multiple choice.  Either man derives his Rights (especially Liberty in this case) from a Creator or he does not.  Which is it?  An *unalienable* Right is not given by government.  *Unalienable* Rights are absolute and above the law.   It is the meaning of the word, sir.
> 
> *Unalienable* Rights cannot apply to citizens only.  The reason being, when the Declaration of Independence was signed, there were *NO American Citizens*.  Not one, single solitary citizen signed that document.  It says *ALL* men are created equal and *ALL* men have those Rights conferred upon them by a Creator.
> 
> When people come here to partake of opportunities willingly offered; to work a job;  to buy and sell, I see no problem.  When people like you think that means these people must become a part of the body politic, *THAT* is where we part company.  But, right now you should focus on the Rights of man.  Either you believe in Liberty or you don't.  Citizenship and being part of the body politic are privileges controlled by government.  For that reason, I do not agree with the assault on private property Rights your sides supports.  I don't think the children of non-citizens have any "_right_" to a free public education.  I don't support wholesale citizenship as your side does.
> 
> So, what answer, exactly are you looking for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is sophistic nonsense that if taken seriously, completely shit cans not only the very concern of nations, but the right of self determination of all people.
> 
> 
> AMERICANS have the right to decide who to invite to join our community and become part of us.
> 
> 
> This is not a denial of the rights of foreign citizens, because their right to self determination is as part of another equally sovereign group, (mostly Mexico.)
> 
> 
> We, Americans have no inherent right to go join the Mexican nation, and they have no inherent right to come join ours.
> 
> 
> This is a very simply concept.  NOrmally at this point, liberals pretend to not understand it and play stupid games.
> 
> 
> I expect better from you on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> At this point I expect better from *YOU* on this point.  How many times have we been over this now?  Your lying bullshit has been debunked at least six times on this board.
> 
> Each state has the right to decide who they want within their borders.  The word citizenship isn't in the Constitution.  Up to 1875 the *states* controlled their own immigration.   An illegal process took place (and I documented it for you) that infringed on states rights.  What did you get in return?  Ultimately affirmative action, racial quotas, preferential hiring schemes, reverse discrimination.
> 
> After having been exposed to the facts more than half a dozen times, you still don't know shit about the law, your nation's history, nor how you are complicit in turning this country into a socialist shithole.
> 
> Scott v. Sandford
Click to expand...



If Mexifornia can invite in as many Mexicans as it wants, ie all of them, and then let them flood the rest of the country, 


then this nation is over, and all your pretense of wanting to protect the Constitution, or Americans, is down the toilet.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who is a vile liar. The fact is that since Trump's election, far right haters on the rise. They have committed numerous acts of violence by killing people and plotting to kill Trump's political opponents. Republicans refuse to hold Trump accountable.
> 
> You are the asshole who has his tongue so far up Trump's ass that you have blown your brains out.
> 
> One such example is Corey Stewart. He got the Republican nomination despite his ties to white supremacists. He still got 1,368,451 votes in losing. That is a huge number of people who ignored or supported him even with his ties to white supremacists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me assure you son, I would have NO trouble calling you a neo nazi to your face.  I've marched in more marches, fought in more fights, and went face to face with the best the left or the right had to offer.
> 
> 1. THe claim that violence, at least from the right, is on the rise, is vile demagogue panic mongering.
> 
> 2. Trump is not responsible for the little violence coming from the right.
> 
> 3. My political support of Trump is quite reasonable, considering his policies support my interests and the nation's. You are an asshole.
> 
> 4. Just review his wikapedia page. Saw no connections to white supremacists. Pointing out that "half the violence" at charlottesville was from the Left, is hardly "ties to white supremacists. Support your vile claim or apologize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it ever dawn on you that you can never make your point without being the first to start name calling?  Did you ever think that maybe you're projecting and it's really YOU that is an asshole?  Of course you didn't.  You didn't think.  That's why you still support Trump after he took a giant dump on the Constitution.
> 
> If not for white supremacists, Trump would have NO support for the nutty wall idea which is the
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am fighting against* proposed SOCIALIST SOLUTIONS DREAMED UP BY NEO - NAZIS*.
> 
> What in the Hell is it you don't understand about that?  What is it that makes you unable to realize that you are handing this country over to the third world with a strategy designed to implode?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The massive immigration is handing this country over to the Third World.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's *YOUR* side that wants to make citizens out of them; it's *YOUR *side that let the precedent stand that undocumented foreigners had civil rights that trumped private property owners rights.  It was *YOUR* side that lost the United States Supreme Court case wherein the high Court ruled that being in the United States without documentation *is not a crime*.  Additionally Printz v. U.S. was started by conservative right wingers and the United States Supreme Court ruled in that case that state and local governments cannot be forced into enforcing federal laws.
> 
> So, we're agreed on the problem, but you think you're entitled to avoid being held accountable for the strategies of *YOUR *side???
> 
> Immigration = citizenship.  That is how the third world is taking over and THAT is the primary disagreement we have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. When some asshole starts throwing around the racist or the white supremacist accusation based on nothing but shit, they are the ones being assholes, and I respond accordingly.
> 
> 
> 2. I do not want to make citizens out of them. That is just something you keep trying to assign to me, based on your odd game of 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon. My point stands. The massive immigration is handing this country over to the Third World, and your game of blaming me for it, is irrelevant to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You cannot change what *IS*.  Your position has its roots in National Socialist think tanks.  It is not bullshit my man, but cold hard facts.  And if you ever want to grow a set of balls and go with me, I can introduce you to them as I debated and discussed these issues with them, face to face, *decades* ago.  You persistently denying what is true makes you look like an idiot, so you resort to calling people names - names you don't call people in public... for if you did, we'd be reading about how someone fed you your teeth
> 
> 2)  The *ONLY* thing you crow about is this _"legal"_ angle.  You claim to have no problem if people come here _"legally_."  It's a bullshit argument since it does not exist in constitutional law (as the Constitution was originally written and intended.)
> 
> If you don't understand the immigration laws, get with me in PM and I can start educating you.  What you advocate ultimately ends in citizenship.  THAT, sir, where your _"legal_" bullshit argument ultimately ends up at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The idea of controlling borders is not a Nazi idea. I have never had some one call me a nazi or a racist in public the way that some are so comfortable doing here. It seems that the assholes that like to call other people such names, are the ones that behave differently face to face.
> 
> 
> 2. This thread is about illegal immigration, hence my discussion of illegal immigration. But I do not support legal Third World immigration either. Indeed, i believe that we have had too much of all forms of immigration over the last 50 years.
Click to expand...




Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> busybee01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who is a vile liar. The fact is that since Trump's election, far right haters on the rise. They have committed numerous acts of violence by killing people and plotting to kill Trump's political opponents. Republicans refuse to hold Trump accountable.
> 
> You are the asshole who has his tongue so far up Trump's ass that you have blown your brains out.
> 
> One such example is Corey Stewart. He got the Republican nomination despite his ties to white supremacists. He still got 1,368,451 votes in losing. That is a huge number of people who ignored or supported him even with his ties to white supremacists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe claim that violence, at least from the right, is on the rise, is vile demagogue panic mongering.
> 
> 2. Trump is not responsible for the little violence coming from the right.
> 
> 3. My political support of Trump is quite reasonable, considering his policies support my interests and the nation's. You are an asshole.
> 
> 4. Just review his wikapedia page. Saw no connections to white supremacists. Pointing out that "half the violence" at charlottesville was from the Left, is hardly "ties to white supremacists. Support your vile claim or apologize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it ever dawn on you that you can never make your point without being the first to start name calling?  Did you ever think that maybe you're projecting and it's really YOU that is an asshole?  Of course you didn't.  You didn't think.  That's why you still support Trump after he took a giant dump on the Constitution.
> 
> If not for white supremacists, Trump would have NO support for the nutty wall idea which is the
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am fighting against* proposed SOCIALIST SOLUTIONS DREAMED UP BY NEO - NAZIS*.
> 
> What in the Hell is it you don't understand about that?  What is it that makes you unable to realize that you are handing this country over to the third world with a strategy designed to implode?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The massive immigration is handing this country over to the Third World.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's *YOUR* side that wants to make citizens out of them; it's *YOUR *side that let the precedent stand that undocumented foreigners had civil rights that trumped private property owners rights.  It was *YOUR* side that lost the United States Supreme Court case wherein the high Court ruled that being in the United States without documentation *is not a crime*.  Additionally Printz v. U.S. was started by conservative right wingers and the United States Supreme Court ruled in that case that state and local governments cannot be forced into enforcing federal laws.
> 
> So, we're agreed on the problem, but you think you're entitled to avoid being held accountable for the strategies of *YOUR *side???
> 
> Immigration = citizenship.  That is how the third world is taking over and THAT is the primary disagreement we have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. When some asshole starts throwing around the racist or the white supremacist accusation based on nothing but shit, they are the ones being assholes, and I respond accordingly.
> 
> 
> 2. I do not want to make citizens out of them. That is just something you keep trying to assign to me, based on your odd game of 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon. My point stands. The massive immigration is handing this country over to the Third World, and your game of blaming me for it, is irrelevant to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You cannot change what *IS*.  Your position has its roots in National Socialist think tanks.  It is not bullshit my man, but cold hard facts.  And if you ever want to grow a set of balls and go with me, I can introduce you to them as I debated and discussed these issues with them, face to face, *decades* ago.  You persistently denying what is true makes you look like an idiot, so you resort to calling people names - names you don't call people in public... for if you did, we'd be reading about how someone fed you your teeth
> 
> 2)  The *ONLY* thing you crow about is this _"legal"_ angle.  You claim to have no problem if people come here _"legally_."  It's a bullshit argument since it does not exist in constitutional law (as the Constitution was originally written and intended.)
> 
> If you don't understand the immigration laws, get with me in PM and I can start educating you.  What you advocate ultimately ends in citizenship.  THAT, sir, where your _"legal_" bullshit argument ultimately ends up at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The idea of controlling borders is not a Nazi idea. I have never had some one call me a nazi or a racist in public the way that some are so comfortable doing here. It seems that the assholes that like to call other people such names, are the ones that behave differently face to face.
> 
> 
> 2. This thread is about illegal immigration, hence my discussion of illegal immigration. But I do not support legal Third World immigration either. Indeed, i believe that we have had too much of all forms of immigration over the last 50 years.
Click to expand...


Son, let me assure you that I have marched in more marches, been in more fights, even participated in an armed stand-off at one point in defense of what I believe.  I've even manned that damn border.  You haven't.  When the Georgia Patriot Network used to meet in the Atlanta area not only did I finance the meetings, but I attended and at  each meeting, I offered the mic both before and after each meeting.  There is not a swinging dick on the face of this earth that I will not meet face to face.

So that you understand that, I have appeared on radio, tv and in newspapers.  I publicly debated Hosea Williams, face to face on his tv show.  He lost so decisively that they did not renew his show for another season.  Ike Newkirk, a former radio talk show host on WSB had me on his radio program.  He remarked that I was the first white guy willing to appear on his show, alone, and discuss racial issues from a conservative viewpoint.  

IF I can get someone to help me get a podcast going, I will be doing that and setting up in public venues so that if / when people have an issue with me, I won't hide like a fucking rat.  I keep hinting that these matters are better served in PM.  That way if someone tells me to name the time and the place, no moderator will ban us for what goes on in PM.  Make no mistake, I have never backed down from a challenge and I've had the cream of the crop (even alphabet agencies) go for the jugular.

Defending the border against threats and using the military to do domestic law enforcement are worlds apart.  There is a law called the Posse Comitatus Act that *prohibits* the federal government from using federal military personnel in the enforcement of domestic policies within the United States.  What you've been proposing is exactly that.

You want the military to do a job it is expressly forbidden to do.  If you want a declaration of war, then lobby for one.  I will not stand idly by while you and your ilk suggest illegal ways to enforce your concepts of right and wrong on the states.  *MAYBE* if your dumb ass took a few weeks to study and research the links I leave for you, it might sink in. 

Proof has been offered on this and many other threads that what you support is National Socialism.  It's not a false allegation.  It is *FACT*.   It is an absolute *FACT* that you cannot dispute.  When you advocate that the government control labor and distribution, that is the accepted definition of socialism.  The *FACT* that the people you get your talking points from are Nazis is *irrefutable*.  If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has webbed feet and hangs out at the pond, it's probably not an elephant.  

What you want is to impose on states rights and take a giant shit on the Bill of Rights.  So far you've proven too ignorant to understand that, but you're the kind of guy that could be talked into selling Drano to brush teeth with.  Yeah, it will get your teeth lily white, but at a cost of poisoning your brain.  Now, if you had an IQ above your shoe size, you would take heed and access the following links and spend the day reading them before you continue that line of thought.  I do have the ability to PM in addition to that:

Scott v. Sandford

http://understandcontractlawandyouwin.com/state-citizenship-federal-citizenship/

State Citizenship Has Roots in American History - NYTimes.com


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I'll give you your little point, but it comes at a price.  If we believe the media, Trump's big rallies were virtually empty streets because the MSM said so.
> 
> I know that the white supremacists own you lock, stock and barrel.  You can't get a fresh of breath of fresh air until one of them farts because you have your nose that far up their ass.
> 
> You are also a pathological liar.  I've stated the fact that Trump is riding the coat-tails of neo nazis.  I've NEVER said the man is a racist.  He's playing racists just like you.  I wonder whether it's worse being an asshole OR a complete dumb ass like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a picture of a Trump rally with hundreds, if not thousands of supporters. It took me seconds to find.
> 
> 
> View attachment 259634
> 
> 
> 
> FUnny, how different that looks from a normal white supremacist rally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how different they look. Strange how the neo nazis themselves can't get more than a few dozens, while Trump, supposedly drawing on them as a based, gets thousands...
> 
> 
> Mmmm,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Back in the 1970s and 1980s we did not have the modern marvels you have today.  So, I cannot control what the media allowed to get out of their archives and into Internet stories.
> 
> I do have some pictures taken when I was a Justice of the Peace performing a wedding ceremony at a KKK rally.  There were over 450 robed klansmen at the rally, not counting their families and the couples other friends and relatives.  Stop by some time and I can show it to you.
> 
> Other than that, dude, if I wanted to be the asshole you are, I could do that song and dance that the photos were photoshopped and the MSM told the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF the white supremacist were the base that gave Trump his support, they would be able to have rallies of the scale he does.
> 
> 
> They don't. Because they can't.
> 
> 
> They are an insignificant fringe.
> 
> 
> Your belief on this makes no sense at all.
> 
> 
> Racism, at least white racism, is a tiny and unimportant force in American politics today.
> 
> 
> Why are you afraid of this good news?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Charlottesville.  One and done.
> 
> White supremacists know to lay low, play it cool, and not been seen.  Do you happen to know the other name for the Ku Klux Klan?   The nazis do and they have adopted some of the strategies the KKK use to employ.
> 
> Rallies are pure bullshit.  What counts is whether you can get your message out so people support you.  Trump lost the House of Representatives.  For every politician (IF one exists) that has bailed on the Democrats and switched parties, I can show you at least 5 that have switched from Republican to Democrat under Trump.
> 
> Racism, both black and white, are dominant forces on both sides.  And, if watching every piece of American history get destroyed by the left is what you're after, hang with the left.  They will show you the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlottesville was dishonestly advertised about being about the historical statues that a bunch of lefties wanted to take down. That is the only way that white supremacist managed to get in the hundreds of attendees, and btw hundreds is still not the scale of the thousands that Trump got daily.
> 
> 
> And that was once and done. THey pulled it off once, and could not do it again the next year.
> 
> 
> White supremacist know that they need to lie in order to give themselves the appearance of relevance, and to that end their allies are the people, mostly liberal, but people like you too,
> 
> 
> who falsely smear mainstream republicans and conservatives, like Trump and/or myself, as being part of their movement.
> 
> 
> 
> Trumps message on Trade and Immigration, would be, in a sane world, boring.
> 
> 
> Better trade balance and more jobs and send unwelcome people home?
> 
> 
> Anyone that thinks that is radical or "nazi", is seriously delusional.
Click to expand...



You are the one who is delusional.  In the 1980s the mainstream media tried to marginalize the right.  You don't accept that.  If they failed to tell the truth, then you accept it today provided it bolsters your cause.

What is true, and more telling to me is that if an objective observer looked at what happened in places like Georgia we flipped the state and kept the Democrats out until *AFTER* your man got elected.  If you don't want to believe that the left lied about us, tried to say nobody went to right wing events, etc. that is your prerogative, that is your God given Right.  It also makes you delusional.

The difference between the media not getting away with saying Trump's inauguration and rallies did not attract very many people has been modern technology - technology we didn't have.  You're delusional for believing otherwise because, unlike Trump, we kept winning and when politicians changed parties, they became Republicans.  Under Trump, the politicians are becoming Democrats.  So, as this stuff happens under your nose, bear in mind, a little research to see the numbers of what we were accomplishing *BEFORE *the media gave the wallists billions of dollars of free advertising time,  WILL prove that it is *YOU* that is delusional.


----------



## Aba Incieni

Porter Rockwell said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has the right to take what doesn't belong to them.
> 
> No matter how many books you write.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fully agree.  That is why it pisses me off when these lying National Socialists falsely accuse foreigners of "_stealing jobs_."  The employer owns the job; they can give it to whomever they damn well want (under the de jure / lawful / Constitution.
> 
> You see, your side cannot show us, in the Constitution, where their authority to dictate to states comes from.  With respect to *NATURALIZATION* the federal government has limited constitutional authority:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"_
> 
> The federal government has no jurisdiction over states as to who may and go or even become a *state* citizen AND there is no provision in the Constitution to limit Liberty to citizens.
> 
> Scott v. Sandford
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They take what doesn't belong to them by not paying taxes. No SS#. Thieves.
> 
> Glad you agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're defending a plank out of the Communist Manifesto?  Really?  How freaking stupid is that!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> But, just for shits and giggles, according to the Chief Actuary of the Socialist Security Administration, over 75 percent of undocumented foreigners DO pay your dumb ass Socialist Security tax.  And if you had a brain in your head, you'd want to get rid of that Socialist Surveillance Number... I mean "_Social Security Number_" and thank ANYONE for helping end that unconstitutional theft of your labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they pay SSI they're stealing a legit one, since only citizens are issued SS#s. Theives.
> 
> Glad you agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WRONG.  Many people get an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number.  That is how they end up getting money back on their American born children.
> 
> There is something wrong with you for making National Socialist talking points sound like that's all you know AND then not reading a single link.  Can you wallists be any more uneducated!!!!
> 
> Let's go you one better.  Undocumented foreigners pay $13 BILLION DOLLARS every year into Socialist Security.  They will not draw out one thin dime in retirement.  When you guys start screwing with the checks of people on Socialist Security and disability - making their checks go south, they will have yet another reason to vote your side out of office.
> 
> Why in the Hell do you keep defending a plank out of the Communist Manifesto?
Click to expand...

Sorry, illegally entering the country, working under the table, using false SS#s, are all theft.

No matter how hard you stomp your foot.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Legal (sic), _"illegal_"... WTH is the difference?  If someone is here, a piece of paper issued by a corrupt government out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption is not going to make them anything except another subject of the NEW WORLD ORDER.  As soon as that individual gets their citizenship, they will become a Democrat.
> 
> After that happens, they can tell Correll to shut his pie hole and shine their shoes.  He'll do it with a smile on his face and joy in his heart... Correll just wants others to share in the Hell he's creating for himself and generations to come.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point about the legal vs illegal has some validity, and I would be happy to address it.
> 
> 
> BUT, the post you hit reply to, was pointing out that lack of radical-ness in wanting to send the foreigners home.
> 
> 
> That was the point, and you failed to address it. That was unreasonable and unfair of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what kind of answer you want.  We've discussed this umpteen times.  When the Declaration of Independence was signed, it contained the following:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their *Creator* with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Either you believe in those foundational principles or you don't.  It's not multiple choice.  Either man derives his Rights (especially Liberty in this case) from a Creator or he does not.  Which is it?  An *unalienable* Right is not given by government.  *Unalienable* Rights are absolute and above the law.   It is the meaning of the word, sir.
> 
> *Unalienable* Rights cannot apply to citizens only.  The reason being, when the Declaration of Independence was signed, there were *NO American Citizens*.  Not one, single solitary citizen signed that document.  It says *ALL* men are created equal and *ALL* men have those Rights conferred upon them by a Creator.
> 
> When people come here to partake of opportunities willingly offered; to work a job;  to buy and sell, I see no problem.  When people like you think that means these people must become a part of the body politic, *THAT* is where we part company.  But, right now you should focus on the Rights of man.  Either you believe in Liberty or you don't.  Citizenship and being part of the body politic are privileges controlled by government.  For that reason, I do not agree with the assault on private property Rights your sides supports.  I don't think the children of non-citizens have any "_right_" to a free public education.  I don't support wholesale citizenship as your side does.
> 
> So, what answer, exactly are you looking for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is sophistic nonsense that if taken seriously, completely shit cans not only the very concern of nations, but the right of self determination of all people.
> 
> 
> AMERICANS have the right to decide who to invite to join our community and become part of us.
> 
> 
> This is not a denial of the rights of foreign citizens, because their right to self determination is as part of another equally sovereign group, (mostly Mexico.)
> 
> 
> We, Americans have no inherent right to go join the Mexican nation, and they have no inherent right to come join ours.
> 
> 
> This is a very simply concept.  NOrmally at this point, liberals pretend to not understand it and play stupid games.
> 
> 
> I expect better from you on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> At this point I expect better from *YOU* on this point.  How many times have we been over this now?  Your lying bullshit has been debunked at least six times on this board.
> 
> Each state has the right to decide who they want within their borders.  The word citizenship isn't in the Constitution.  Up to 1875 the *states* controlled their own immigration.   An illegal process took place (and I documented it for you) that infringed on states rights.  What did you get in return?  Ultimately affirmative action, racial quotas, preferential hiring schemes, reverse discrimination.
> 
> After having been exposed to the facts more than half a dozen times, you still don't know shit about the law, your nation's history, nor how you are complicit in turning this country into a socialist shithole.
> 
> Scott v. Sandford
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If Mexifornia can invite in as many Mexicans as it wants, ie all of them, and then let them flood the rest of the country,
> 
> 
> then this nation is over, and all your pretense of wanting to protect the Constitution, or Americans, is down the toilet.
Click to expand...


Had you bothered to read the links I've left for you, it would be plain to see that if you gave the states their rights back, it means more responsibility on the state.

When Trump offered Nancy Pelosi to take all the undocumented foreigners into California, she had a hissy fit.  There is no way she wants them sleeping in the streets in front of her lawn.  She instantly became a NIMBY.  

If the states had their rights and did not make it easy on the undocumented to come there; if individual employers had the right hire whomever they wanted; if there were no free taxpayer paid educations and the feds involved in welfare, there would be *NO* incentive for foreigners to come to the United States.  Without federal funds, the liberal states would suddenly become fiscal conservatives overnight.

I want to tell you a little secret and this stays between you and I:

All those people flooding the border are part of a big deception.  Had they* REALLY* wanted to come here, they'd have done so under the community organizer's administration.  They would not have faced resistance then.  You're being played - and played by a man that was involved with Vince McMahon in an organization called World Wrestling Entertainment.  You're being duped and so far you've been to stupid to ask yourself WHY and to access the many links left for you to find the answer.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Aba Incieni said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fully agree.  That is why it pisses me off when these lying National Socialists falsely accuse foreigners of "_stealing jobs_."  The employer owns the job; they can give it to whomever they damn well want (under the de jure / lawful / Constitution.
> 
> You see, your side cannot show us, in the Constitution, where their authority to dictate to states comes from.  With respect to *NATURALIZATION* the federal government has limited constitutional authority:
> 
> "_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"_
> 
> The federal government has no jurisdiction over states as to who may and go or even become a *state* citizen AND there is no provision in the Constitution to limit Liberty to citizens.
> 
> Scott v. Sandford
> 
> 
> 
> They take what doesn't belong to them by not paying taxes. No SS#. Thieves.
> 
> Glad you agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're defending a plank out of the Communist Manifesto?  Really?  How freaking stupid is that!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> But, just for shits and giggles, according to the Chief Actuary of the Socialist Security Administration, over 75 percent of undocumented foreigners DO pay your dumb ass Socialist Security tax.  And if you had a brain in your head, you'd want to get rid of that Socialist Surveillance Number... I mean "_Social Security Number_" and thank ANYONE for helping end that unconstitutional theft of your labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they pay SSI they're stealing a legit one, since only citizens are issued SS#s. Theives.
> 
> Glad you agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WRONG.  Many people get an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number.  That is how they end up getting money back on their American born children.
> 
> There is something wrong with you for making National Socialist talking points sound like that's all you know AND then not reading a single link.  Can you wallists be any more uneducated!!!!
> 
> Let's go you one better.  Undocumented foreigners pay $13 BILLION DOLLARS every year into Socialist Security.  They will not draw out one thin dime in retirement.  When you guys start screwing with the checks of people on Socialist Security and disability - making their checks go south, they will have yet another reason to vote your side out of office.
> 
> Why in the Hell do you keep defending a plank out of the Communist Manifesto?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, illegally entering the country, working under the table, using false SS#s, are all theft.
> 
> No matter how hard you stomp your foot.
Click to expand...


I'm not stomping my feet.  I'm watching desperate people squirm, as they realize they are trying to justify communism on their support of the income tax.  An Individual Taxpayer Identification Number is *NOT *working under the table.  Furthermore, the 16th Amendment was illegally ratified.

As I keep telling Correll, we almost got rid of the Socialist Surveillance Number (_Social Security Number_) until the National Socialists showed up and got the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify crap implemented.  Had we gotten rid of the SSN and the income tax, everybody would pay a small tax and it would have been unavoidable (no big tax write offs for the rich, no child care advantages for the third worlders with half a dozen kids)   But, your side didn't like that.  With no federal income tax to bitch about, it began to destroy the pretext you hide behind in order to turn America into a socialist shithole.  Your support of a plank out of the Communist Manifesto is duly noted.

Thank you for confirming what I've been saying.


----------



## Aba Incieni

Porter Rockwell said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> They take what doesn't belong to them by not paying taxes. No SS#. Thieves.
> 
> Glad you agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're defending a plank out of the Communist Manifesto?  Really?  How freaking stupid is that!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> But, just for shits and giggles, according to the Chief Actuary of the Socialist Security Administration, over 75 percent of undocumented foreigners DO pay your dumb ass Socialist Security tax.  And if you had a brain in your head, you'd want to get rid of that Socialist Surveillance Number... I mean "_Social Security Number_" and thank ANYONE for helping end that unconstitutional theft of your labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they pay SSI they're stealing a legit one, since only citizens are issued SS#s. Theives.
> 
> Glad you agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WRONG.  Many people get an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number.  That is how they end up getting money back on their American born children.
> 
> There is something wrong with you for making National Socialist talking points sound like that's all you know AND then not reading a single link.  Can you wallists be any more uneducated!!!!
> 
> Let's go you one better.  Undocumented foreigners pay $13 BILLION DOLLARS every year into Socialist Security.  They will not draw out one thin dime in retirement.  When you guys start screwing with the checks of people on Socialist Security and disability - making their checks go south, they will have yet another reason to vote your side out of office.
> 
> Why in the Hell do you keep defending a plank out of the Communist Manifesto?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, illegally entering the country, working under the table, using false SS#s, are all theft.
> 
> No matter how hard you stomp your foot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not stomping my feet.  I'm watching desperate people squirm, as they realize they are trying to justify communism on their support of the income tax.  An Individual Taxpayer Identification Number is *NOT *working under the table.  Furthermore, the 16th Amendment was illegally ratified.
> 
> As I keep telling Correll, we almost got rid of the Socialist Surveillance Number (_Social Security Number_) until the National Socialists showed up and got the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify crap implemented.  Had we gotten rid of the SSN and the income tax, everybody would pay a small tax and it would have been unavoidable (no big tax write offs for the rich, no child care advantages for the third worlders with half a dozen kids)   But, your side didn't like that.  With no federal income tax to bitch about, it began to destroy the pretext you hide behind in order to turn America into a socialist shithole.  Your support of a plank out of the Communist Manifesto is duly noted.
> 
> Thank you for confirming what I've been saying.
Click to expand...

Illegal is theft. Backing thieves is no way to go through life, son.


----------



## danielpalos

Aba Incieni said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious or do you want to be exposed?
> 
> Just like intellectual property Rights (like when a songwriter writes a song), the person who creates the job owns it.  Jobs belong to the employer that creates it.
> 
> That is where Correll and I part company on our first issue.  The definition of socialism is when the government controls labor and distribution.  Then you can say that the people own the jobs.  In our de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic, the employer owns the job.
> 
> I can tell you that what I build, create, or bring into existence belongs to me and I'm not giving it up to a swinging soul unless I want to.  What belongs to me, individually, belongs to me.
> 
> Your turn.
> 
> 
> 
> Which of the unalienable right listed gives me the right to move into your living room?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to move into my living room?  Dude, for real, if you have an issue, spit it out.  Do you want me to guess at what your cryptic nonsense means and then make the bullshit claim (as does Correll that you were not answered?)  Is that your game?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question is simple. Your answer seems difficult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obviously not that simple.  The wallists have been given all the statutory law *AND* the case law.  They have yet to understand how the precedents in case law prohibit them from doing the things they suggest.
> 
> Now you come with an idiotic analogy (be glad I'm not a screwed up dumb ass wallist yapping about logical fallacies and other such non sequitirs) and it does not follow.  But, let's play house.  Since I'm headed out of here for the night, I want you to think about something I said earlier.  Give me your answer and I will fully answer your question consistent with what you tell me.  I have to know what presupposition we're starting off with:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain* unalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Now, here is court precedent on Rights:
> 
> “_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
> 
> A few more synonyms for those bolded words would be irrevocable, God given, untouchable. I could cite you a *LOT* of precedent.
> 
> If a man is born with an *unalienable* Right, and if Liberty is a Right bestowed upon us by a *Creator*, bearing in mind that the presupposition BEFORE such a thing as a citizen of the U.S. existed, who in the Hell is getting off scot free (sic) of anything?
> 
> Do  you understand the concept of Liberty or shall I define it for you?
> 
> So, in plain and simple terms, tell me of YOUR understanding of *unalienable* Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of those unalienable rights allow me to move into your house.
Click to expand...

natural rights; defense of self and others could require the use of your house.


----------



## Aba Incieni

danielpalos said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which of the unalienable right listed gives me the right to move into your living room?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to move into my living room?  Dude, for real, if you have an issue, spit it out.  Do you want me to guess at what your cryptic nonsense means and then make the bullshit claim (as does Correll that you were not answered?)  Is that your game?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question is simple. Your answer seems difficult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obviously not that simple.  The wallists have been given all the statutory law *AND* the case law.  They have yet to understand how the precedents in case law prohibit them from doing the things they suggest.
> 
> Now you come with an idiotic analogy (be glad I'm not a screwed up dumb ass wallist yapping about logical fallacies and other such non sequitirs) and it does not follow.  But, let's play house.  Since I'm headed out of here for the night, I want you to think about something I said earlier.  Give me your answer and I will fully answer your question consistent with what you tell me.  I have to know what presupposition we're starting off with:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain* unalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Now, here is court precedent on Rights:
> 
> “_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
> 
> A few more synonyms for those bolded words would be irrevocable, God given, untouchable. I could cite you a *LOT* of precedent.
> 
> If a man is born with an *unalienable* Right, and if Liberty is a Right bestowed upon us by a *Creator*, bearing in mind that the presupposition BEFORE such a thing as a citizen of the U.S. existed, who in the Hell is getting off scot free (sic) of anything?
> 
> Do  you understand the concept of Liberty or shall I define it for you?
> 
> So, in plain and simple terms, tell me of YOUR understanding of *unalienable* Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of those unalienable rights allow me to move into your house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights; defense of self and others could require the use of your house.
Click to expand...

Not by illegals.


----------



## danielpalos

Aba Incieni said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to move into my living room?  Dude, for real, if you have an issue, spit it out.  Do you want me to guess at what your cryptic nonsense means and then make the bullshit claim (as does Correll that you were not answered?)  Is that your game?
> 
> 
> 
> The question is simple. Your answer seems difficult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obviously not that simple.  The wallists have been given all the statutory law *AND* the case law.  They have yet to understand how the precedents in case law prohibit them from doing the things they suggest.
> 
> Now you come with an idiotic analogy (be glad I'm not a screwed up dumb ass wallist yapping about logical fallacies and other such non sequitirs) and it does not follow.  But, let's play house.  Since I'm headed out of here for the night, I want you to think about something I said earlier.  Give me your answer and I will fully answer your question consistent with what you tell me.  I have to know what presupposition we're starting off with:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain* unalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Now, here is court precedent on Rights:
> 
> “_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
> 
> A few more synonyms for those bolded words would be irrevocable, God given, untouchable. I could cite you a *LOT* of precedent.
> 
> If a man is born with an *unalienable* Right, and if Liberty is a Right bestowed upon us by a *Creator*, bearing in mind that the presupposition BEFORE such a thing as a citizen of the U.S. existed, who in the Hell is getting off scot free (sic) of anything?
> 
> Do  you understand the concept of Liberty or shall I define it for you?
> 
> So, in plain and simple terms, tell me of YOUR understanding of *unalienable* Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of those unalienable rights allow me to move into your house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights; defense of self and others could require the use of your house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not by illegals.
Click to expand...

there is no express immigration clause; what illegals are you referring to?


----------



## Aba Incieni

danielpalos said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is simple. Your answer seems difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's obviously not that simple.  The wallists have been given all the statutory law *AND* the case law.  They have yet to understand how the precedents in case law prohibit them from doing the things they suggest.
> 
> Now you come with an idiotic analogy (be glad I'm not a screwed up dumb ass wallist yapping about logical fallacies and other such non sequitirs) and it does not follow.  But, let's play house.  Since I'm headed out of here for the night, I want you to think about something I said earlier.  Give me your answer and I will fully answer your question consistent with what you tell me.  I have to know what presupposition we're starting off with:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain* unalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Now, here is court precedent on Rights:
> 
> “_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
> 
> A few more synonyms for those bolded words would be irrevocable, God given, untouchable. I could cite you a *LOT* of precedent.
> 
> If a man is born with an *unalienable* Right, and if Liberty is a Right bestowed upon us by a *Creator*, bearing in mind that the presupposition BEFORE such a thing as a citizen of the U.S. existed, who in the Hell is getting off scot free (sic) of anything?
> 
> Do  you understand the concept of Liberty or shall I define it for you?
> 
> So, in plain and simple terms, tell me of YOUR understanding of *unalienable* Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of those unalienable rights allow me to move into your house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights; defense of self and others could require the use of your house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not by illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no express immigration clause; what illegals are you referring to?
Click to expand...

Those without immigration papers.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Aba Incieni said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're defending a plank out of the Communist Manifesto?  Really?  How freaking stupid is that!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> But, just for shits and giggles, according to the Chief Actuary of the Socialist Security Administration, over 75 percent of undocumented foreigners DO pay your dumb ass Socialist Security tax.  And if you had a brain in your head, you'd want to get rid of that Socialist Surveillance Number... I mean "_Social Security Number_" and thank ANYONE for helping end that unconstitutional theft of your labor.
> 
> 
> 
> If they pay SSI they're stealing a legit one, since only citizens are issued SS#s. Theives.
> 
> Glad you agree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WRONG.  Many people get an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number.  That is how they end up getting money back on their American born children.
> 
> There is something wrong with you for making National Socialist talking points sound like that's all you know AND then not reading a single link.  Can you wallists be any more uneducated!!!!
> 
> Let's go you one better.  Undocumented foreigners pay $13 BILLION DOLLARS every year into Socialist Security.  They will not draw out one thin dime in retirement.  When you guys start screwing with the checks of people on Socialist Security and disability - making their checks go south, they will have yet another reason to vote your side out of office.
> 
> Why in the Hell do you keep defending a plank out of the Communist Manifesto?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, illegally entering the country, working under the table, using false SS#s, are all theft.
> 
> No matter how hard you stomp your foot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not stomping my feet.  I'm watching desperate people squirm, as they realize they are trying to justify communism on their support of the income tax.  An Individual Taxpayer Identification Number is *NOT *working under the table.  Furthermore, the 16th Amendment was illegally ratified.
> 
> As I keep telling Correll, we almost got rid of the Socialist Surveillance Number (_Social Security Number_) until the National Socialists showed up and got the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify crap implemented.  Had we gotten rid of the SSN and the income tax, everybody would pay a small tax and it would have been unavoidable (no big tax write offs for the rich, no child care advantages for the third worlders with half a dozen kids)   But, your side didn't like that.  With no federal income tax to bitch about, it began to destroy the pretext you hide behind in order to turn America into a socialist shithole.  Your support of a plank out of the Communist Manifesto is duly noted.
> 
> Thank you for confirming what I've been saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illegal is theft. Backing thieves is no way to go through life, son.
Click to expand...



Stealing the fruits of my labor via an illegally ratified Amendment which was taken from the Communist Manifesto is theft.  So son, if you are backing the "law" on that point, you *ARE* a thief.  You are also a traitor to this country.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Aba Incieni said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's obviously not that simple.  The wallists have been given all the statutory law *AND* the case law.  They have yet to understand how the precedents in case law prohibit them from doing the things they suggest.
> 
> Now you come with an idiotic analogy (be glad I'm not a screwed up dumb ass wallist yapping about logical fallacies and other such non sequitirs) and it does not follow.  But, let's play house.  Since I'm headed out of here for the night, I want you to think about something I said earlier.  Give me your answer and I will fully answer your question consistent with what you tell me.  I have to know what presupposition we're starting off with:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain* unalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Now, here is court precedent on Rights:
> 
> “_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
> 
> A few more synonyms for those bolded words would be irrevocable, God given, untouchable. I could cite you a *LOT* of precedent.
> 
> If a man is born with an *unalienable* Right, and if Liberty is a Right bestowed upon us by a *Creator*, bearing in mind that the presupposition BEFORE such a thing as a citizen of the U.S. existed, who in the Hell is getting off scot free (sic) of anything?
> 
> Do  you understand the concept of Liberty or shall I define it for you?
> 
> So, in plain and simple terms, tell me of YOUR understanding of *unalienable* Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Which of those unalienable rights allow me to move into your house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights; defense of self and others could require the use of your house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not by illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no express immigration clause; what illegals are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those without immigration papers.
Click to expand...


You just got schooled by a lefty.  Damn if that wasn't embarrassing.  I'm embarrassed for you.  There is *NOTHING *in the Constitution regarding any immigration papers.  Damn son.  The federal government has no authority on that issue - if you think it does, cite that section of the Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

Aba Incieni said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's obviously not that simple.  The wallists have been given all the statutory law *AND* the case law.  They have yet to understand how the precedents in case law prohibit them from doing the things they suggest.
> 
> Now you come with an idiotic analogy (be glad I'm not a screwed up dumb ass wallist yapping about logical fallacies and other such non sequitirs) and it does not follow.  But, let's play house.  Since I'm headed out of here for the night, I want you to think about something I said earlier.  Give me your answer and I will fully answer your question consistent with what you tell me.  I have to know what presupposition we're starting off with:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator *with certain* unalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Now, here is court precedent on Rights:
> 
> “_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
> 
> A few more synonyms for those bolded words would be irrevocable, God given, untouchable. I could cite you a *LOT* of precedent.
> 
> If a man is born with an *unalienable* Right, and if Liberty is a Right bestowed upon us by a *Creator*, bearing in mind that the presupposition BEFORE such a thing as a citizen of the U.S. existed, who in the Hell is getting off scot free (sic) of anything?
> 
> Do  you understand the concept of Liberty or shall I define it for you?
> 
> So, in plain and simple terms, tell me of YOUR understanding of *unalienable* Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Which of those unalienable rights allow me to move into your house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights; defense of self and others could require the use of your house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not by illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no express immigration clause; what illegals are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those without immigration papers.
Click to expand...

show me the immigration clause.  get legal to Constitutional law, right wingers.  don't be practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy but blame the less fortunate.


----------



## Aba Incieni

Porter Rockwell said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they pay SSI they're stealing a legit one, since only citizens are issued SS#s. Theives.
> 
> Glad you agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG.  Many people get an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number.  That is how they end up getting money back on their American born children.
> 
> There is something wrong with you for making National Socialist talking points sound like that's all you know AND then not reading a single link.  Can you wallists be any more uneducated!!!!
> 
> Let's go you one better.  Undocumented foreigners pay $13 BILLION DOLLARS every year into Socialist Security.  They will not draw out one thin dime in retirement.  When you guys start screwing with the checks of people on Socialist Security and disability - making their checks go south, they will have yet another reason to vote your side out of office.
> 
> Why in the Hell do you keep defending a plank out of the Communist Manifesto?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, illegally entering the country, working under the table, using false SS#s, are all theft.
> 
> No matter how hard you stomp your foot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not stomping my feet.  I'm watching desperate people squirm, as they realize they are trying to justify communism on their support of the income tax.  An Individual Taxpayer Identification Number is *NOT *working under the table.  Furthermore, the 16th Amendment was illegally ratified.
> 
> As I keep telling Correll, we almost got rid of the Socialist Surveillance Number (_Social Security Number_) until the National Socialists showed up and got the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify crap implemented.  Had we gotten rid of the SSN and the income tax, everybody would pay a small tax and it would have been unavoidable (no big tax write offs for the rich, no child care advantages for the third worlders with half a dozen kids)   But, your side didn't like that.  With no federal income tax to bitch about, it began to destroy the pretext you hide behind in order to turn America into a socialist shithole.  Your support of a plank out of the Communist Manifesto is duly noted.
> 
> Thank you for confirming what I've been saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illegal is theft. Backing thieves is no way to go through life, son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Stealing the fruits of my labor via an illegally ratified Amendment which was taken from the Communist Manifesto is theft.  So son, if you are backing the "law" on that point, you *ARE* a thief.  You are also a traitor to this country.
Click to expand...

Says the payaso with papers. lol


----------



## Aba Incieni

danielpalos said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which of those unalienable rights allow me to move into your house.
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights; defense of self and others could require the use of your house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not by illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no express immigration clause; what illegals are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those without immigration papers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> show me the immigration clause.  get legal to Constitutional law, right wingers.  don't be practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy but blame the less fortunate.
Click to expand...

They're deporting illegals by the tens of thousands. Maybe you should sue. haha


----------



## danielpalos

Aba Incieni said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights; defense of self and others could require the use of your house.
> 
> 
> 
> Not by illegals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no express immigration clause; what illegals are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those without immigration papers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> show me the immigration clause.  get legal to Constitutional law, right wingers.  don't be practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy but blame the less fortunate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're deporting illegals by the tens of thousands. Maybe you should sue. haha
Click to expand...

only illegals don't care about the law.


----------



## Aba Incieni

danielpalos said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not by illegals.
> 
> 
> 
> there is no express immigration clause; what illegals are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those without immigration papers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> show me the immigration clause.  get legal to Constitutional law, right wingers.  don't be practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy but blame the less fortunate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're deporting illegals by the tens of thousands. Maybe you should sue. haha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only illegals don't care about the law.
Click to expand...

That's why they're illegal.


----------



## danielpalos

Aba Incieni said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no express immigration clause; what illegals are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> Those without immigration papers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> show me the immigration clause.  get legal to Constitutional law, right wingers.  don't be practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy but blame the less fortunate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're deporting illegals by the tens of thousands. Maybe you should sue. haha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only illegals don't care about the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's why they're illegal.
Click to expand...

attention span challenged? 

show me the immigration clause.  get legal to Constitutional law, right wingers.  don't be practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy but blame the less fortunate.


----------



## jc456

andaronjim said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with repelling an invading horde of diseased criminals from our country?  If killing a few thousand stops the migration, that would be a good thing...Those that die in the desert are far worse, so show those who are willing to make the arduous trek, that it isnt worth it, and save even more lives, by killing a few...The needs of the many out way the needs of the few.
Click to expand...

I'd say that would be a deterrent, don't you?


----------



## danielpalos

the right wing only cares about natural rights in abortion threads.  how amoral is that.


----------



## Aba Incieni

danielpalos said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those without immigration papers.
> 
> 
> 
> show me the immigration clause.  get legal to Constitutional law, right wingers.  don't be practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy but blame the less fortunate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're deporting illegals by the tens of thousands. Maybe you should sue. haha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only illegals don't care about the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's why they're illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> attention span challenged?
> 
> show me the immigration clause.  get legal to Constitutional law, right wingers.  don't be practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy but blame the less fortunate.
Click to expand...

If you think they're being deported illegally, then sue to stop it.


----------



## danielpalos

Aba Incieni said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> show me the immigration clause.  get legal to Constitutional law, right wingers.  don't be practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy but blame the less fortunate.
> 
> 
> 
> They're deporting illegals by the tens of thousands. Maybe you should sue. haha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only illegals don't care about the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's why they're illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> attention span challenged?
> 
> show me the immigration clause.  get legal to Constitutional law, right wingers.  don't be practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy but blame the less fortunate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think they're being deported illegally, then sue to stop it.
Click to expand...

it takes a petty cash fund for that purpose.  maybe we can ask for community service for Mr. Avenati?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


> If you read the damn link, it will answer your question... and no it don't have shit to do with slaves. Read beyond slavery. Chief Justice Taney explains citizenship and the rights of states in unequivocal language. I'm not going to summarize it so you can debate it. You'll have to read it on your own. If you want to be IN this discussion, at least know the very *bare bones basics*.


I've read the summary. Dred Scott v. Sandford - Case Summary and Case Brief
The issue is slavery as I first instantly surmised. If you think Scott v Sanford gives states the right to ignore federal immigration law (does Vermont have the right to begin admitting hundreds of Russians bypassing federal law...of course not) you should try to prove that though I understand why you won't try.

It's a crock!


----------



## Aba Incieni

danielpalos said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're deporting illegals by the tens of thousands. Maybe you should sue. haha
> 
> 
> 
> only illegals don't care about the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's why they're illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> attention span challenged?
> 
> show me the immigration clause.  get legal to Constitutional law, right wingers.  don't be practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy but blame the less fortunate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think they're being deported illegally, then sue to stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it takes a petty cash fund for that purpose.  maybe we can ask for community service for Mr. Avenati?
Click to expand...

It's not my fault you're broke. See if you can get something from the Open Borders clause.


----------



## danielpalos

Aba Incieni said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> only illegals don't care about the law.
> 
> 
> 
> That's why they're illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> attention span challenged?
> 
> show me the immigration clause.  get legal to Constitutional law, right wingers.  don't be practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy but blame the less fortunate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think they're being deported illegally, then sue to stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it takes a petty cash fund for that purpose.  maybe we can ask for community service for Mr. Avenati?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not my fault you're broke. See if you can get something from the Open Borders clause.
Click to expand...

we have an express establishment clause for naturalization, every time we have to quibble about right wing motives and right wing bigotry.


----------



## Aba Incieni

danielpalos said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why they're illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> attention span challenged?
> 
> show me the immigration clause.  get legal to Constitutional law, right wingers.  don't be practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy but blame the less fortunate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think they're being deported illegally, then sue to stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it takes a petty cash fund for that purpose.  maybe we can ask for community service for Mr. Avenati?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not my fault you're broke. See if you can get something from the Open Borders clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have an express establishment clause for naturalization, every time we have to quibble about right wing motives and right wing bigotry.
Click to expand...

That's called the legal way. I went through it myself. You should advocate legality.


----------



## danielpalos

Aba Incieni said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> attention span challenged?
> 
> show me the immigration clause.  get legal to Constitutional law, right wingers.  don't be practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy but blame the less fortunate.
> 
> 
> 
> If you think they're being deported illegally, then sue to stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it takes a petty cash fund for that purpose.  maybe we can ask for community service for Mr. Avenati?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not my fault you're broke. See if you can get something from the Open Borders clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have an express establishment clause for naturalization, every time we have to quibble about right wing motives and right wing bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's called the legal way. I went through it myself. You should advocate legality.
Click to expand...

there is no immigration clause.


----------



## Aba Incieni

danielpalos said:


> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you think they're being deported illegally, then sue to stop it.
> 
> 
> 
> it takes a petty cash fund for that purpose.  maybe we can ask for community service for Mr. Avenati?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not my fault you're broke. See if you can get something from the Open Borders clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> we have an express establishment clause for naturalization, every time we have to quibble about right wing motives and right wing bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's called the legal way. I went through it myself. You should advocate legality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no immigration clause.
Click to expand...

Nor Open International Border clause.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Aba Incieni said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aba Incieni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG.  Many people get an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number.  That is how they end up getting money back on their American born children.
> 
> There is something wrong with you for making National Socialist talking points sound like that's all you know AND then not reading a single link.  Can you wallists be any more uneducated!!!!
> 
> Let's go you one better.  Undocumented foreigners pay $13 BILLION DOLLARS every year into Socialist Security.  They will not draw out one thin dime in retirement.  When you guys start screwing with the checks of people on Socialist Security and disability - making their checks go south, they will have yet another reason to vote your side out of office.
> 
> Why in the Hell do you keep defending a plank out of the Communist Manifesto?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, illegally entering the country, working under the table, using false SS#s, are all theft.
> 
> No matter how hard you stomp your foot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not stomping my feet.  I'm watching desperate people squirm, as they realize they are trying to justify communism on their support of the income tax.  An Individual Taxpayer Identification Number is *NOT *working under the table.  Furthermore, the 16th Amendment was illegally ratified.
> 
> As I keep telling Correll, we almost got rid of the Socialist Surveillance Number (_Social Security Number_) until the National Socialists showed up and got the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify crap implemented.  Had we gotten rid of the SSN and the income tax, everybody would pay a small tax and it would have been unavoidable (no big tax write offs for the rich, no child care advantages for the third worlders with half a dozen kids)   But, your side didn't like that.  With no federal income tax to bitch about, it began to destroy the pretext you hide behind in order to turn America into a socialist shithole.  Your support of a plank out of the Communist Manifesto is duly noted.
> 
> Thank you for confirming what I've been saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Illegal is theft. Backing thieves is no way to go through life, son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Stealing the fruits of my labor via an illegally ratified Amendment which was taken from the Communist Manifesto is theft.  So son, if you are backing the "law" on that point, you *ARE* a thief.  You are also a traitor to this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the payaso with papers. lol
Click to expand...


Now you're just trolling.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you read the damn link, it will answer your question... and no it don't have shit to do with slaves. Read beyond slavery. Chief Justice Taney explains citizenship and the rights of states in unequivocal language. I'm not going to summarize it so you can debate it. You'll have to read it on your own. If you want to be IN this discussion, at least know the very *bare bones basics*.
> 
> 
> 
> I've read the summary. Dred Scott v. Sandford - Case Summary and Case Brief
> The issue is slavery as I first instantly surmised. If you think Scott v Sanford gives states the right to ignore federal immigration law (does Vermont have the right to begin admitting hundreds of Russians bypassing federal law...of course not) you should try to prove that though I understand why you won't try.
> 
> It's a crock!
Click to expand...


You read a *summary*?  Really?  That's what you're building your case on?  What fucking idiocy!  You're about as qualified to discuss this topic as Nancy Pelosi is qualified to talk about gun Rights.

Chief Justice Taney, in that opinion of the court, spends approximately twenty or so pages talking about things related to this subject and has nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with the subject at hand.

In order for federal immigration laws to be valid, they must follow the Constitution.  Otherwise, the United States Supreme Court has opined that you have no obligation to obey them.  So, no matter *WHO* subverts the Constitution (and the United States Supreme Court subverted the immigration laws), the law is invalid if it doesn't follow the Constitution.

What Taney wrote gave a great insight to our laws and it is worth reading it unless you want to do the same research he did.  We're talking bare bones with that opinion.  I worked in immigration law for six years before I fully understood it and all you read is the summary of *ONE CASE*?  You don't even have the mental capacity to read the case and what the Chief Justice wrote? 

Don't shit yourself.  You are not in my league.  Once you've read a couple of hundred books on American history, jurisprudence, citizenship, immigration law, unconstitutional Amendments, and what the founders thought about Freedom, Liberty, and *unalienable* Rights will you be able to compete in this discussion.  If all your mental capacity can handle is one case summary (not the case itself) *you are not mentally / academically unqualified to be IN this discussion*.

I'll post the links once more and you will see that you don't know what the Hell you're talking about and changing the subject, deflecting, using straw man arguments and non sequitirs won't save you.  SOME people *ARE* accessing the links and figuring out what a dolt you really are:

Scott v. Sandford

http://understandcontractlawandyouw...e/1/state-citizenship-federal-citizenship.pdf

State Citizenship Has Roots in American History - NYTimes.com

American Citizen, or U.S. citizen?


http://understandcontractlawandyouw...e/1/state-citizenship-federal-citizenship.pdf

It wasn't until 1875 that an *illegal action *(on the Judicial Dept.'s side) took place before the federal government could claim any power on the issue.  So, they have lots of *power* - just* NO authority* and you cannot show me different in the Constitution.  You are pushing this country toward the NEW WORLD ORDER / One World Government - *POLICE STATE* that goes beyond Orwellian proportions.  And all your education allowed you to be able to read is a summary of *ONE CASE*???  What a joke!


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

You're such an impressive authority on the matter ( ) yet you cannot boil the issue down to it's essential and relevant points when it comes to a state's ability to override federal authority on the matter?
Why do your claims and bloviating seem like such blustering bullshit? Because they are and you've not demonstrated otherwise. You only claim you know best and that's not good enough.

I will take it for granted that any reasonably sharp thinker can easily and empirically reason that if you were remotely correct California would not be constrained at all by who they let cross their borders. And yet they are. The federal government controls who gets into California or any other state that shares a border with another nation. It's not up to California. Or Washington. Or Maine. Or Alaska. The feds are in control. 

I guess your long pointless posts must be therapeutic for you in some way but they mean nothing to me or anyone else as long as you insist you know something but won't specifically state what that is.  Rave on!


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> You're such an impressive authority on the matter ( ) yet you cannot boil the issue down to it's essential and relevant points when it comes to a state's ability to override federal authority on the matter?
> Why do your claims and bloviating seem like such blustering bullshit? Because they are and you've not demonstrated otherwise. You only claim you know best and that's not good enough.
> 
> I will take it for granted that any reasonably sharp thinker can easily and empirically reason that if you were remotely correct California would not be constrained at all by who they let cross their borders. And yet they are. The federal government controls who gets into California or any other state that shares a border with another nation. It's not up to California. Or Washington. Or Maine. Or Alaska. The feds are in control.
> 
> I guess your long pointless posts must be therapeutic for you in some way but they mean nothing to me or anyone else as long as you insist you know something but won't specifically state what that is.  Rave on!




A poster made a vague reference here that he thought I was too afraid to say things to his face.  I assured him I have never backed down from anybody.  As a matter of FACT, rather than "bloviate" as you think a couple of paragraphs are doing, I'd rather face someone than to do ten paragraphs (which should take less than three minutes to read.)  You want a college degree in the form of a Tweet.  I'm going to answer all your questions.  Pay close attention:

1)  If you think 10 or less paragraphs are bloviating  (sic) and you're too lazy to read, you should stay off the Internet and not pretend to discuss issues.  You don't pack the gear

2)  The relationship between the government and the states is simple:

The federal government lacks the *AUTHORITY* to do a lot of what it does.  They get away with it because they are bigger than the states and, consequently, have the *POWER*.  The feds and the liberals say fuck the law.  I don't want to read it.  I want what I want; I'll pass a law and then do what I want.

Today, the right has become lap dogs for the left and they do the same thing.  I still recall George W saying "_the Constitution wasn't anything a god damned piece of paper."_  So, hiding behind the law is dishonest, cowardly and as low as you can go.  If you cannot find it in the Constitution, you owe it to yourself to find out* WHY
*
3)  America has two separate and distinct governments competing inside it.  One is a de facto / illegal / unconstitutional Federal - Legislative Democracy (owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations)  while the other is the de jure / legal / constitutional Republic guaranteed in Article 4  Section 4 of the Constitution.  I represent the de jure / legal / constitutional Republic; you represent the de facto / illegal / Federal Legislative Democracy

4)  You started out insulting me and pretending to know more than you do.  Now you're too lazy to read a link and you want me to do your work for you and summarize it?  Trying to be a smart ass toward me isn't going to work for you.  What it says is that you are lazy, unqualified, uninformed, and little more than a shill for the National Socialists OR maybe one of their useful idiots.

Other people may read this exchange; they might access the links are read them.  Then they will understand that you were trying to blow smoke up their ass and that the wallists only understand their religion.  They are basically high school dropouts that are frustrated due to their own failures in life.  But, in answer to your question:  If a man runs into a restaurant and pulls out a pistol and tells the patrons to empty their pockets, they're going to do it.  He has the *POWER*.  It's illegal, but he has the *POWER*.  He doesn't have the* AUTHORITY*, but he has the *POWER*.   

You cannot find the shit you're arguing for in the Constitution and you have *NO CLUE *as to when and under what circumstances the government began usurping *POWER* and now nobody wants to tell the town bully they don't have the *AUTHORITY*.  If you cannot show me your position in the Constitution, then you should read the Tenth Amendment.


Scott v. Sandford

http://understandcontractlawandyouwin.com/state-citizenship-federal-citizenship/

State Citizenship Has Roots in American History - NYTimes.com


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


> 2) The relationship between the government and the states is simple:
> 
> The federal government lacks the *AUTHORITY* to do a lot of what it does. They get away with it because they are bigger than the states and, consequently, have the *POWER*. The feds and the liberals say fuck the law. I don't want to read it. I want what I want; I'll pass a law and then do what I want.
> 
> Today, the right has become lap dogs for the left and they do the same thing. I still recall George W saying "_the Constitution wasn't anything a god damned piece of paper."_ So, hiding behind the law is dishonest, cowardly and as low as you can go. If you cannot find it in the Constitution, you owe it to yourself to find out* WHY*


I remember covering this point many days ago. I'll cover it one last time and then just assume when you ignore it that you are a raving lunatic and not worth anyone's time.

The primary responsibility of the federal government is to defend and protect the constituent states from outside threats. AND from each other. A Constitutional Basis for Defense

So that means if California decides it would be a good idea if they simply let the uneducated unskilled peasant underclass of Mexico and Central America flow unregulated into their state, the more the better, then there is someone there to protect the other states from this invasion when they, foreign nationals, flow outside of California's border and spread throughout the land (which is more or less what is happening now).
That's insanity.




Porter Rockwell said:


> 4) You started out insulting me and pretending to know more than you do. Now you're too lazy to read a link and you want me to do your work for you and summarize it? Trying to be a smart ass toward me isn't going to work for you. What it says is that you are lazy, unqualified, uninformed, and little more than a shill for the National Socialists OR maybe one of their useful idiots.


*I'm not too lazy to read something that doesn't waste my time and is worthwhile!!
*
_You haven't given me the slightest reason to believe your Dred Scott nonsense is worth going over_. You could simply produce the pertinent parts of your argument but you haven't so fuck you....I'm not wasting my time on your say so which, if you don't mind, has yet to make me think for a second you know what you're talking about.

If you're good insisting you know what you are talking about despite all I know the Constitution (as reflected in my link) and the fact that you won't produce a single thought of your own explaining your views then I'm very happy to write you off as far right winger, I think, who is so far down his own personal rabbit hole he will never reappear.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) The relationship between the government and the states is simple:
> 
> The federal government lacks the *AUTHORITY* to do a lot of what it does. They get away with it because they are bigger than the states and, consequently, have the *POWER*. The feds and the liberals say fuck the law. I don't want to read it. I want what I want; I'll pass a law and then do what I want.
> 
> Today, the right has become lap dogs for the left and they do the same thing. I still recall George W saying "_the Constitution wasn't anything a god damned piece of paper."_ So, hiding behind the law is dishonest, cowardly and as low as you can go. If you cannot find it in the Constitution, you owe it to yourself to find out* WHY*
> 
> 
> 
> I remember covering this point many days ago. I'll cover it one last time and then just assume when you ignore it that you are a raving lunatic and not worth anyone's time.
> 
> The primary responsibility of the federal government is to defend and protect the constituent states from outside threats. AND from each other. A Constitutional Basis for Defense
> 
> So that means if California decides it would be a good idea if they simply let the uneducated unskilled peasant underclass of Mexico and Central America flow unregulated into their state, the more the better, then there is someone there to protect the other states from this invasion when they, foreign nationals, flow outside of California's border and spread throughout the land (which is more or less what is happening now).
> That's insanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4) You started out insulting me and pretending to know more than you do. Now you're too lazy to read a link and you want me to do your work for you and summarize it? Trying to be a smart ass toward me isn't going to work for you. What it says is that you are lazy, unqualified, uninformed, and little more than a shill for the National Socialists OR maybe one of their useful idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I'm not too lazy to read something that doesn't waste my time and is worthwhile!!
> *
> _You haven't given me the slightest reason to believe your Dred Scott nonsense is worth going over_. You could simply produce the pertinent parts of your argument but you haven't so fuck you....I'm not wasting my time on your say so which, if you don't mind, has yet to make me think for a second you know what you're talking about.
> 
> If you're good insisting you know what you are talking about despite all I know the Constitution (as reflected in my link) and the fact that you won't produce a single thought of your own explaining your views then I'm very happy to write you off as far right winger, I think, who is so far down his own personal rabbit hole he will never reappear.
Click to expand...


I'm not wasting time with your dumb ass either.  If the governor of California says he does not have a National Emergency, the president cannot will one on him.

Donald Trump could then ask Congress for a Declaration of War, but he has no *constitutional jurisdiction* to dictate to California...

Your questions will all be answered in the links provided.  If you're too lazy to read, your side will ultimately lose because Donald Trump cannot disagree with the governors of states and impose his will.  Let me rephrase:  He cannot do it constitutionally - which is why the governors are telling him to go pound sand.

Your claim is *groundless*.  The American people in all the affected states *willingly* do business with the foreigners.  You may perceive it as insanity, but when the public is *willingly* hiring, renting to, buying from and otherwise doing business with those foreigners, you don't have a case.  Wanting to punish those Americans who do engage in free trade with them shows your true colors.  There are solutions and remedies, but if you are not informed and educated, bumper sticker solutions aren't going to get you anywhere.  Enjoy this election cycle because you are going to cost the Republicans the next one and then you will have NO RECOURSE and a bunch of pissed off third worlders.


Scott v. Sandford

http://understandcontractlawandyouw...e/1/state-citizenship-federal-citizenship.pdf

State Citizenship Has Roots in American History - NYTimes.com

American Citizen, or U.S. citizen?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Porter Rockwell said:


> I'm not wasting time with your dumb ass either. If the governor of California says he does not have a National Emergency, the president cannot will one on him.


Just as the governor of California cannot control who comes into his state from Mexico. The feds do that and if someone isn't legally entitled to enter he or she may not do so.
Newsom and his largely illegal base can go pound sand. 



> Donald Trump could then ask Congress for a Declaration of War, but he has no *constitutional jurisdiction* to dictate to California.


Straw man. I haven't claimed otherwise.



> Your questions will all be answered in the links provided. If you're too lazy to read, your side will ultimately lose because Donald Trump cannot disagree with the governors of states and impose his will. Let me rephrase: He cannot do it constitutionally - which is why the governors are telling him to go pound sand.


A few are, like Lujan -Grisham of New Mexico. That's for the voters of New Mexico to rectify. The other governors not at all.
Border security is a very strong issue  that will sweep Trump back into office, among others.
Suck on that, greedy turncoat.




> Your claim is *groundless*. The American people in all the affected states *willingly* do business with the foreigners. You may perceive it as insanity, but when the public is *willingly* hiring, renting to, buying from and otherwise doing business with those foreigners, you don't have a case. Wanting to punish those Americans who do engage in free trade with them shows your true colors.


Yes. I moved from one of these sanctuary counties in California and I've seen all the native American workers displaced and put out of business. Don't talk to me about "true colors" you shitbag!

You hold the flag in one hand spouting your "good American values" and talk of the Constitution while you stick a knife in the back of American taxpayers and workers with the other. You sound like those asshole Chamber of Commerce republicans whose first and only allegiance is to their own bank account.
Finally you identify yourself and where your interests lie and it's enough to make someone puke.





> There are solutions and remedies, but if you are not informed and educated, bumper sticker solutions aren't going to get you anywhere. Enjoy this election cycle because you are going to cost the Republicans the next one and then you will have NO RECOURSE and a bunch of pissed off third worlders.


I think not you greedy coward.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me assure you son, I would have NO trouble calling you a neo nazi to your face.  I've marched in more marches, fought in more fights, and went face to face with the best the left or the right had to offer.
> 
> 1. THe claim that violence, at least from the right, is on the rise, is vile demagogue panic mongering.
> 
> 2. Trump is not responsible for the little violence coming from the right.
> 
> 3. My political support of Trump is quite reasonable, considering his policies support my interests and the nation's. You are an asshole.
> 
> 4. Just review his wikapedia page. Saw no connections to white supremacists. Pointing out that "half the violence" at charlottesville was from the Left, is hardly "ties to white supremacists. Support your vile claim or apologize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did it ever dawn on you that you can never make your point without being the first to start name calling?  Did you ever think that maybe you're projecting and it's really YOU that is an asshole?  Of course you didn't.  You didn't think.  That's why you still support Trump after he took a giant dump on the Constitution.
> 
> If not for white supremacists, Trump would have NO support for the nutty wall idea which is the
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The massive immigration is handing this country over to the Third World.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's *YOUR* side that wants to make citizens out of them; it's *YOUR *side that let the precedent stand that undocumented foreigners had civil rights that trumped private property owners rights.  It was *YOUR* side that lost the United States Supreme Court case wherein the high Court ruled that being in the United States without documentation *is not a crime*.  Additionally Printz v. U.S. was started by conservative right wingers and the United States Supreme Court ruled in that case that state and local governments cannot be forced into enforcing federal laws.
> 
> So, we're agreed on the problem, but you think you're entitled to avoid being held accountable for the strategies of *YOUR *side???
> 
> Immigration = citizenship.  That is how the third world is taking over and THAT is the primary disagreement we have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. When some asshole starts throwing around the racist or the white supremacist accusation based on nothing but shit, they are the ones being assholes, and I respond accordingly.
> 
> 
> 2. I do not want to make citizens out of them. That is just something you keep trying to assign to me, based on your odd game of 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon. My point stands. The massive immigration is handing this country over to the Third World, and your game of blaming me for it, is irrelevant to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You cannot change what *IS*.  Your position has its roots in National Socialist think tanks.  It is not bullshit my man, but cold hard facts.  And if you ever want to grow a set of balls and go with me, I can introduce you to them as I debated and discussed these issues with them, face to face, *decades* ago.  You persistently denying what is true makes you look like an idiot, so you resort to calling people names - names you don't call people in public... for if you did, we'd be reading about how someone fed you your teeth
> 
> 2)  The *ONLY* thing you crow about is this _"legal"_ angle.  You claim to have no problem if people come here _"legally_."  It's a bullshit argument since it does not exist in constitutional law (as the Constitution was originally written and intended.)
> 
> If you don't understand the immigration laws, get with me in PM and I can start educating you.  What you advocate ultimately ends in citizenship.  THAT, sir, where your _"legal_" bullshit argument ultimately ends up at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The idea of controlling borders is not a Nazi idea. I have never had some one call me a nazi or a racist in public the way that some are so comfortable doing here. It seems that the assholes that like to call other people such names, are the ones that behave differently face to face.
> 
> 
> 2. This thread is about illegal immigration, hence my discussion of illegal immigration. But I do not support legal Third World immigration either. Indeed, i believe that we have had too much of all forms of immigration over the last 50 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe claim that violence, at least from the right, is on the rise, is vile demagogue panic mongering.
> 
> 2. Trump is not responsible for the little violence coming from the right.
> 
> 3. My political support of Trump is quite reasonable, considering his policies support my interests and the nation's. You are an asshole.
> 
> 4. Just review his wikapedia page. Saw no connections to white supremacists. Pointing out that "half the violence" at charlottesville was from the Left, is hardly "ties to white supremacists. Support your vile claim or apologize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it ever dawn on you that you can never make your point without being the first to start name calling?  Did you ever think that maybe you're projecting and it's really YOU that is an asshole?  Of course you didn't.  You didn't think.  That's why you still support Trump after he took a giant dump on the Constitution.
> 
> If not for white supremacists, Trump would have NO support for the nutty wall idea which is the
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The massive immigration is handing this country over to the Third World.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's *YOUR* side that wants to make citizens out of them; it's *YOUR *side that let the precedent stand that undocumented foreigners had civil rights that trumped private property owners rights.  It was *YOUR* side that lost the United States Supreme Court case wherein the high Court ruled that being in the United States without documentation *is not a crime*.  Additionally Printz v. U.S. was started by conservative right wingers and the United States Supreme Court ruled in that case that state and local governments cannot be forced into enforcing federal laws.
> 
> So, we're agreed on the problem, but you think you're entitled to avoid being held accountable for the strategies of *YOUR *side???
> 
> Immigration = citizenship.  That is how the third world is taking over and THAT is the primary disagreement we have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. When some asshole starts throwing around the racist or the white supremacist accusation based on nothing but shit, they are the ones being assholes, and I respond accordingly.
> 
> 
> 2. I do not want to make citizens out of them. That is just something you keep trying to assign to me, based on your odd game of 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon. My point stands. The massive immigration is handing this country over to the Third World, and your game of blaming me for it, is irrelevant to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You cannot change what *IS*.  Your position has its roots in National Socialist think tanks.  It is not bullshit my man, but cold hard facts.  And if you ever want to grow a set of balls and go with me, I can introduce you to them as I debated and discussed these issues with them, face to face, *decades* ago.  You persistently denying what is true makes you look like an idiot, so you resort to calling people names - names you don't call people in public... for if you did, we'd be reading about how someone fed you your teeth
> 
> 2)  The *ONLY* thing you crow about is this _"legal"_ angle.  You claim to have no problem if people come here _"legally_."  It's a bullshit argument since it does not exist in constitutional law (as the Constitution was originally written and intended.)
> 
> If you don't understand the immigration laws, get with me in PM and I can start educating you.  What you advocate ultimately ends in citizenship.  THAT, sir, where your _"legal_" bullshit argument ultimately ends up at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The idea of controlling borders is not a Nazi idea. I have never had some one call me a nazi or a racist in public the way that some are so comfortable doing here. It seems that the assholes that like to call other people such names, are the ones that behave differently face to face.
> 
> 
> 2. This thread is about illegal immigration, hence my discussion of illegal immigration. But I do not support legal Third World immigration either. Indeed, i believe that we have had too much of all forms of immigration over the last 50 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Son, let me assure you that I have marched in more marches, been in more fights, even participated in an armed stand-off at one point in defense of what I believe.  I've even manned that damn border.  You haven't.  When the Georgia Patriot Network used to meet in the Atlanta area not only did I finance the meetings, but I attended and at  each meeting, I offered the mic both before and after each meeting.  There is not a swinging dick on the face of this earth that I will not meet face to face.
> 
> So that you understand that, I have appeared on radio, tv and in newspapers.  I publicly debated Hosea Williams, face to face on his tv show.  He lost so decisively that they did not renew his show for another season.  Ike Newkirk, a former radio talk show host on WSB had me on his radio program.  He remarked that I was the first white guy willing to appear on his show, alone, and discuss racial issues from a conservative viewpoint.
> 
> IF I can get someone to help me get a podcast going, I will be doing that and setting up in public venues so that if / when people have an issue with me, I won't hide like a fucking rat.  I keep hinting that these matters are better served in PM.  That way if someone tells me to name the time and the place, no moderator will ban us for what goes on in PM.  Make no mistake, I have never backed down from a challenge and I've had the cream of the crop (even alphabet agencies) go for the jugular.
> 
> Defending the border against threats and using the military to do domestic law enforcement are worlds apart.  There is a law called the Posse Comitatus Act that *prohibits* the federal government from using federal military personnel in the enforcement of domestic policies within the United States.  What you've been proposing is exactly that.
> 
> You want the military to do a job it is expressly forbidden to do.  If you want a declaration of war, then lobby for one.  I will not stand idly by while you and your ilk suggest illegal ways to enforce your concepts of right and wrong on the states.  *MAYBE* if your dumb ass took a few weeks to study and research the links I leave for you, it might sink in.
> 
> Proof has been offered on this and many other threads that what you support is National Socialism.  It's not a false allegation.  It is *FACT*.   It is an absolute *FACT* that you cannot dispute.  When you advocate that the government control labor and distribution, that is the accepted definition of socialism.  The *FACT* that the people you get your talking points from are Nazis is *irrefutable*.  If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has webbed feet and hangs out at the pond, it's probably not an elephant.
> 
> What you want is to impose on states rights and take a giant shit on the Bill of Rights.  So far you've proven too ignorant to understand that, but you're the kind of guy that could be talked into selling Drano to brush teeth with.  Yeah, it will get your teeth lily white, but at a cost of poisoning your brain.  Now, if you had an IQ above your shoe size, you would take heed and access the following links and spend the day reading them before you continue that line of thought.  I do have the ability to PM in addition to that:
> 
> Scott v. Sandford
> 
> http://understandcontractlawandyouwin.com/state-citizenship-federal-citizenship/
> 
> State Citizenship Has Roots in American History - NYTimes.com
Click to expand...




A lot of talk to hide the fact that you are pretending that securing a border is a nazi idea.


It is not.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not wasting time with your dumb ass either. If the governor of California says he does not have a National Emergency, the president cannot will one on him.
> 
> 
> 
> Just as the governor of California cannot control who comes into his state from Mexico. The feds do that and if someone isn't legally entitled to enter he or she may not do so.
> Newsom and his largely illegal base can go pound sand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump could then ask Congress for a Declaration of War, but he has no *constitutional jurisdiction* to dictate to California.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Straw man. I haven't claimed otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your questions will all be answered in the links provided. If you're too lazy to read, your side will ultimately lose because Donald Trump cannot disagree with the governors of states and impose his will. Let me rephrase: He cannot do it constitutionally - which is why the governors are telling him to go pound sand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A few are, like Lujan -Grisham of New Mexico. That's for the voters of New Mexico to rectify. The other governors not at all.
> Border security is a very strong issue  that will sweep Trump back into office, among others.
> Suck on that, greedy turncoat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim is *groundless*. The American people in all the affected states *willingly* do business with the foreigners. You may perceive it as insanity, but when the public is *willingly* hiring, renting to, buying from and otherwise doing business with those foreigners, you don't have a case. Wanting to punish those Americans who do engage in free trade with them shows your true colors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. I moved from one of these sanctuary counties in California and I've seen all the native American workers displaced and put out of business. Don't talk to me about "true colors" you shitbag!
> 
> You hold the flag in one hand spouting your "good American values" and talk of the Constitution while you stick a knife in the back of American taxpayers and workers with the other. You sound like those asshole Chamber of Commerce republicans whose first and only allegiance is to their own bank account.
> Finally you identify yourself and where your interests lie and it's enough to make someone puke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are solutions and remedies, but if you are not informed and educated, bumper sticker solutions aren't going to get you anywhere. Enjoy this election cycle because you are going to cost the Republicans the next one and then you will have NO RECOURSE and a bunch of pissed off third worlders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think not you greedy coward.
Click to expand...


I *know *you are an uneducated moron regardless of the insults you hurl at me.  

First off, you don't have a damn clue about me.  I voted for Trump as the lesser of two evils, but when he violated the Constitution on three counts with his bump stock ban, he lost all my support.

When I make honest observations, it doesn't make me greedy.  It makes me realistic.  There are jobs where I live where, with minimal skills, you can make $25 to $30 an hour for as many hours as you want to work.  People on welfare, Social Security, disability, etc. cannot afford to pay you a surgeon's wages for shit like cutting grass, building a simple deck or painting a couple or rooms.  They damn sure don't want to lose their homes because Americans want to lay on their ass and draw a government check because the job pays them $75 or more an hour - and doesn't require a skill set.

I'm telling your dumb ass I know that a problem exists.  I'm telling dumb asses that think like you had they not gotten involved, we had this won.  Your strategies are wrong.  Your *strategies* are killing this country AND not leaving the next generation a way to resist tyranny.

I don't give a fuck what you think about me because you're not the kind of guy that does around spewing your erroneous bullshit in public.  I do speak out in public.  I do get tired of people like you not knowing who the opposition is, what's wrong with your legal arguments, and most of all your laziness in not studying your opposition.  Hell, you're so stupid you don't even study your own history.  You're worse than a traitor.  At least when a traitor sells his country out, he's not like you.  He understands WHY he's doing it.

The same can't be said for you.  You're so much of a dolt, you don't even realize who you might be sharing a foxhole with if the SHTF... then again, you won't have the balls to fight.  You're too lazy to even read.


Scott v. Sandford

http://understandcontractlawandyouw...e/1/state-citizenship-federal-citizenship.pdf

State Citizenship Has Roots in American History - NYTimes.com

American Citizen, or U.S. citizen?


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a picture of a Trump rally with hundreds, if not thousands of supporters. It took me seconds to find.
> 
> 
> View attachment 259634
> 
> 
> 
> FUnny, how different that looks from a normal white supremacist rally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weird how different they look. Strange how the neo nazis themselves can't get more than a few dozens, while Trump, supposedly drawing on them as a based, gets thousands...
> 
> 
> Mmmm,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back in the 1970s and 1980s we did not have the modern marvels you have today.  So, I cannot control what the media allowed to get out of their archives and into Internet stories.
> 
> I do have some pictures taken when I was a Justice of the Peace performing a wedding ceremony at a KKK rally.  There were over 450 robed klansmen at the rally, not counting their families and the couples other friends and relatives.  Stop by some time and I can show it to you.
> 
> Other than that, dude, if I wanted to be the asshole you are, I could do that song and dance that the photos were photoshopped and the MSM told the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF the white supremacist were the base that gave Trump his support, they would be able to have rallies of the scale he does.
> 
> 
> They don't. Because they can't.
> 
> 
> They are an insignificant fringe.
> 
> 
> Your belief on this makes no sense at all.
> 
> 
> Racism, at least white racism, is a tiny and unimportant force in American politics today.
> 
> 
> Why are you afraid of this good news?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Charlottesville.  One and done.
> 
> White supremacists know to lay low, play it cool, and not been seen.  Do you happen to know the other name for the Ku Klux Klan?   The nazis do and they have adopted some of the strategies the KKK use to employ.
> 
> Rallies are pure bullshit.  What counts is whether you can get your message out so people support you.  Trump lost the House of Representatives.  For every politician (IF one exists) that has bailed on the Democrats and switched parties, I can show you at least 5 that have switched from Republican to Democrat under Trump.
> 
> Racism, both black and white, are dominant forces on both sides.  And, if watching every piece of American history get destroyed by the left is what you're after, hang with the left.  They will show you the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlottesville was dishonestly advertised about being about the historical statues that a bunch of lefties wanted to take down. That is the only way that white supremacist managed to get in the hundreds of attendees, and btw hundreds is still not the scale of the thousands that Trump got daily.
> 
> 
> And that was once and done. THey pulled it off once, and could not do it again the next year.
> 
> 
> White supremacist know that they need to lie in order to give themselves the appearance of relevance, and to that end their allies are the people, mostly liberal, but people like you too,
> 
> 
> who falsely smear mainstream republicans and conservatives, like Trump and/or myself, as being part of their movement.
> 
> 
> 
> Trumps message on Trade and Immigration, would be, in a sane world, boring.
> 
> 
> Better trade balance and more jobs and send unwelcome people home?
> 
> 
> Anyone that thinks that is radical or "nazi", is seriously delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who is delusional.  In the 1980s the mainstream media tried to marginalize the right.  You don't accept that.  If they failed to tell the truth, then you accept it today provided it bolsters your cause.
Click to expand...



I have no idea what you are talking about here.





> What is true, and more telling to me is that if an objective observer looked at what happened in places like Georgia we flipped the state and kept the Democrats out until *AFTER* your man got elected.  If you don't want to believe that the left lied about us, tried to say nobody went to right wing events, etc. that is your prerogative, that is your God given Right.  It also makes you delusional.




"My man" meaning Trump? Again, I have no idea what you are talking about here. What do you mean "right wing events"? Are you trying conflate "right wing" with "white supremacist"?





> The difference between the media not getting away with saying Trump's inauguration and rallies did not attract very many people has been modern technology - technology we didn't have.  You're delusional for believing otherwise because, unlike Trump, we kept winning and when politicians changed parties, they became Republicans.  Under Trump, the politicians are becoming Democrats.  So, as this stuff happens under your nose, bear in mind, a little research to see the numbers of what we were accomplishing *BEFORE *the media gave the wallists billions of dollars of free advertising time,  WILL prove that it is *YOU* that is delusional.





The media talking about Trump's rallies, I don't see how it is relevant to what we are talking about. 


We both know that Trump had/had no problem getting thousands at a rally.


The white supremacist are doing fucking GREAT if they can get into the dozens. 


TO pretend that Trump built his election on white supremacist support is utterly senseless.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your point about the legal vs illegal has some validity, and I would be happy to address it.
> 
> 
> BUT, the post you hit reply to, was pointing out that lack of radical-ness in wanting to send the foreigners home.
> 
> 
> That was the point, and you failed to address it. That was unreasonable and unfair of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what kind of answer you want.  We've discussed this umpteen times.  When the Declaration of Independence was signed, it contained the following:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their *Creator* with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Either you believe in those foundational principles or you don't.  It's not multiple choice.  Either man derives his Rights (especially Liberty in this case) from a Creator or he does not.  Which is it?  An *unalienable* Right is not given by government.  *Unalienable* Rights are absolute and above the law.   It is the meaning of the word, sir.
> 
> *Unalienable* Rights cannot apply to citizens only.  The reason being, when the Declaration of Independence was signed, there were *NO American Citizens*.  Not one, single solitary citizen signed that document.  It says *ALL* men are created equal and *ALL* men have those Rights conferred upon them by a Creator.
> 
> When people come here to partake of opportunities willingly offered; to work a job;  to buy and sell, I see no problem.  When people like you think that means these people must become a part of the body politic, *THAT* is where we part company.  But, right now you should focus on the Rights of man.  Either you believe in Liberty or you don't.  Citizenship and being part of the body politic are privileges controlled by government.  For that reason, I do not agree with the assault on private property Rights your sides supports.  I don't think the children of non-citizens have any "_right_" to a free public education.  I don't support wholesale citizenship as your side does.
> 
> So, what answer, exactly are you looking for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is sophistic nonsense that if taken seriously, completely shit cans not only the very concern of nations, but the right of self determination of all people.
> 
> 
> AMERICANS have the right to decide who to invite to join our community and become part of us.
> 
> 
> This is not a denial of the rights of foreign citizens, because their right to self determination is as part of another equally sovereign group, (mostly Mexico.)
> 
> 
> We, Americans have no inherent right to go join the Mexican nation, and they have no inherent right to come join ours.
> 
> 
> This is a very simply concept.  NOrmally at this point, liberals pretend to not understand it and play stupid games.
> 
> 
> I expect better from you on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> At this point I expect better from *YOU* on this point.  How many times have we been over this now?  Your lying bullshit has been debunked at least six times on this board.
> 
> Each state has the right to decide who they want within their borders.  The word citizenship isn't in the Constitution.  Up to 1875 the *states* controlled their own immigration.   An illegal process took place (and I documented it for you) that infringed on states rights.  What did you get in return?  Ultimately affirmative action, racial quotas, preferential hiring schemes, reverse discrimination.
> 
> After having been exposed to the facts more than half a dozen times, you still don't know shit about the law, your nation's history, nor how you are complicit in turning this country into a socialist shithole.
> 
> Scott v. Sandford
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If Mexifornia can invite in as many Mexicans as it wants, ie all of them, and then let them flood the rest of the country,
> 
> 
> then this nation is over, and all your pretense of wanting to protect the Constitution, or Americans, is down the toilet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had you bothered to read the links I've left for you, it would be plain to see that if you gave the states their rights back, it means more responsibility on the state.
> 
> When Trump offered Nancy Pelosi to take all the undocumented foreigners into California, she had a hissy fit.  There is no way she wants them sleeping in the streets in front of her lawn.  She instantly became a NIMBY.
> 
> If the states had their rights and did not make it easy on the undocumented to come there; if individual employers had the right hire whomever they wanted; if there were no free taxpayer paid educations and the feds involved in welfare, there would be *NO* incentive for foreigners to come to the United States.  Without federal funds, the liberal states would suddenly become fiscal conservatives overnight.
> 
> I want to tell you a little secret and this stays between you and I:
> 
> All those people flooding the border are part of a big deception.  Had they* REALLY* wanted to come here, they'd have done so under the community organizer's administration.  They would not have faced resistance then.  You're being played - and played by a man that was involved with Vince McMahon in an organization called World Wrestling Entertainment.  You're being duped and so far you've been to stupid to ask yourself WHY and to access the many links left for you to find the answer.
Click to expand...



The illegals have been flowing in here, for decades, including under Obama. There was not a lot of press, because the press were happy to let it happen.


Even if you cut welfare, the jobs of a FIrst World nation, will still attract plenty of illegal immigrants.


And if California lets them in, they will spread to every state in the nation and this nation will become a Third World shit hole, as we are seeing happening,


----------



## Mr Natural

Those crops are not going to pick themselves.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did it ever dawn on you that you can never make your point without being the first to start name calling?  Did you ever think that maybe you're projecting and it's really YOU that is an asshole?  Of course you didn't.  You didn't think.  That's why you still support Trump after he took a giant dump on the Constitution.
> 
> If not for white supremacists, Trump would have NO support for the nutty wall idea which is the
> It's *YOUR* side that wants to make citizens out of them; it's *YOUR *side that let the precedent stand that undocumented foreigners had civil rights that trumped private property owners rights.  It was *YOUR* side that lost the United States Supreme Court case wherein the high Court ruled that being in the United States without documentation *is not a crime*.  Additionally Printz v. U.S. was started by conservative right wingers and the United States Supreme Court ruled in that case that state and local governments cannot be forced into enforcing federal laws.
> 
> So, we're agreed on the problem, but you think you're entitled to avoid being held accountable for the strategies of *YOUR *side???
> 
> Immigration = citizenship.  That is how the third world is taking over and THAT is the primary disagreement we have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. When some asshole starts throwing around the racist or the white supremacist accusation based on nothing but shit, they are the ones being assholes, and I respond accordingly.
> 
> 
> 2. I do not want to make citizens out of them. That is just something you keep trying to assign to me, based on your odd game of 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon. My point stands. The massive immigration is handing this country over to the Third World, and your game of blaming me for it, is irrelevant to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You cannot change what *IS*.  Your position has its roots in National Socialist think tanks.  It is not bullshit my man, but cold hard facts.  And if you ever want to grow a set of balls and go with me, I can introduce you to them as I debated and discussed these issues with them, face to face, *decades* ago.  You persistently denying what is true makes you look like an idiot, so you resort to calling people names - names you don't call people in public... for if you did, we'd be reading about how someone fed you your teeth
> 
> 2)  The *ONLY* thing you crow about is this _"legal"_ angle.  You claim to have no problem if people come here _"legally_."  It's a bullshit argument since it does not exist in constitutional law (as the Constitution was originally written and intended.)
> 
> If you don't understand the immigration laws, get with me in PM and I can start educating you.  What you advocate ultimately ends in citizenship.  THAT, sir, where your _"legal_" bullshit argument ultimately ends up at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The idea of controlling borders is not a Nazi idea. I have never had some one call me a nazi or a racist in public the way that some are so comfortable doing here. It seems that the assholes that like to call other people such names, are the ones that behave differently face to face.
> 
> 
> 2. This thread is about illegal immigration, hence my discussion of illegal immigration. But I do not support legal Third World immigration either. Indeed, i believe that we have had too much of all forms of immigration over the last 50 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did it ever dawn on you that you can never make your point without being the first to start name calling?  Did you ever think that maybe you're projecting and it's really YOU that is an asshole?  Of course you didn't.  You didn't think.  That's why you still support Trump after he took a giant dump on the Constitution.
> 
> If not for white supremacists, Trump would have NO support for the nutty wall idea which is the
> It's *YOUR* side that wants to make citizens out of them; it's *YOUR *side that let the precedent stand that undocumented foreigners had civil rights that trumped private property owners rights.  It was *YOUR* side that lost the United States Supreme Court case wherein the high Court ruled that being in the United States without documentation *is not a crime*.  Additionally Printz v. U.S. was started by conservative right wingers and the United States Supreme Court ruled in that case that state and local governments cannot be forced into enforcing federal laws.
> 
> So, we're agreed on the problem, but you think you're entitled to avoid being held accountable for the strategies of *YOUR *side???
> 
> Immigration = citizenship.  That is how the third world is taking over and THAT is the primary disagreement we have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. When some asshole starts throwing around the racist or the white supremacist accusation based on nothing but shit, they are the ones being assholes, and I respond accordingly.
> 
> 
> 2. I do not want to make citizens out of them. That is just something you keep trying to assign to me, based on your odd game of 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon. My point stands. The massive immigration is handing this country over to the Third World, and your game of blaming me for it, is irrelevant to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You cannot change what *IS*.  Your position has its roots in National Socialist think tanks.  It is not bullshit my man, but cold hard facts.  And if you ever want to grow a set of balls and go with me, I can introduce you to them as I debated and discussed these issues with them, face to face, *decades* ago.  You persistently denying what is true makes you look like an idiot, so you resort to calling people names - names you don't call people in public... for if you did, we'd be reading about how someone fed you your teeth
> 
> 2)  The *ONLY* thing you crow about is this _"legal"_ angle.  You claim to have no problem if people come here _"legally_."  It's a bullshit argument since it does not exist in constitutional law (as the Constitution was originally written and intended.)
> 
> If you don't understand the immigration laws, get with me in PM and I can start educating you.  What you advocate ultimately ends in citizenship.  THAT, sir, where your _"legal_" bullshit argument ultimately ends up at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The idea of controlling borders is not a Nazi idea. I have never had some one call me a nazi or a racist in public the way that some are so comfortable doing here. It seems that the assholes that like to call other people such names, are the ones that behave differently face to face.
> 
> 
> 2. This thread is about illegal immigration, hence my discussion of illegal immigration. But I do not support legal Third World immigration either. Indeed, i believe that we have had too much of all forms of immigration over the last 50 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Son, let me assure you that I have marched in more marches, been in more fights, even participated in an armed stand-off at one point in defense of what I believe.  I've even manned that damn border.  You haven't.  When the Georgia Patriot Network used to meet in the Atlanta area not only did I finance the meetings, but I attended and at  each meeting, I offered the mic both before and after each meeting.  There is not a swinging dick on the face of this earth that I will not meet face to face.
> 
> So that you understand that, I have appeared on radio, tv and in newspapers.  I publicly debated Hosea Williams, face to face on his tv show.  He lost so decisively that they did not renew his show for another season.  Ike Newkirk, a former radio talk show host on WSB had me on his radio program.  He remarked that I was the first white guy willing to appear on his show, alone, and discuss racial issues from a conservative viewpoint.
> 
> IF I can get someone to help me get a podcast going, I will be doing that and setting up in public venues so that if / when people have an issue with me, I won't hide like a fucking rat.  I keep hinting that these matters are better served in PM.  That way if someone tells me to name the time and the place, no moderator will ban us for what goes on in PM.  Make no mistake, I have never backed down from a challenge and I've had the cream of the crop (even alphabet agencies) go for the jugular.
> 
> Defending the border against threats and using the military to do domestic law enforcement are worlds apart.  There is a law called the Posse Comitatus Act that *prohibits* the federal government from using federal military personnel in the enforcement of domestic policies within the United States.  What you've been proposing is exactly that.
> 
> You want the military to do a job it is expressly forbidden to do.  If you want a declaration of war, then lobby for one.  I will not stand idly by while you and your ilk suggest illegal ways to enforce your concepts of right and wrong on the states.  *MAYBE* if your dumb ass took a few weeks to study and research the links I leave for you, it might sink in.
> 
> Proof has been offered on this and many other threads that what you support is National Socialism.  It's not a false allegation.  It is *FACT*.   It is an absolute *FACT* that you cannot dispute.  When you advocate that the government control labor and distribution, that is the accepted definition of socialism.  The *FACT* that the people you get your talking points from are Nazis is *irrefutable*.  If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has webbed feet and hangs out at the pond, it's probably not an elephant.
> 
> What you want is to impose on states rights and take a giant shit on the Bill of Rights.  So far you've proven too ignorant to understand that, but you're the kind of guy that could be talked into selling Drano to brush teeth with.  Yeah, it will get your teeth lily white, but at a cost of poisoning your brain.  Now, if you had an IQ above your shoe size, you would take heed and access the following links and spend the day reading them before you continue that line of thought.  I do have the ability to PM in addition to that:
> 
> Scott v. Sandford
> 
> http://understandcontractlawandyouwin.com/state-citizenship-federal-citizenship/
> 
> State Citizenship Has Roots in American History - NYTimes.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of talk to hide the fact that you are pretending that securing a border is a nazi idea.
> 
> 
> It is not.
Click to expand...



Your spin fools nobody except those lacking basic reading skills.  You dumb asses have had the advantage of having the cameras on you 24 / 7 for over 15 years now.  The politicians haven't built a wall, but *YOUR NAME IS ON THEIR WORK:*

The creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN Security)  - sounds a lot like Russia's Motherland Security or Nazi Germany's Fatherland Security

Passage of the so - called "_Patriot Act_"

Passage of the Orwellian National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify

The virtual repeal of the Fourth Amendment

An End to the Presumption of Innocence / Innocent Until Proven Guilty

Support for Warrant Less Searches

Assaults on Private Property Rights

24 / 7 / 365 Womb to the Tomb Monitoring  (eventually you will endorse armed drones patrolling us - great until the liberals say YOU'RE the enemy)

Infringements on Employer's Right to Own Property

Constitution Free Zone

The Advocacy of Using the Military to do Domestic Law Enforcement - in CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION

That is *some* of the many accomplishments of the wallist religionists.  Meanwhile, NO wall is up and Mexico was supposed to pay for it.  Now Trump is talking about cutting into the military budget and reducing Social Security checks to pay for it.  Hell, you've already spent *TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS!!! 
*
The whole lot of you wallists have had over a decade and a half and you're still too stupid to see that if foreigners wanted to come here, they'd have done so under the community organizer when they didn't have to face opposition.  You're being played.  You can play all the games you like but the above *TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS *were proposed by wallists under the pretext of making us safe from all those so - called "_illegal aliens_."

You might talk the issue to death, but the way you're going by the time you get off your ass and do more than talk, Bernie Sanders will be president,  Kamala Harris will be his VP and those on the right will be relegated to scrubbing floors and polishing Chucky Schumer's shoes.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what kind of answer you want.  We've discussed this umpteen times.  When the Declaration of Independence was signed, it contained the following:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their *Creator* with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Either you believe in those foundational principles or you don't.  It's not multiple choice.  Either man derives his Rights (especially Liberty in this case) from a Creator or he does not.  Which is it?  An *unalienable* Right is not given by government.  *Unalienable* Rights are absolute and above the law.   It is the meaning of the word, sir.
> 
> *Unalienable* Rights cannot apply to citizens only.  The reason being, when the Declaration of Independence was signed, there were *NO American Citizens*.  Not one, single solitary citizen signed that document.  It says *ALL* men are created equal and *ALL* men have those Rights conferred upon them by a Creator.
> 
> When people come here to partake of opportunities willingly offered; to work a job;  to buy and sell, I see no problem.  When people like you think that means these people must become a part of the body politic, *THAT* is where we part company.  But, right now you should focus on the Rights of man.  Either you believe in Liberty or you don't.  Citizenship and being part of the body politic are privileges controlled by government.  For that reason, I do not agree with the assault on private property Rights your sides supports.  I don't think the children of non-citizens have any "_right_" to a free public education.  I don't support wholesale citizenship as your side does.
> 
> So, what answer, exactly are you looking for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is sophistic nonsense that if taken seriously, completely shit cans not only the very concern of nations, but the right of self determination of all people.
> 
> 
> AMERICANS have the right to decide who to invite to join our community and become part of us.
> 
> 
> This is not a denial of the rights of foreign citizens, because their right to self determination is as part of another equally sovereign group, (mostly Mexico.)
> 
> 
> We, Americans have no inherent right to go join the Mexican nation, and they have no inherent right to come join ours.
> 
> 
> This is a very simply concept.  NOrmally at this point, liberals pretend to not understand it and play stupid games.
> 
> 
> I expect better from you on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> At this point I expect better from *YOU* on this point.  How many times have we been over this now?  Your lying bullshit has been debunked at least six times on this board.
> 
> Each state has the right to decide who they want within their borders.  The word citizenship isn't in the Constitution.  Up to 1875 the *states* controlled their own immigration.   An illegal process took place (and I documented it for you) that infringed on states rights.  What did you get in return?  Ultimately affirmative action, racial quotas, preferential hiring schemes, reverse discrimination.
> 
> After having been exposed to the facts more than half a dozen times, you still don't know shit about the law, your nation's history, nor how you are complicit in turning this country into a socialist shithole.
> 
> Scott v. Sandford
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If Mexifornia can invite in as many Mexicans as it wants, ie all of them, and then let them flood the rest of the country,
> 
> 
> then this nation is over, and all your pretense of wanting to protect the Constitution, or Americans, is down the toilet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had you bothered to read the links I've left for you, it would be plain to see that if you gave the states their rights back, it means more responsibility on the state.
> 
> When Trump offered Nancy Pelosi to take all the undocumented foreigners into California, she had a hissy fit.  There is no way she wants them sleeping in the streets in front of her lawn.  She instantly became a NIMBY.
> 
> If the states had their rights and did not make it easy on the undocumented to come there; if individual employers had the right hire whomever they wanted; if there were no free taxpayer paid educations and the feds involved in welfare, there would be *NO* incentive for foreigners to come to the United States.  Without federal funds, the liberal states would suddenly become fiscal conservatives overnight.
> 
> I want to tell you a little secret and this stays between you and I:
> 
> All those people flooding the border are part of a big deception.  Had they* REALLY* wanted to come here, they'd have done so under the community organizer's administration.  They would not have faced resistance then.  You're being played - and played by a man that was involved with Vince McMahon in an organization called World Wrestling Entertainment.  You're being duped and so far you've been to stupid to ask yourself WHY and to access the many links left for you to find the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The illegals have been flowing in here, for decades, including under Obama. There was not a lot of press, because the press were happy to let it happen.
> 
> 
> Even if you cut welfare, the jobs of a FIrst World nation, will still attract plenty of illegal immigrants.
> 
> 
> And if California lets them in, they will spread to every state in the nation and this nation will become a Third World shit hole, as we are seeing happening,
Click to expand...


Here is the deal:

In order to win any fight, you must know your enemy.  In OCS, candidates are taught to know their enemy: their habits, talking points, everything.  A good attorney will be able to argue his opponent's own case for him better than his opposition.  Fighters study the opposition.  They study them inside out, every move and every nuance.  The same works in politics.  Good politicians know what the masses will respond to; where the weaknesses of the enemy are.

"_Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it_."

George Santayana professor in philosophy at Harvard

You don't know history and won't read it.  I lived it and have witnessed your kind go down many many times.  You guys have about as much a chance of winning this battle as I do of winning a multi-million dollar lottery.  You know *NOTHING* about your opposition nor how they conned the right into supporting strategies that end in predictable defeat.

I used to think if I could get you dumb shits to read, research, and find those who have been IN the fight, you may learn what you're doing wrong.  My problem with you is that the way you're fighting the battle puts MY God given Rights at stake.  It makes you more dangerous than the political enemy at the gate.  So call me names that your chicken shit ass would never say in a public setting.  Keep pecking your keyboard.  Don't bother to study history, your enemies, nor the way they use Hegelian Dialectics to *control* you.  Then, once you have lost, try to remember these days and what I said to you.

You have your head so far up Davd Duke's ass that he has to fart before you can get a breath of fresh air.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. When some asshole starts throwing around the racist or the white supremacist accusation based on nothing but shit, they are the ones being assholes, and I respond accordingly.
> 
> 
> 2. I do not want to make citizens out of them. That is just something you keep trying to assign to me, based on your odd game of 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon. My point stands. The massive immigration is handing this country over to the Third World, and your game of blaming me for it, is irrelevant to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You cannot change what *IS*.  Your position has its roots in National Socialist think tanks.  It is not bullshit my man, but cold hard facts.  And if you ever want to grow a set of balls and go with me, I can introduce you to them as I debated and discussed these issues with them, face to face, *decades* ago.  You persistently denying what is true makes you look like an idiot, so you resort to calling people names - names you don't call people in public... for if you did, we'd be reading about how someone fed you your teeth
> 
> 2)  The *ONLY* thing you crow about is this _"legal"_ angle.  You claim to have no problem if people come here _"legally_."  It's a bullshit argument since it does not exist in constitutional law (as the Constitution was originally written and intended.)
> 
> If you don't understand the immigration laws, get with me in PM and I can start educating you.  What you advocate ultimately ends in citizenship.  THAT, sir, where your _"legal_" bullshit argument ultimately ends up at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The idea of controlling borders is not a Nazi idea. I have never had some one call me a nazi or a racist in public the way that some are so comfortable doing here. It seems that the assholes that like to call other people such names, are the ones that behave differently face to face.
> 
> 
> 2. This thread is about illegal immigration, hence my discussion of illegal immigration. But I do not support legal Third World immigration either. Indeed, i believe that we have had too much of all forms of immigration over the last 50 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. When some asshole starts throwing around the racist or the white supremacist accusation based on nothing but shit, they are the ones being assholes, and I respond accordingly.
> 
> 
> 2. I do not want to make citizens out of them. That is just something you keep trying to assign to me, based on your odd game of 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon. My point stands. The massive immigration is handing this country over to the Third World, and your game of blaming me for it, is irrelevant to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You cannot change what *IS*.  Your position has its roots in National Socialist think tanks.  It is not bullshit my man, but cold hard facts.  And if you ever want to grow a set of balls and go with me, I can introduce you to them as I debated and discussed these issues with them, face to face, *decades* ago.  You persistently denying what is true makes you look like an idiot, so you resort to calling people names - names you don't call people in public... for if you did, we'd be reading about how someone fed you your teeth
> 
> 2)  The *ONLY* thing you crow about is this _"legal"_ angle.  You claim to have no problem if people come here _"legally_."  It's a bullshit argument since it does not exist in constitutional law (as the Constitution was originally written and intended.)
> 
> If you don't understand the immigration laws, get with me in PM and I can start educating you.  What you advocate ultimately ends in citizenship.  THAT, sir, where your _"legal_" bullshit argument ultimately ends up at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The idea of controlling borders is not a Nazi idea. I have never had some one call me a nazi or a racist in public the way that some are so comfortable doing here. It seems that the assholes that like to call other people such names, are the ones that behave differently face to face.
> 
> 
> 2. This thread is about illegal immigration, hence my discussion of illegal immigration. But I do not support legal Third World immigration either. Indeed, i believe that we have had too much of all forms of immigration over the last 50 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Son, let me assure you that I have marched in more marches, been in more fights, even participated in an armed stand-off at one point in defense of what I believe.  I've even manned that damn border.  You haven't.  When the Georgia Patriot Network used to meet in the Atlanta area not only did I finance the meetings, but I attended and at  each meeting, I offered the mic both before and after each meeting.  There is not a swinging dick on the face of this earth that I will not meet face to face.
> 
> So that you understand that, I have appeared on radio, tv and in newspapers.  I publicly debated Hosea Williams, face to face on his tv show.  He lost so decisively that they did not renew his show for another season.  Ike Newkirk, a former radio talk show host on WSB had me on his radio program.  He remarked that I was the first white guy willing to appear on his show, alone, and discuss racial issues from a conservative viewpoint.
> 
> IF I can get someone to help me get a podcast going, I will be doing that and setting up in public venues so that if / when people have an issue with me, I won't hide like a fucking rat.  I keep hinting that these matters are better served in PM.  That way if someone tells me to name the time and the place, no moderator will ban us for what goes on in PM.  Make no mistake, I have never backed down from a challenge and I've had the cream of the crop (even alphabet agencies) go for the jugular.
> 
> Defending the border against threats and using the military to do domestic law enforcement are worlds apart.  There is a law called the Posse Comitatus Act that *prohibits* the federal government from using federal military personnel in the enforcement of domestic policies within the United States.  What you've been proposing is exactly that.
> 
> You want the military to do a job it is expressly forbidden to do.  If you want a declaration of war, then lobby for one.  I will not stand idly by while you and your ilk suggest illegal ways to enforce your concepts of right and wrong on the states.  *MAYBE* if your dumb ass took a few weeks to study and research the links I leave for you, it might sink in.
> 
> Proof has been offered on this and many other threads that what you support is National Socialism.  It's not a false allegation.  It is *FACT*.   It is an absolute *FACT* that you cannot dispute.  When you advocate that the government control labor and distribution, that is the accepted definition of socialism.  The *FACT* that the people you get your talking points from are Nazis is *irrefutable*.  If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has webbed feet and hangs out at the pond, it's probably not an elephant.
> 
> What you want is to impose on states rights and take a giant shit on the Bill of Rights.  So far you've proven too ignorant to understand that, but you're the kind of guy that could be talked into selling Drano to brush teeth with.  Yeah, it will get your teeth lily white, but at a cost of poisoning your brain.  Now, if you had an IQ above your shoe size, you would take heed and access the following links and spend the day reading them before you continue that line of thought.  I do have the ability to PM in addition to that:
> 
> Scott v. Sandford
> 
> http://understandcontractlawandyouwin.com/state-citizenship-federal-citizenship/
> 
> State Citizenship Has Roots in American History - NYTimes.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of talk to hide the fact that you are pretending that securing a border is a nazi idea.
> 
> 
> It is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your spin fools nobody except those lacking basic reading skills.  You dumb asses have had the advantage of having the cameras on you 24 / 7 for over 15 years now.  The politicians haven't built a wall, but *YOUR NAME IS ON THEIR WORK:*
> 
> The creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN Security)  - sounds a lot like Russia's Motherland Security or Nazi Germany's Fatherland Security
> .....
Click to expand...



1. Created after 9-11, not by "wallists" but by the nation as a whole. Putting that on "Wallists" is simply dishonest.


2. It might sound like something Russian, or German, but it is not.  It is completely to be expected that security would go UP after a mass murder like 9-11.


The rest of your list, was just as flawed.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is sophistic nonsense that if taken seriously, completely shit cans not only the very concern of nations, but the right of self determination of all people.
> 
> 
> AMERICANS have the right to decide who to invite to join our community and become part of us.
> 
> 
> This is not a denial of the rights of foreign citizens, because their right to self determination is as part of another equally sovereign group, (mostly Mexico.)
> 
> 
> We, Americans have no inherent right to go join the Mexican nation, and they have no inherent right to come join ours.
> 
> 
> This is a very simply concept.  NOrmally at this point, liberals pretend to not understand it and play stupid games.
> 
> 
> I expect better from you on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this point I expect better from *YOU* on this point.  How many times have we been over this now?  Your lying bullshit has been debunked at least six times on this board.
> 
> Each state has the right to decide who they want within their borders.  The word citizenship isn't in the Constitution.  Up to 1875 the *states* controlled their own immigration.   An illegal process took place (and I documented it for you) that infringed on states rights.  What did you get in return?  Ultimately affirmative action, racial quotas, preferential hiring schemes, reverse discrimination.
> 
> After having been exposed to the facts more than half a dozen times, you still don't know shit about the law, your nation's history, nor how you are complicit in turning this country into a socialist shithole.
> 
> Scott v. Sandford
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If Mexifornia can invite in as many Mexicans as it wants, ie all of them, and then let them flood the rest of the country,
> 
> 
> then this nation is over, and all your pretense of wanting to protect the Constitution, or Americans, is down the toilet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had you bothered to read the links I've left for you, it would be plain to see that if you gave the states their rights back, it means more responsibility on the state.
> 
> When Trump offered Nancy Pelosi to take all the undocumented foreigners into California, she had a hissy fit.  There is no way she wants them sleeping in the streets in front of her lawn.  She instantly became a NIMBY.
> 
> If the states had their rights and did not make it easy on the undocumented to come there; if individual employers had the right hire whomever they wanted; if there were no free taxpayer paid educations and the feds involved in welfare, there would be *NO* incentive for foreigners to come to the United States.  Without federal funds, the liberal states would suddenly become fiscal conservatives overnight.
> 
> I want to tell you a little secret and this stays between you and I:
> 
> All those people flooding the border are part of a big deception.  Had they* REALLY* wanted to come here, they'd have done so under the community organizer's administration.  They would not have faced resistance then.  You're being played - and played by a man that was involved with Vince McMahon in an organization called World Wrestling Entertainment.  You're being duped and so far you've been to stupid to ask yourself WHY and to access the many links left for you to find the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The illegals have been flowing in here, for decades, including under Obama. There was not a lot of press, because the press were happy to let it happen.
> 
> 
> Even if you cut welfare, the jobs of a FIrst World nation, will still attract plenty of illegal immigrants.
> 
> 
> And if California lets them in, they will spread to every state in the nation and this nation will become a Third World shit hole, as we are seeing happening,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the deal:
> 
> In order to win any fight, you must know your enemy.  In OCS, candidates are taught to know their enemy: their habits, talking points, everything.  A good attorney will be able to argue his opponent's own case for him better than his opposition.  Fighters study the opposition.  They study them inside out, every move and every nuance.  The same works in politics.  Good politicians know what the masses will respond to; where the weaknesses of the enemy are.
> 
> "_Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it_."
> 
> George Santayana professor in philosophy at Harvard
> 
> You don't know history and won't read it.  I lived it and have witnessed your kind go down many many times.  You guys have about as much a chance of winning this battle as I do of winning a multi-million dollar lottery.  You know *NOTHING* about your opposition nor how they conned the right into supporting strategies that end in predictable defeat.
> 
> I used to think if I could get you dumb shits to read, research, and find those who have been IN the fight, you may learn what you're doing wrong.  My problem with you is that the way you're fighting the battle puts MY God given Rights at stake.  It makes you more dangerous than the political enemy at the gate.  So call me names that your chicken shit ass would never say in a public setting.  Keep pecking your keyboard.  Don't bother to study history, your enemies, nor the way they use Hegelian Dialectics to *control* you.  Then, once you have lost, try to remember these days and what I said to you.
> 
> You have your head so far up Davd Duke's ass that he has to fart before you can get a breath of fresh air.
Click to expand...



So, what part of all of that, explains what about my point you disagree with, ie, that large number of illegals, left in by Mexifornia, would spread though out the nation as a whole, turning this nation into a Third World shit hole as we see.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You cannot change what *IS*.  Your position has its roots in National Socialist think tanks.  It is not bullshit my man, but cold hard facts.  And if you ever want to grow a set of balls and go with me, I can introduce you to them as I debated and discussed these issues with them, face to face, *decades* ago.  You persistently denying what is true makes you look like an idiot, so you resort to calling people names - names you don't call people in public... for if you did, we'd be reading about how someone fed you your teeth
> 
> 2)  The *ONLY* thing you crow about is this _"legal"_ angle.  You claim to have no problem if people come here _"legally_."  It's a bullshit argument since it does not exist in constitutional law (as the Constitution was originally written and intended.)
> 
> If you don't understand the immigration laws, get with me in PM and I can start educating you.  What you advocate ultimately ends in citizenship.  THAT, sir, where your _"legal_" bullshit argument ultimately ends up at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The idea of controlling borders is not a Nazi idea. I have never had some one call me a nazi or a racist in public the way that some are so comfortable doing here. It seems that the assholes that like to call other people such names, are the ones that behave differently face to face.
> 
> 
> 2. This thread is about illegal immigration, hence my discussion of illegal immigration. But I do not support legal Third World immigration either. Indeed, i believe that we have had too much of all forms of immigration over the last 50 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You cannot change what *IS*.  Your position has its roots in National Socialist think tanks.  It is not bullshit my man, but cold hard facts.  And if you ever want to grow a set of balls and go with me, I can introduce you to them as I debated and discussed these issues with them, face to face, *decades* ago.  You persistently denying what is true makes you look like an idiot, so you resort to calling people names - names you don't call people in public... for if you did, we'd be reading about how someone fed you your teeth
> 
> 2)  The *ONLY* thing you crow about is this _"legal"_ angle.  You claim to have no problem if people come here _"legally_."  It's a bullshit argument since it does not exist in constitutional law (as the Constitution was originally written and intended.)
> 
> If you don't understand the immigration laws, get with me in PM and I can start educating you.  What you advocate ultimately ends in citizenship.  THAT, sir, where your _"legal_" bullshit argument ultimately ends up at.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The idea of controlling borders is not a Nazi idea. I have never had some one call me a nazi or a racist in public the way that some are so comfortable doing here. It seems that the assholes that like to call other people such names, are the ones that behave differently face to face.
> 
> 
> 2. This thread is about illegal immigration, hence my discussion of illegal immigration. But I do not support legal Third World immigration either. Indeed, i believe that we have had too much of all forms of immigration over the last 50 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Son, let me assure you that I have marched in more marches, been in more fights, even participated in an armed stand-off at one point in defense of what I believe.  I've even manned that damn border.  You haven't.  When the Georgia Patriot Network used to meet in the Atlanta area not only did I finance the meetings, but I attended and at  each meeting, I offered the mic both before and after each meeting.  There is not a swinging dick on the face of this earth that I will not meet face to face.
> 
> So that you understand that, I have appeared on radio, tv and in newspapers.  I publicly debated Hosea Williams, face to face on his tv show.  He lost so decisively that they did not renew his show for another season.  Ike Newkirk, a former radio talk show host on WSB had me on his radio program.  He remarked that I was the first white guy willing to appear on his show, alone, and discuss racial issues from a conservative viewpoint.
> 
> IF I can get someone to help me get a podcast going, I will be doing that and setting up in public venues so that if / when people have an issue with me, I won't hide like a fucking rat.  I keep hinting that these matters are better served in PM.  That way if someone tells me to name the time and the place, no moderator will ban us for what goes on in PM.  Make no mistake, I have never backed down from a challenge and I've had the cream of the crop (even alphabet agencies) go for the jugular.
> 
> Defending the border against threats and using the military to do domestic law enforcement are worlds apart.  There is a law called the Posse Comitatus Act that *prohibits* the federal government from using federal military personnel in the enforcement of domestic policies within the United States.  What you've been proposing is exactly that.
> 
> You want the military to do a job it is expressly forbidden to do.  If you want a declaration of war, then lobby for one.  I will not stand idly by while you and your ilk suggest illegal ways to enforce your concepts of right and wrong on the states.  *MAYBE* if your dumb ass took a few weeks to study and research the links I leave for you, it might sink in.
> 
> Proof has been offered on this and many other threads that what you support is National Socialism.  It's not a false allegation.  It is *FACT*.   It is an absolute *FACT* that you cannot dispute.  When you advocate that the government control labor and distribution, that is the accepted definition of socialism.  The *FACT* that the people you get your talking points from are Nazis is *irrefutable*.  If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has webbed feet and hangs out at the pond, it's probably not an elephant.
> 
> What you want is to impose on states rights and take a giant shit on the Bill of Rights.  So far you've proven too ignorant to understand that, but you're the kind of guy that could be talked into selling Drano to brush teeth with.  Yeah, it will get your teeth lily white, but at a cost of poisoning your brain.  Now, if you had an IQ above your shoe size, you would take heed and access the following links and spend the day reading them before you continue that line of thought.  I do have the ability to PM in addition to that:
> 
> Scott v. Sandford
> 
> http://understandcontractlawandyouwin.com/state-citizenship-federal-citizenship/
> 
> State Citizenship Has Roots in American History - NYTimes.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of talk to hide the fact that you are pretending that securing a border is a nazi idea.
> 
> 
> It is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your spin fools nobody except those lacking basic reading skills.  You dumb asses have had the advantage of having the cameras on you 24 / 7 for over 15 years now.  The politicians haven't built a wall, but *YOUR NAME IS ON THEIR WORK:*
> 
> The creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN Security)  - sounds a lot like Russia's Motherland Security or Nazi Germany's Fatherland Security
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Created after 9-11, not by "wallists" but by the nation as a whole. Putting that on "Wallists" is simply dishonest.
> 
> 
> 2. It might sound like something Russian, or German, but it is not.  It is completely to be expected that security would go UP after a mass murder like 9-11.
> 
> 
> 
> The rest of your list, was just as flawed.
Click to expand...


*EVERYTHING* I listed was* proposed by politicians who sought the wallists vote and / or were Tea Party Republicans.*  You and I know it's true and we've explored it before.  Now, you're wanting to rehash old history just to get your ass whipped again.  You didn't access the links the last time and you won't today.

9 / 11 provided the catalyst for a long range program that had been in place for many years.  The NEW WORLD ORDER types kept failing until 9 / 11 and then all of a sudden the legislation poured out like a thunderstorm.  All of it had been written, just waiting on the opportunity to come along.

The last time I documented every sentence, crossed every T and dotted every I, you tapped out and now we're wasting our time rehashing shit you don't read and don't know shit about.  Anyone dumb enough to follow you is going to Hell or jail.  One thread went - around 4000 or so posts.  I could repost it all here.  You'd just take a beating for nothing.  Being a racist is the least of your worries.

The strategies you hide behind have cost a lot of people their lives or gotten them put into prisons..  Yet you never have to worry; you're a nameless disinformation artist that never put his ass on the line.  So, anyone who relies on you should consider the source.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> At this point I expect better from *YOU* on this point.  How many times have we been over this now?  Your lying bullshit has been debunked at least six times on this board.
> 
> Each state has the right to decide who they want within their borders.  The word citizenship isn't in the Constitution.  Up to 1875 the *states* controlled their own immigration.   An illegal process took place (and I documented it for you) that infringed on states rights.  What did you get in return?  Ultimately affirmative action, racial quotas, preferential hiring schemes, reverse discrimination.
> 
> After having been exposed to the facts more than half a dozen times, you still don't know shit about the law, your nation's history, nor how you are complicit in turning this country into a socialist shithole.
> 
> Scott v. Sandford
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Mexifornia can invite in as many Mexicans as it wants, ie all of them, and then let them flood the rest of the country,
> 
> 
> then this nation is over, and all your pretense of wanting to protect the Constitution, or Americans, is down the toilet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had you bothered to read the links I've left for you, it would be plain to see that if you gave the states their rights back, it means more responsibility on the state.
> 
> When Trump offered Nancy Pelosi to take all the undocumented foreigners into California, she had a hissy fit.  There is no way she wants them sleeping in the streets in front of her lawn.  She instantly became a NIMBY.
> 
> If the states had their rights and did not make it easy on the undocumented to come there; if individual employers had the right hire whomever they wanted; if there were no free taxpayer paid educations and the feds involved in welfare, there would be *NO* incentive for foreigners to come to the United States.  Without federal funds, the liberal states would suddenly become fiscal conservatives overnight.
> 
> I want to tell you a little secret and this stays between you and I:
> 
> All those people flooding the border are part of a big deception.  Had they* REALLY* wanted to come here, they'd have done so under the community organizer's administration.  They would not have faced resistance then.  You're being played - and played by a man that was involved with Vince McMahon in an organization called World Wrestling Entertainment.  You're being duped and so far you've been to stupid to ask yourself WHY and to access the many links left for you to find the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The illegals have been flowing in here, for decades, including under Obama. There was not a lot of press, because the press were happy to let it happen.
> 
> 
> Even if you cut welfare, the jobs of a FIrst World nation, will still attract plenty of illegal immigrants.
> 
> 
> And if California lets them in, they will spread to every state in the nation and this nation will become a Third World shit hole, as we are seeing happening,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the deal:
> 
> In order to win any fight, you must know your enemy.  In OCS, candidates are taught to know their enemy: their habits, talking points, everything.  A good attorney will be able to argue his opponent's own case for him better than his opposition.  Fighters study the opposition.  They study them inside out, every move and every nuance.  The same works in politics.  Good politicians know what the masses will respond to; where the weaknesses of the enemy are.
> 
> "_Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it_."
> 
> George Santayana professor in philosophy at Harvard
> 
> You don't know history and won't read it.  I lived it and have witnessed your kind go down many many times.  You guys have about as much a chance of winning this battle as I do of winning a multi-million dollar lottery.  You know *NOTHING* about your opposition nor how they conned the right into supporting strategies that end in predictable defeat.
> 
> I used to think if I could get you dumb shits to read, research, and find those who have been IN the fight, you may learn what you're doing wrong.  My problem with you is that the way you're fighting the battle puts MY God given Rights at stake.  It makes you more dangerous than the political enemy at the gate.  So call me names that your chicken shit ass would never say in a public setting.  Keep pecking your keyboard.  Don't bother to study history, your enemies, nor the way they use Hegelian Dialectics to *control* you.  Then, once you have lost, try to remember these days and what I said to you.
> 
> You have your head so far up Davd Duke's ass that he has to fart before you can get a breath of fresh air.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, what part of all of that, explains what about my point you disagree with, ie, that large number of illegals, left in by Mexifornia, would spread though out the nation as a whole, turning this nation into a Third World shit hole as we see.
Click to expand...


History has served to refute your position on the whole.  The masses are content to let California do their thing AND neighboring states elected governors say *NO State of Emergency exists*.  If you live in an affected state, take it up with your governor.  

IF you want a solution, it won't come as a tweet; it won't fit on a bumper sticker and you won't understand it without a basic knowledge of history, American jurisprudence, constitutional law, demographics,  and immigration law (both the statutes and the intent of those proposing the laws.)  It's ironic that the talking points you come up with have been National Socialist talking points for many decades; that they still run the think tanks that produce today's rhetoric and that you lobby for immigration laws forced into place by people like Ted Kennedy whose real goal was to destroy the whites.  After thousands of posts, you've failed to be able to connect the dots.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The idea of controlling borders is not a Nazi idea. I have never had some one call me a nazi or a racist in public the way that some are so comfortable doing here. It seems that the assholes that like to call other people such names, are the ones that behave differently face to face.
> 
> 
> 2. This thread is about illegal immigration, hence my discussion of illegal immigration. But I do not support legal Third World immigration either. Indeed, i believe that we have had too much of all forms of immigration over the last 50 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The idea of controlling borders is not a Nazi idea. I have never had some one call me a nazi or a racist in public the way that some are so comfortable doing here. It seems that the assholes that like to call other people such names, are the ones that behave differently face to face.
> 
> 
> 2. This thread is about illegal immigration, hence my discussion of illegal immigration. But I do not support legal Third World immigration either. Indeed, i believe that we have had too much of all forms of immigration over the last 50 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Son, let me assure you that I have marched in more marches, been in more fights, even participated in an armed stand-off at one point in defense of what I believe.  I've even manned that damn border.  You haven't.  When the Georgia Patriot Network used to meet in the Atlanta area not only did I finance the meetings, but I attended and at  each meeting, I offered the mic both before and after each meeting.  There is not a swinging dick on the face of this earth that I will not meet face to face.
> 
> So that you understand that, I have appeared on radio, tv and in newspapers.  I publicly debated Hosea Williams, face to face on his tv show.  He lost so decisively that they did not renew his show for another season.  Ike Newkirk, a former radio talk show host on WSB had me on his radio program.  He remarked that I was the first white guy willing to appear on his show, alone, and discuss racial issues from a conservative viewpoint.
> 
> IF I can get someone to help me get a podcast going, I will be doing that and setting up in public venues so that if / when people have an issue with me, I won't hide like a fucking rat.  I keep hinting that these matters are better served in PM.  That way if someone tells me to name the time and the place, no moderator will ban us for what goes on in PM.  Make no mistake, I have never backed down from a challenge and I've had the cream of the crop (even alphabet agencies) go for the jugular.
> 
> Defending the border against threats and using the military to do domestic law enforcement are worlds apart.  There is a law called the Posse Comitatus Act that *prohibits* the federal government from using federal military personnel in the enforcement of domestic policies within the United States.  What you've been proposing is exactly that.
> 
> You want the military to do a job it is expressly forbidden to do.  If you want a declaration of war, then lobby for one.  I will not stand idly by while you and your ilk suggest illegal ways to enforce your concepts of right and wrong on the states.  *MAYBE* if your dumb ass took a few weeks to study and research the links I leave for you, it might sink in.
> 
> Proof has been offered on this and many other threads that what you support is National Socialism.  It's not a false allegation.  It is *FACT*.   It is an absolute *FACT* that you cannot dispute.  When you advocate that the government control labor and distribution, that is the accepted definition of socialism.  The *FACT* that the people you get your talking points from are Nazis is *irrefutable*.  If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has webbed feet and hangs out at the pond, it's probably not an elephant.
> 
> What you want is to impose on states rights and take a giant shit on the Bill of Rights.  So far you've proven too ignorant to understand that, but you're the kind of guy that could be talked into selling Drano to brush teeth with.  Yeah, it will get your teeth lily white, but at a cost of poisoning your brain.  Now, if you had an IQ above your shoe size, you would take heed and access the following links and spend the day reading them before you continue that line of thought.  I do have the ability to PM in addition to that:
> 
> Scott v. Sandford
> 
> http://understandcontractlawandyouwin.com/state-citizenship-federal-citizenship/
> 
> State Citizenship Has Roots in American History - NYTimes.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of talk to hide the fact that you are pretending that securing a border is a nazi idea.
> 
> 
> It is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your spin fools nobody except those lacking basic reading skills.  You dumb asses have had the advantage of having the cameras on you 24 / 7 for over 15 years now.  The politicians haven't built a wall, but *YOUR NAME IS ON THEIR WORK:*
> 
> The creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN Security)  - sounds a lot like Russia's Motherland Security or Nazi Germany's Fatherland Security
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Created after 9-11, not by "wallists" but by the nation as a whole. Putting that on "Wallists" is simply dishonest.
> 
> 
> 2. It might sound like something Russian, or German, but it is not.  It is completely to be expected that security would go UP after a mass murder like 9-11.
> 
> 
> 
> The rest of your list, was just as flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *EVERYTHING* I listed was* proposed by politicians who sought the wallists vote and / or were Tea Party Republicans.*  You and I know it's true and we've explored it before.  Now, you're wanting to rehash old history just to get your ass whipped again.  You didn't access the links the last time and you won't today.
> 
> 9 / 11 provided the catalyst for a long range program that had been in place for many years.  The NEW WORLD ORDER types kept failing until 9 / 11 and then all of a sudden the legislation poured out like a thunderstorm.  All of it had been written, just waiting on the opportunity to come along.
> 
> The last time I documented every sentence, crossed every T and dotted every I, you tapped out and now we're wasting our time rehashing shit you don't read and don't know shit about.  Anyone dumb enough to follow you is going to Hell or jail.  One thread went - around 4000 or so posts.  I could repost it all here.  You'd just take a beating for nothing.  Being a racist is the least of your worries.
> 
> The strategies you hide behind have cost a lot of people their lives or gotten them put into prisons..  Yet you never have to worry; you're a nameless disinformation artist that never put his ass on the line.  So, anyone who relies on you should consider the source.
Click to expand...



To pretend that those who wanted the various changes after 9-11, or as you put it, the "New World Order" types,  


are the same group as the "wallists" and/or the Tea Party Republicans, 




is a good example of the fundamental flaw in your thinking.



You see some vague connection between two groups, such as a  tiny overlap, or some such bullshit, and then you from that point, just lump them together in your mind as a single entity.


It makes no sense, and it makes everything that you build on that, equally senseless.


The Tea Party as was a grass roots anti tax movement. 

Lots of people support Border Security. 


I'm sure that there is plenty of overlap between those two groups, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who want low taxes who do not want a Wall.


It would be senseless to accuse someone who was part of the Tea Party of being a Wall supporter, based on the overlap. 


And the "New World Order"? That is another, very different and very different THIRD group. Telling the Tea Party-er that he is a member of the New World Order, would be delusional.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Mexifornia can invite in as many Mexicans as it wants, ie all of them, and then let them flood the rest of the country,
> 
> 
> then this nation is over, and all your pretense of wanting to protect the Constitution, or Americans, is down the toilet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had you bothered to read the links I've left for you, it would be plain to see that if you gave the states their rights back, it means more responsibility on the state.
> 
> When Trump offered Nancy Pelosi to take all the undocumented foreigners into California, she had a hissy fit.  There is no way she wants them sleeping in the streets in front of her lawn.  She instantly became a NIMBY.
> 
> If the states had their rights and did not make it easy on the undocumented to come there; if individual employers had the right hire whomever they wanted; if there were no free taxpayer paid educations and the feds involved in welfare, there would be *NO* incentive for foreigners to come to the United States.  Without federal funds, the liberal states would suddenly become fiscal conservatives overnight.
> 
> I want to tell you a little secret and this stays between you and I:
> 
> All those people flooding the border are part of a big deception.  Had they* REALLY* wanted to come here, they'd have done so under the community organizer's administration.  They would not have faced resistance then.  You're being played - and played by a man that was involved with Vince McMahon in an organization called World Wrestling Entertainment.  You're being duped and so far you've been to stupid to ask yourself WHY and to access the many links left for you to find the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The illegals have been flowing in here, for decades, including under Obama. There was not a lot of press, because the press were happy to let it happen.
> 
> 
> Even if you cut welfare, the jobs of a FIrst World nation, will still attract plenty of illegal immigrants.
> 
> 
> And if California lets them in, they will spread to every state in the nation and this nation will become a Third World shit hole, as we are seeing happening,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the deal:
> 
> In order to win any fight, you must know your enemy.  In OCS, candidates are taught to know their enemy: their habits, talking points, everything.  A good attorney will be able to argue his opponent's own case for him better than his opposition.  Fighters study the opposition.  They study them inside out, every move and every nuance.  The same works in politics.  Good politicians know what the masses will respond to; where the weaknesses of the enemy are.
> 
> "_Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it_."
> 
> George Santayana professor in philosophy at Harvard
> 
> You don't know history and won't read it.  I lived it and have witnessed your kind go down many many times.  You guys have about as much a chance of winning this battle as I do of winning a multi-million dollar lottery.  You know *NOTHING* about your opposition nor how they conned the right into supporting strategies that end in predictable defeat.
> 
> I used to think if I could get you dumb shits to read, research, and find those who have been IN the fight, you may learn what you're doing wrong.  My problem with you is that the way you're fighting the battle puts MY God given Rights at stake.  It makes you more dangerous than the political enemy at the gate.  So call me names that your chicken shit ass would never say in a public setting.  Keep pecking your keyboard.  Don't bother to study history, your enemies, nor the way they use Hegelian Dialectics to *control* you.  Then, once you have lost, try to remember these days and what I said to you.
> 
> You have your head so far up Davd Duke's ass that he has to fart before you can get a breath of fresh air.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, what part of all of that, explains what about my point you disagree with, ie, that large number of illegals, left in by Mexifornia, would spread though out the nation as a whole, turning this nation into a Third World shit hole as we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History has served to refute your position on the whole.  The masses are content to let California do their thing AND neighboring states elected governors say *NO State of Emergency exists*.  If you live in an affected state, take it up with your governor.
> ......
Click to expand...



The rapid demographic shift, being caused by Third World Immigration is causing huge social and political changes, for the worse, and are tearing this nation apart. 

That some politicians say it is not happening, is not proof that it is not happening.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Had you bothered to read the links I've left for you, it would be plain to see that if you gave the states their rights back, it means more responsibility on the state.
> 
> When Trump offered Nancy Pelosi to take all the undocumented foreigners into California, she had a hissy fit.  There is no way she wants them sleeping in the streets in front of her lawn.  She instantly became a NIMBY.
> 
> If the states had their rights and did not make it easy on the undocumented to come there; if individual employers had the right hire whomever they wanted; if there were no free taxpayer paid educations and the feds involved in welfare, there would be *NO* incentive for foreigners to come to the United States.  Without federal funds, the liberal states would suddenly become fiscal conservatives overnight.
> 
> I want to tell you a little secret and this stays between you and I:
> 
> All those people flooding the border are part of a big deception.  Had they* REALLY* wanted to come here, they'd have done so under the community organizer's administration.  They would not have faced resistance then.  You're being played - and played by a man that was involved with Vince McMahon in an organization called World Wrestling Entertainment.  You're being duped and so far you've been to stupid to ask yourself WHY and to access the many links left for you to find the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The illegals have been flowing in here, for decades, including under Obama. There was not a lot of press, because the press were happy to let it happen.
> 
> 
> Even if you cut welfare, the jobs of a FIrst World nation, will still attract plenty of illegal immigrants.
> 
> 
> And if California lets them in, they will spread to every state in the nation and this nation will become a Third World shit hole, as we are seeing happening,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the deal:
> 
> In order to win any fight, you must know your enemy.  In OCS, candidates are taught to know their enemy: their habits, talking points, everything.  A good attorney will be able to argue his opponent's own case for him better than his opposition.  Fighters study the opposition.  They study them inside out, every move and every nuance.  The same works in politics.  Good politicians know what the masses will respond to; where the weaknesses of the enemy are.
> 
> "_Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it_."
> 
> George Santayana professor in philosophy at Harvard
> 
> You don't know history and won't read it.  I lived it and have witnessed your kind go down many many times.  You guys have about as much a chance of winning this battle as I do of winning a multi-million dollar lottery.  You know *NOTHING* about your opposition nor how they conned the right into supporting strategies that end in predictable defeat.
> 
> I used to think if I could get you dumb shits to read, research, and find those who have been IN the fight, you may learn what you're doing wrong.  My problem with you is that the way you're fighting the battle puts MY God given Rights at stake.  It makes you more dangerous than the political enemy at the gate.  So call me names that your chicken shit ass would never say in a public setting.  Keep pecking your keyboard.  Don't bother to study history, your enemies, nor the way they use Hegelian Dialectics to *control* you.  Then, once you have lost, try to remember these days and what I said to you.
> 
> You have your head so far up Davd Duke's ass that he has to fart before you can get a breath of fresh air.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, what part of all of that, explains what about my point you disagree with, ie, that large number of illegals, left in by Mexifornia, would spread though out the nation as a whole, turning this nation into a Third World shit hole as we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History has served to refute your position on the whole.  The masses are content to let California do their thing AND neighboring states elected governors say *NO State of Emergency exists*.  If you live in an affected state, take it up with your governor.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The rapid demographic shift, being caused by Third World Immigration is causing huge social and political changes, for the worse, and are tearing this nation apart.
> 
> That some politicians say it is not happening, is not proof that it is not happening.
Click to expand...

only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Son, let me assure you that I have marched in more marches, been in more fights, even participated in an armed stand-off at one point in defense of what I believe.  I've even manned that damn border.  You haven't.  When the Georgia Patriot Network used to meet in the Atlanta area not only did I finance the meetings, but I attended and at  each meeting, I offered the mic both before and after each meeting.  There is not a swinging dick on the face of this earth that I will not meet face to face.
> 
> So that you understand that, I have appeared on radio, tv and in newspapers.  I publicly debated Hosea Williams, face to face on his tv show.  He lost so decisively that they did not renew his show for another season.  Ike Newkirk, a former radio talk show host on WSB had me on his radio program.  He remarked that I was the first white guy willing to appear on his show, alone, and discuss racial issues from a conservative viewpoint.
> 
> IF I can get someone to help me get a podcast going, I will be doing that and setting up in public venues so that if / when people have an issue with me, I won't hide like a fucking rat.  I keep hinting that these matters are better served in PM.  That way if someone tells me to name the time and the place, no moderator will ban us for what goes on in PM.  Make no mistake, I have never backed down from a challenge and I've had the cream of the crop (even alphabet agencies) go for the jugular.
> 
> Defending the border against threats and using the military to do domestic law enforcement are worlds apart.  There is a law called the Posse Comitatus Act that *prohibits* the federal government from using federal military personnel in the enforcement of domestic policies within the United States.  What you've been proposing is exactly that.
> 
> You want the military to do a job it is expressly forbidden to do.  If you want a declaration of war, then lobby for one.  I will not stand idly by while you and your ilk suggest illegal ways to enforce your concepts of right and wrong on the states.  *MAYBE* if your dumb ass took a few weeks to study and research the links I leave for you, it might sink in.
> 
> Proof has been offered on this and many other threads that what you support is National Socialism.  It's not a false allegation.  It is *FACT*.   It is an absolute *FACT* that you cannot dispute.  When you advocate that the government control labor and distribution, that is the accepted definition of socialism.  The *FACT* that the people you get your talking points from are Nazis is *irrefutable*.  If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has webbed feet and hangs out at the pond, it's probably not an elephant.
> 
> What you want is to impose on states rights and take a giant shit on the Bill of Rights.  So far you've proven too ignorant to understand that, but you're the kind of guy that could be talked into selling Drano to brush teeth with.  Yeah, it will get your teeth lily white, but at a cost of poisoning your brain.  Now, if you had an IQ above your shoe size, you would take heed and access the following links and spend the day reading them before you continue that line of thought.  I do have the ability to PM in addition to that:
> 
> Scott v. Sandford
> 
> http://understandcontractlawandyouwin.com/state-citizenship-federal-citizenship/
> 
> State Citizenship Has Roots in American History - NYTimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of talk to hide the fact that you are pretending that securing a border is a nazi idea.
> 
> 
> It is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your spin fools nobody except those lacking basic reading skills.  You dumb asses have had the advantage of having the cameras on you 24 / 7 for over 15 years now.  The politicians haven't built a wall, but *YOUR NAME IS ON THEIR WORK:*
> 
> The creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN Security)  - sounds a lot like Russia's Motherland Security or Nazi Germany's Fatherland Security
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Created after 9-11, not by "wallists" but by the nation as a whole. Putting that on "Wallists" is simply dishonest.
> 
> 
> 2. It might sound like something Russian, or German, but it is not.  It is completely to be expected that security would go UP after a mass murder like 9-11.
> 
> 
> 
> The rest of your list, was just as flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *EVERYTHING* I listed was* proposed by politicians who sought the wallists vote and / or were Tea Party Republicans.*  You and I know it's true and we've explored it before.  Now, you're wanting to rehash old history just to get your ass whipped again.  You didn't access the links the last time and you won't today.
> 
> 9 / 11 provided the catalyst for a long range program that had been in place for many years.  The NEW WORLD ORDER types kept failing until 9 / 11 and then all of a sudden the legislation poured out like a thunderstorm.  All of it had been written, just waiting on the opportunity to come along.
> 
> The last time I documented every sentence, crossed every T and dotted every I, you tapped out and now we're wasting our time rehashing shit you don't read and don't know shit about.  Anyone dumb enough to follow you is going to Hell or jail.  One thread went - around 4000 or so posts.  I could repost it all here.  You'd just take a beating for nothing.  Being a racist is the least of your worries.
> 
> The strategies you hide behind have cost a lot of people their lives or gotten them put into prisons..  Yet you never have to worry; you're a nameless disinformation artist that never put his ass on the line.  So, anyone who relies on you should consider the source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To pretend that those who wanted the various changes after 9-11, or as you put it, the "New World Order" types,
> 
> 
> are the same group as the "wallists" and/or the Tea Party Republicans,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is a good example of the fundamental flaw in your thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> You see some vague connection between two groups, such as a  tiny overlap, or some such bullshit, and then you from that point, just lump them together in your mind as a single entity.
> 
> 
> It makes no sense, and it makes everything that you build on that, equally senseless.
> 
> 
> The Tea Party as was a grass roots anti tax movement.
> 
> Lots of people support Border Security.
> 
> 
> I'm sure that there is plenty of overlap between those two groups, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who want low taxes who do not want a Wall.
> 
> 
> It would be senseless to accuse someone who was part of the Tea Party of being a Wall supporter, based on the overlap.
> 
> 
> And the "New World Order"? That is another, very different and very different THIRD group. Telling the Tea Party-er that he is a member of the New World Order, would be delusional.
Click to expand...


Your continued dishonesty and stupidity is almost embarrassing.  The Tea Party Republicans and wallists are one and the same.  You have never gotten away from your computer for five minutes.  I know the principal players face to face. 

I once saw a sign at a Tea Party rally.  I just Googled it to see if it had ever made the headlines.  It had.  The sign read:

_“The brownest thing on this block is this sign_.”

The more things change, the more they stay the same

I asked the leaders why they weren't beating the Hell out of that guy.  They just shrugged.  They, like you, know that nobody is going to care.  But, for you to deny the connection when you have someone who goes to meetings and rallies telling the posters the verifiable truth is way beyond reality. 

Nothing you say has any credibility.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Had you bothered to read the links I've left for you, it would be plain to see that if you gave the states their rights back, it means more responsibility on the state.
> 
> When Trump offered Nancy Pelosi to take all the undocumented foreigners into California, she had a hissy fit.  There is no way she wants them sleeping in the streets in front of her lawn.  She instantly became a NIMBY.
> 
> If the states had their rights and did not make it easy on the undocumented to come there; if individual employers had the right hire whomever they wanted; if there were no free taxpayer paid educations and the feds involved in welfare, there would be *NO* incentive for foreigners to come to the United States.  Without federal funds, the liberal states would suddenly become fiscal conservatives overnight.
> 
> I want to tell you a little secret and this stays between you and I:
> 
> All those people flooding the border are part of a big deception.  Had they* REALLY* wanted to come here, they'd have done so under the community organizer's administration.  They would not have faced resistance then.  You're being played - and played by a man that was involved with Vince McMahon in an organization called World Wrestling Entertainment.  You're being duped and so far you've been to stupid to ask yourself WHY and to access the many links left for you to find the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The illegals have been flowing in here, for decades, including under Obama. There was not a lot of press, because the press were happy to let it happen.
> 
> 
> Even if you cut welfare, the jobs of a FIrst World nation, will still attract plenty of illegal immigrants.
> 
> 
> And if California lets them in, they will spread to every state in the nation and this nation will become a Third World shit hole, as we are seeing happening,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the deal:
> 
> In order to win any fight, you must know your enemy.  In OCS, candidates are taught to know their enemy: their habits, talking points, everything.  A good attorney will be able to argue his opponent's own case for him better than his opposition.  Fighters study the opposition.  They study them inside out, every move and every nuance.  The same works in politics.  Good politicians know what the masses will respond to; where the weaknesses of the enemy are.
> 
> "_Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it_."
> 
> George Santayana professor in philosophy at Harvard
> 
> You don't know history and won't read it.  I lived it and have witnessed your kind go down many many times.  You guys have about as much a chance of winning this battle as I do of winning a multi-million dollar lottery.  You know *NOTHING* about your opposition nor how they conned the right into supporting strategies that end in predictable defeat.
> 
> I used to think if I could get you dumb shits to read, research, and find those who have been IN the fight, you may learn what you're doing wrong.  My problem with you is that the way you're fighting the battle puts MY God given Rights at stake.  It makes you more dangerous than the political enemy at the gate.  So call me names that your chicken shit ass would never say in a public setting.  Keep pecking your keyboard.  Don't bother to study history, your enemies, nor the way they use Hegelian Dialectics to *control* you.  Then, once you have lost, try to remember these days and what I said to you.
> 
> You have your head so far up Davd Duke's ass that he has to fart before you can get a breath of fresh air.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, what part of all of that, explains what about my point you disagree with, ie, that large number of illegals, left in by Mexifornia, would spread though out the nation as a whole, turning this nation into a Third World shit hole as we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History has served to refute your position on the whole.  The masses are content to let California do their thing AND neighboring states elected governors say *NO State of Emergency exists*.  If you live in an affected state, take it up with your governor.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The rapid demographic shift, being caused by Third World Immigration is causing huge social and political changes, for the worse, and are tearing this nation apart.
> 
> That some politicians say it is not happening, is not proof that it is not happening.
Click to expand...


What?  I'm the one warning *YOU* of the coming demographic changes.  Your approach to the issues makes the non-whites hate you even more; you exacerbate the issues with your rhetoric; your lobbying efforts that make resistance impossible assures us that the next generation will not have the ability to resist tyrannical government.

You are a threat to yourself as well as others.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of talk to hide the fact that you are pretending that securing a border is a nazi idea.
> 
> 
> It is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your spin fools nobody except those lacking basic reading skills.  You dumb asses have had the advantage of having the cameras on you 24 / 7 for over 15 years now.  The politicians haven't built a wall, but *YOUR NAME IS ON THEIR WORK:*
> 
> The creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN Security)  - sounds a lot like Russia's Motherland Security or Nazi Germany's Fatherland Security
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Created after 9-11, not by "wallists" but by the nation as a whole. Putting that on "Wallists" is simply dishonest.
> 
> 
> 2. It might sound like something Russian, or German, but it is not.  It is completely to be expected that security would go UP after a mass murder like 9-11.
> 
> 
> 
> The rest of your list, was just as flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *EVERYTHING* I listed was* proposed by politicians who sought the wallists vote and / or were Tea Party Republicans.*  You and I know it's true and we've explored it before.  Now, you're wanting to rehash old history just to get your ass whipped again.  You didn't access the links the last time and you won't today.
> 
> 9 / 11 provided the catalyst for a long range program that had been in place for many years.  The NEW WORLD ORDER types kept failing until 9 / 11 and then all of a sudden the legislation poured out like a thunderstorm.  All of it had been written, just waiting on the opportunity to come along.
> 
> The last time I documented every sentence, crossed every T and dotted every I, you tapped out and now we're wasting our time rehashing shit you don't read and don't know shit about.  Anyone dumb enough to follow you is going to Hell or jail.  One thread went - around 4000 or so posts.  I could repost it all here.  You'd just take a beating for nothing.  Being a racist is the least of your worries.
> 
> The strategies you hide behind have cost a lot of people their lives or gotten them put into prisons..  Yet you never have to worry; you're a nameless disinformation artist that never put his ass on the line.  So, anyone who relies on you should consider the source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To pretend that those who wanted the various changes after 9-11, or as you put it, the "New World Order" types,
> 
> 
> are the same group as the "wallists" and/or the Tea Party Republicans,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is a good example of the fundamental flaw in your thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> You see some vague connection between two groups, such as a  tiny overlap, or some such bullshit, and then you from that point, just lump them together in your mind as a single entity.
> 
> 
> It makes no sense, and it makes everything that you build on that, equally senseless.
> 
> 
> The Tea Party as was a grass roots anti tax movement.
> 
> Lots of people support Border Security.
> 
> 
> I'm sure that there is plenty of overlap between those two groups, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who want low taxes who do not want a Wall.
> 
> 
> It would be senseless to accuse someone who was part of the Tea Party of being a Wall supporter, based on the overlap.
> 
> 
> And the "New World Order"? That is another, very different and very different THIRD group. Telling the Tea Party-er that he is a member of the New World Order, would be delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your continued dishonesty and stupidity is almost embarrassing.  The Tea Party Republicans and wallists are one and the same.  You have never gotten away from your computer for five minutes.  I know the principal players face to face.
> .....
Click to expand...



So, which is it? Am I uninformed or lying? When you throw BOTH of them out there, YOU are the one with no credibility.



And all you did there was prove my point. YOu see some overlap and then lump EVERYONE in those groups together. 


That makes no sense, and is unfair to those people who may support one group but not the other.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The illegals have been flowing in here, for decades, including under Obama. There was not a lot of press, because the press were happy to let it happen.
> 
> 
> Even if you cut welfare, the jobs of a FIrst World nation, will still attract plenty of illegal immigrants.
> 
> 
> And if California lets them in, they will spread to every state in the nation and this nation will become a Third World shit hole, as we are seeing happening,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the deal:
> 
> In order to win any fight, you must know your enemy.  In OCS, candidates are taught to know their enemy: their habits, talking points, everything.  A good attorney will be able to argue his opponent's own case for him better than his opposition.  Fighters study the opposition.  They study them inside out, every move and every nuance.  The same works in politics.  Good politicians know what the masses will respond to; where the weaknesses of the enemy are.
> 
> "_Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it_."
> 
> George Santayana professor in philosophy at Harvard
> 
> You don't know history and won't read it.  I lived it and have witnessed your kind go down many many times.  You guys have about as much a chance of winning this battle as I do of winning a multi-million dollar lottery.  You know *NOTHING* about your opposition nor how they conned the right into supporting strategies that end in predictable defeat.
> 
> I used to think if I could get you dumb shits to read, research, and find those who have been IN the fight, you may learn what you're doing wrong.  My problem with you is that the way you're fighting the battle puts MY God given Rights at stake.  It makes you more dangerous than the political enemy at the gate.  So call me names that your chicken shit ass would never say in a public setting.  Keep pecking your keyboard.  Don't bother to study history, your enemies, nor the way they use Hegelian Dialectics to *control* you.  Then, once you have lost, try to remember these days and what I said to you.
> 
> You have your head so far up Davd Duke's ass that he has to fart before you can get a breath of fresh air.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, what part of all of that, explains what about my point you disagree with, ie, that large number of illegals, left in by Mexifornia, would spread though out the nation as a whole, turning this nation into a Third World shit hole as we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History has served to refute your position on the whole.  The masses are content to let California do their thing AND neighboring states elected governors say *NO State of Emergency exists*.  If you live in an affected state, take it up with your governor.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The rapid demographic shift, being caused by Third World Immigration is causing huge social and political changes, for the worse, and are tearing this nation apart.
> 
> That some politicians say it is not happening, is not proof that it is not happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?  I'm the one warning *YOU* of the coming demographic changes.  Your approach to the issues makes the non-whites hate you even more; you exacerbate the issues with your rhetoric; your lobbying efforts that make resistance impossible assures us that the next generation will not have the ability to resist tyrannical government.
> 
> You are a threat to yourself as well as others.
Click to expand...




If my desire to have control over who enters my nation is all it takes to make non-whites hostile to me, then they were already hostile to me.


You want to give them free reign to enter the country as they see fit. That ensures we are flooded with, as you say, hostile aliens.



That is ruining our nation right now, and you are fighting for that to continue.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your spin fools nobody except those lacking basic reading skills.  You dumb asses have had the advantage of having the cameras on you 24 / 7 for over 15 years now.  The politicians haven't built a wall, but *YOUR NAME IS ON THEIR WORK:*
> 
> The creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN Security)  - sounds a lot like Russia's Motherland Security or Nazi Germany's Fatherland Security
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Created after 9-11, not by "wallists" but by the nation as a whole. Putting that on "Wallists" is simply dishonest.
> 
> 
> 2. It might sound like something Russian, or German, but it is not.  It is completely to be expected that security would go UP after a mass murder like 9-11.
> 
> 
> 
> The rest of your list, was just as flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *EVERYTHING* I listed was* proposed by politicians who sought the wallists vote and / or were Tea Party Republicans.*  You and I know it's true and we've explored it before.  Now, you're wanting to rehash old history just to get your ass whipped again.  You didn't access the links the last time and you won't today.
> 
> 9 / 11 provided the catalyst for a long range program that had been in place for many years.  The NEW WORLD ORDER types kept failing until 9 / 11 and then all of a sudden the legislation poured out like a thunderstorm.  All of it had been written, just waiting on the opportunity to come along.
> 
> The last time I documented every sentence, crossed every T and dotted every I, you tapped out and now we're wasting our time rehashing shit you don't read and don't know shit about.  Anyone dumb enough to follow you is going to Hell or jail.  One thread went - around 4000 or so posts.  I could repost it all here.  You'd just take a beating for nothing.  Being a racist is the least of your worries.
> 
> The strategies you hide behind have cost a lot of people their lives or gotten them put into prisons..  Yet you never have to worry; you're a nameless disinformation artist that never put his ass on the line.  So, anyone who relies on you should consider the source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To pretend that those who wanted the various changes after 9-11, or as you put it, the "New World Order" types,
> 
> 
> are the same group as the "wallists" and/or the Tea Party Republicans,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is a good example of the fundamental flaw in your thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> You see some vague connection between two groups, such as a  tiny overlap, or some such bullshit, and then you from that point, just lump them together in your mind as a single entity.
> 
> 
> It makes no sense, and it makes everything that you build on that, equally senseless.
> 
> 
> The Tea Party as was a grass roots anti tax movement.
> 
> Lots of people support Border Security.
> 
> 
> I'm sure that there is plenty of overlap between those two groups, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who want low taxes who do not want a Wall.
> 
> 
> It would be senseless to accuse someone who was part of the Tea Party of being a Wall supporter, based on the overlap.
> 
> 
> And the "New World Order"? That is another, very different and very different THIRD group. Telling the Tea Party-er that he is a member of the New World Order, would be delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your continued dishonesty and stupidity is almost embarrassing.  The Tea Party Republicans and wallists are one and the same.  You have never gotten away from your computer for five minutes.  I know the principal players face to face.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, which is it? Am I uninformed or lying? When you throw BOTH of them out there, YOU are the one with no credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> And all you did there was prove my point. YOu see some overlap and then lump EVERYONE in those groups together.
> 
> 
> That makes no sense, and is unfair to those people who may support one group but not the other.
Click to expand...


About some things you are uninformed; about other things you are both lying AND you're uninformed.  That does not affect my credibility.  When fact upon fact are put before you and you deny it, that is lying.

Personally, I don't think that you want to believe certain things so you avoid doing the requisite research.  You're content with having plausible deniability.

Many groups may feel a certain way.*  HOWEVER, the only PROPOSED SOLUTIONS are those the puppet masters have put before the people*.  So, you run with it and are afraid to stop because you think to admit the truth is to accept defeat.  But, at the end of the day, you cannot serve two masters.  I've agreed with you that problems with foreigners exist.  But, I know when the puppet masters are in control of the proposed solutions AND I know where they lead and why.  You do not have that information - not that it has not been presented to you.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Son, let me assure you that I have marched in more marches, been in more fights, even participated in an armed stand-off at one point in defense of what I believe.  I've even manned that damn border.  You haven't.  When the Georgia Patriot Network used to meet in the Atlanta area not only did I finance the meetings, but I attended and at  each meeting, I offered the mic both before and after each meeting.  There is not a swinging dick on the face of this earth that I will not meet face to face.
> 
> So that you understand that, I have appeared on radio, tv and in newspapers.  I publicly debated Hosea Williams, face to face on his tv show.  He lost so decisively that they did not renew his show for another season.  Ike Newkirk, a former radio talk show host on WSB had me on his radio program.  He remarked that I was the first white guy willing to appear on his show, alone, and discuss racial issues from a conservative viewpoint.
> 
> IF I can get someone to help me get a podcast going, I will be doing that and setting up in public venues so that if / when people have an issue with me, I won't hide like a fucking rat.  I keep hinting that these matters are better served in PM.  That way if someone tells me to name the time and the place, no moderator will ban us for what goes on in PM.  Make no mistake, I have never backed down from a challenge and I've had the cream of the crop (even alphabet agencies) go for the jugular.
> 
> Defending the border against threats and using the military to do domestic law enforcement are worlds apart.  There is a law called the Posse Comitatus Act that *prohibits* the federal government from using federal military personnel in the enforcement of domestic policies within the United States.  What you've been proposing is exactly that.
> 
> You want the military to do a job it is expressly forbidden to do.  If you want a declaration of war, then lobby for one.  I will not stand idly by while you and your ilk suggest illegal ways to enforce your concepts of right and wrong on the states.  *MAYBE* if your dumb ass took a few weeks to study and research the links I leave for you, it might sink in.
> 
> Proof has been offered on this and many other threads that what you support is National Socialism.  It's not a false allegation.  It is *FACT*.   It is an absolute *FACT* that you cannot dispute.  When you advocate that the government control labor and distribution, that is the accepted definition of socialism.  The *FACT* that the people you get your talking points from are Nazis is *irrefutable*.  If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has webbed feet and hangs out at the pond, it's probably not an elephant.
> 
> What you want is to impose on states rights and take a giant shit on the Bill of Rights.  So far you've proven too ignorant to understand that, but you're the kind of guy that could be talked into selling Drano to brush teeth with.  Yeah, it will get your teeth lily white, but at a cost of poisoning your brain.  Now, if you had an IQ above your shoe size, you would take heed and access the following links and spend the day reading them before you continue that line of thought.  I do have the ability to PM in addition to that:
> 
> Scott v. Sandford
> 
> http://understandcontractlawandyouwin.com/state-citizenship-federal-citizenship/
> 
> State Citizenship Has Roots in American History - NYTimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of talk to hide the fact that you are pretending that securing a border is a nazi idea.
> 
> 
> It is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your spin fools nobody except those lacking basic reading skills.  You dumb asses have had the advantage of having the cameras on you 24 / 7 for over 15 years now.  The politicians haven't built a wall, but *YOUR NAME IS ON THEIR WORK:*
> 
> The creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN Security)  - sounds a lot like Russia's Motherland Security or Nazi Germany's Fatherland Security
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Created after 9-11, not by "wallists" but by the nation as a whole. Putting that on "Wallists" is simply dishonest.
> 
> 
> 2. It might sound like something Russian, or German, but it is not.  It is completely to be expected that security would go UP after a mass murder like 9-11.
> 
> 
> 
> The rest of your list, was just as flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *EVERYTHING* I listed was* proposed by politicians who sought the wallists vote and / or were Tea Party Republicans.*  You and I know it's true and we've explored it before.  Now, you're wanting to rehash old history just to get your ass whipped again.  You didn't access the links the last time and you won't today.
> 
> 9 / 11 provided the catalyst for a long range program that had been in place for many years.  The NEW WORLD ORDER types kept failing until 9 / 11 and then all of a sudden the legislation poured out like a thunderstorm.  All of it had been written, just waiting on the opportunity to come along.
> 
> The last time I documented every sentence, crossed every T and dotted every I, you tapped out and now we're wasting our time rehashing shit you don't read and don't know shit about.  Anyone dumb enough to follow you is going to Hell or jail.  One thread went - around 4000 or so posts.  I could repost it all here.  You'd just take a beating for nothing.  Being a racist is the least of your worries.
> 
> The strategies you hide behind have cost a lot of people their lives or gotten them put into prisons..  Yet you never have to worry; you're a nameless disinformation artist that never put his ass on the line.  So, anyone who relies on you should consider the source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To pretend that those who wanted the various changes after 9-11, or as you put it, the "New World Order" types,
> 
> 
> are the same group as the "wallists" and/or the Tea Party Republicans,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is a good example of the fundamental flaw in your thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> You see some vague connection between two groups, such as a  tiny overlap, or some such bullshit, and then you from that point, just lump them together in your mind as a single entity.
> 
> 
> It makes no sense, and it makes everything that you build on that, equally senseless.
> 
> 
> The Tea Party as was a grass roots anti tax movement.
> 
> Lots of people support Border Security.
> 
> 
> I'm sure that there is plenty of overlap between those two groups, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who want low taxes who do not want a Wall.
> 
> 
> It would be senseless to accuse someone who was part of the Tea Party of being a Wall supporter, based on the overlap.
> 
> 
> And the "New World Order"? That is another, very different and very different THIRD group. Telling the Tea Party-er that he is a member of the New World Order, would be delusional.
Click to expand...


There is no flaw in my reasoning.  As I have explained to you, in order to understand any issue, you must understand *all* sides.  You have to know how an enemy eats, breathes, and thinks at every level.  Most of all, you have to know their strategies (i.e. Hegelian Dialectics, psychopolitics, political guerrilla warfare, etc.)  You're so fricking lazy you don't even bother reading basic links explaining your own forefathers positions on the subject.  You don't have a clue as to how the puppet masters are playing you.

You are *too stupid to read* the provided links so you don't know what in the Hell I think.  You are hoping someone will buy whatever elixir you're selling.  Meanwhile, the enemies of America are out there, playing political mind games and your actions are calculated so as to do you the most long term harm while you believe that you're going to win something.

You confuse a militarized border with border security.  This is analogous to the gun control crowd's argument that until all guns are banned, we are not safe.  *It's the same political reasoning! *Of course, you will fall back on your standard canard about _"illegal immigration_" which is a defense of immigration policies enacted by liberals and intended to implode at an appropriate time.

As those policies implode, you are on the front lines, helping enact laws that are antithetical to the cause of Liberty.  You can't look five or ten years down the road and see the damage you're doing to this country.  You don't give a shit.  You treat America's future the way you look at your morning breakfast... pop it in the microwave and get what you want in an instant.  You are way the Hell too immature to understand that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.  What you're doing is beneficial ONLY to the people that want a NEW WORLD ORDER / One World Government.  Your views on using the military to enforce domestic legal policies are a testament to your ignorance on that point.  You need to focus on your stupidity and do some serious research.  I'm embarrassed that my own countrymen are not into seeking out sound counsel (as opposed to slinging shit at it) and attempting to find out what *everyone* is telling you.   

You're getting nowhere in your approach and if you check in on reality, while Trump may bring in a few crowds, at the polls, the Democrats are taking over from the ground up and gaining every day that you refuse to start using your head.  When I was in my teens and acted as impetuously as you, an older man took me aside and said, "_A man that don't use his brain may as well have been born with two assholes_." 

Until you've manned the border, gotten into public debates on radio and tv; until the media has raked you over the coals and you've had to sit in think tanks figuring out to eke out a victory in the face of certain defeat; until you've been in courts on all sides of the fence,  you are the one bullshitting these people.  You're too lazy to even take a few weeks and read a few books, asking yourself how the actions you take today may be used against you in the future.  You are a keyboard commando with shit for brains, no experience, and a strategy that will leave the next generation in bondage with no hope to resisting tyranny.

I've tried to offer you the help and the insight.  I've told you I know the problem exists and that the end of our culture is imminent.  But, you're like a proselyte of the Scribes and Pharisees:

"_Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, you make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves._.."  Matthew 23 : 15


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Created after 9-11, not by "wallists" but by the nation as a whole. Putting that on "Wallists" is simply dishonest.
> 
> 
> 2. It might sound like something Russian, or German, but it is not.  It is completely to be expected that security would go UP after a mass murder like 9-11.
> 
> 
> 
> The rest of your list, was just as flawed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *EVERYTHING* I listed was* proposed by politicians who sought the wallists vote and / or were Tea Party Republicans.*  You and I know it's true and we've explored it before.  Now, you're wanting to rehash old history just to get your ass whipped again.  You didn't access the links the last time and you won't today.
> 
> 9 / 11 provided the catalyst for a long range program that had been in place for many years.  The NEW WORLD ORDER types kept failing until 9 / 11 and then all of a sudden the legislation poured out like a thunderstorm.  All of it had been written, just waiting on the opportunity to come along.
> 
> The last time I documented every sentence, crossed every T and dotted every I, you tapped out and now we're wasting our time rehashing shit you don't read and don't know shit about.  Anyone dumb enough to follow you is going to Hell or jail.  One thread went - around 4000 or so posts.  I could repost it all here.  You'd just take a beating for nothing.  Being a racist is the least of your worries.
> 
> The strategies you hide behind have cost a lot of people their lives or gotten them put into prisons..  Yet you never have to worry; you're a nameless disinformation artist that never put his ass on the line.  So, anyone who relies on you should consider the source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To pretend that those who wanted the various changes after 9-11, or as you put it, the "New World Order" types,
> 
> 
> are the same group as the "wallists" and/or the Tea Party Republicans,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is a good example of the fundamental flaw in your thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> You see some vague connection between two groups, such as a  tiny overlap, or some such bullshit, and then you from that point, just lump them together in your mind as a single entity.
> 
> 
> It makes no sense, and it makes everything that you build on that, equally senseless.
> 
> 
> The Tea Party as was a grass roots anti tax movement.
> 
> Lots of people support Border Security.
> 
> 
> I'm sure that there is plenty of overlap between those two groups, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who want low taxes who do not want a Wall.
> 
> 
> It would be senseless to accuse someone who was part of the Tea Party of being a Wall supporter, based on the overlap.
> 
> 
> And the "New World Order"? That is another, very different and very different THIRD group. Telling the Tea Party-er that he is a member of the New World Order, would be delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your continued dishonesty and stupidity is almost embarrassing.  The Tea Party Republicans and wallists are one and the same.  You have never gotten away from your computer for five minutes.  I know the principal players face to face.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, which is it? Am I uninformed or lying? When you throw BOTH of them out there, YOU are the one with no credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> And all you did there was prove my point. YOu see some overlap and then lump EVERYONE in those groups together.
> 
> 
> That makes no sense, and is unfair to those people who may support one group but not the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About some things you are uninformed; about other things you are both lying AND you're uninformed.  That does not affect my credibility.  When fact upon fact are put before you and you deny it, that is lying.
> 
> Personally, I don't think that you want to believe certain things so you avoid doing the requisite research.  You're content with having plausible deniability.
> 
> Many groups may feel a certain way.*  HOWEVER, the only PROPOSED SOLUTIONS are those the puppet masters have put before the people*.  So, you run with it and are afraid to stop because you think to admit the truth is to accept defeat.  But, at the end of the day, you cannot serve two masters.  I've agreed with you that problems with foreigners exist.  But, I know when the puppet masters are in control of the proposed solutions AND I know where they lead and why.  You do not have that information - not that it has not been presented to you.
Click to expand...




YOu do not get to pretend that a Tea Party member is a member of the New World order, because you think that the behind the scene supporters of the groups overlap.


That is both senseless and rude. 


And you do that type of thing, ALL THE TIME. Often greatly slandering and insulting the people in question, in the process.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of talk to hide the fact that you are pretending that securing a border is a nazi idea.
> 
> 
> It is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your spin fools nobody except those lacking basic reading skills.  You dumb asses have had the advantage of having the cameras on you 24 / 7 for over 15 years now.  The politicians haven't built a wall, but *YOUR NAME IS ON THEIR WORK:*
> 
> The creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN Security)  - sounds a lot like Russia's Motherland Security or Nazi Germany's Fatherland Security
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Created after 9-11, not by "wallists" but by the nation as a whole. Putting that on "Wallists" is simply dishonest.
> 
> 
> 2. It might sound like something Russian, or German, but it is not.  It is completely to be expected that security would go UP after a mass murder like 9-11.
> 
> 
> 
> The rest of your list, was just as flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *EVERYTHING* I listed was* proposed by politicians who sought the wallists vote and / or were Tea Party Republicans.*  You and I know it's true and we've explored it before.  Now, you're wanting to rehash old history just to get your ass whipped again.  You didn't access the links the last time and you won't today.
> 
> 9 / 11 provided the catalyst for a long range program that had been in place for many years.  The NEW WORLD ORDER types kept failing until 9 / 11 and then all of a sudden the legislation poured out like a thunderstorm.  All of it had been written, just waiting on the opportunity to come along.
> 
> The last time I documented every sentence, crossed every T and dotted every I, you tapped out and now we're wasting our time rehashing shit you don't read and don't know shit about.  Anyone dumb enough to follow you is going to Hell or jail.  One thread went - around 4000 or so posts.  I could repost it all here.  You'd just take a beating for nothing.  Being a racist is the least of your worries.
> 
> The strategies you hide behind have cost a lot of people their lives or gotten them put into prisons..  Yet you never have to worry; you're a nameless disinformation artist that never put his ass on the line.  So, anyone who relies on you should consider the source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To pretend that those who wanted the various changes after 9-11, or as you put it, the "New World Order" types,
> 
> 
> are the same group as the "wallists" and/or the Tea Party Republicans,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is a good example of the fundamental flaw in your thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> You see some vague connection between two groups, such as a  tiny overlap, or some such bullshit, and then you from that point, just lump them together in your mind as a single entity.
> 
> 
> It makes no sense, and it makes everything that you build on that, equally senseless.
> 
> 
> The Tea Party as was a grass roots anti tax movement.
> 
> Lots of people support Border Security.
> 
> 
> I'm sure that there is plenty of overlap between those two groups, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who want low taxes who do not want a Wall.
> 
> 
> It would be senseless to accuse someone who was part of the Tea Party of being a Wall supporter, based on the overlap.
> 
> 
> And the "New World Order"? That is another, very different and very different THIRD group. Telling the Tea Party-er that he is a member of the New World Order, would be delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no flaw in my reasoning.  As I have explained to you, in order to understand any issue, you must understand *all* sides.  You have to know how an enemy eats, breathes, and thinks at every level.  Most of all, you have to know their strategies (i.e. Hegelian Dialectics, psychopolitics, political guerrilla warfare, etc.)  You're so fricking lazy you don't even bother reading basic links explaining your own forefathers positions on the subject.  You don't have a clue as to how the puppet masters are playing you.
Click to expand...



Bull. A lot of explaining why you are assigning to people, ideas, actions and responsibilities that are not theirs.

A tea party member has the right to be against more taxes, without being lumped in with the New World Order. For one limited example.





> You are *too stupid to read* the provided links so you don't know what in the Hell I think.  You are hoping someone will buy whatever elixir you're selling.  Meanwhile, the enemies of America are out there, playing political mind games and your actions are calculated so as to do you the most long term harm while you believe that you're going to win something.




If you have a point to make, make it. Links are to provide documentation to support your point, not make them for you. 




> You confuse a militarized border with border security.  This is analogous to the gun control crowd's argument that until all guns are banned, we are not safe.  *It's the same political reasoning! *Of course, you will fall back on your standard canard about _"illegal immigration_" which is a defense of immigration policies enacted by liberals and intended to implode at an appropriate time.




No, I don't. I realize that a border does not have to be militarized to be secure. I realize that a militarized border might not be secure.

YOU, assigned to me, this belief, based on nothing I ever posted, and then attacked me, based on nothing but crap you made up in your own mind.

THAT IS A FLAW IN YOUR THINKING. 







> As those policies implode, you are on the front lines, helping enact laws that are antithetical to the cause of Liberty.  You can't look five or ten years down the road and see the damage you're doing to this country.  You don't give a shit.  You treat America's future the way you look at your morning breakfast... pop it in the microwave and get what you want in an instant.  You are way the Hell too immature to understand that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.  What you're doing is beneficial ONLY to the people that want a NEW WORLD ORDER / One World Government.  Your views on using the military to enforce domestic legal policies are a testament to your ignorance on that point.  You need to focus on your stupidity and do some serious research.  I'm embarrassed that my own countrymen are not into seeking out sound counsel (as opposed to slinging shit at it) and attempting to find out what *everyone* is telling you.





Using the military to protect from invaders, is not using the military for domestic legal policies. If some moron ruled in the past that it was, that was a mistake on their part. 




> You're getting nowhere in your approach and if you check in on reality, while Trump may bring in a few crowds, at the polls, the Democrats are taking over from the ground up and gaining every day that you refuse to start using your head.  When I was in my teens and acted as impetuously as you, an older man took me aside and said, "_A man that don't use his brain may as well have been born with two assholes_."




My point about Trump's crowd was not to claim that we are winning, but to compare them to the size of nazis rallies and demonstrate that your conflating of the two was wrong. 

That you got confused about that, reveals a flaw in your style of posting, ie the long rambling walls of text. 

My point about that, btw, stands. It is absurd to think that the people that consider breaking into double digits a win, are the ones that drove Trump's massive outsider movement that won the Republican Primaries and then the general election.








> Until you've manned the border, gotten into public debates on radio and tv; until the media has raked you over the coals and you've had to sit in think tanks figuring out to eke out a victory in the face of certain defeat; until you've been in courts on all sides of the fence,  you are the one bullshitting these people.  You're too lazy to even take a few weeks and read a few books, asking yourself how the actions you take today may be used against you in the future.  You are a keyboard commando with shit for brains, no experience, and a strategy that will leave the next generation in bondage with no hope to resisting tyranny.
> 
> I've tried to offer you the help and the insight.  I've told you I know the problem exists and that the end of our culture is imminent.  But, you're like a proselyte of the Scribes and Pharisees:
> 
> "_Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, you make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves._.."  Matthew 23 : 15





And insults provided as a supporting argument.


----------



## danielpalos

Where are the militia for Dallas County, Texas?  They should have no excessive property crime.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *EVERYTHING* I listed was* proposed by politicians who sought the wallists vote and / or were Tea Party Republicans.*  You and I know it's true and we've explored it before.  Now, you're wanting to rehash old history just to get your ass whipped again.  You didn't access the links the last time and you won't today.
> 
> 9 / 11 provided the catalyst for a long range program that had been in place for many years.  The NEW WORLD ORDER types kept failing until 9 / 11 and then all of a sudden the legislation poured out like a thunderstorm.  All of it had been written, just waiting on the opportunity to come along.
> 
> The last time I documented every sentence, crossed every T and dotted every I, you tapped out and now we're wasting our time rehashing shit you don't read and don't know shit about.  Anyone dumb enough to follow you is going to Hell or jail.  One thread went - around 4000 or so posts.  I could repost it all here.  You'd just take a beating for nothing.  Being a racist is the least of your worries.
> 
> The strategies you hide behind have cost a lot of people their lives or gotten them put into prisons..  Yet you never have to worry; you're a nameless disinformation artist that never put his ass on the line.  So, anyone who relies on you should consider the source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To pretend that those who wanted the various changes after 9-11, or as you put it, the "New World Order" types,
> 
> 
> are the same group as the "wallists" and/or the Tea Party Republicans,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is a good example of the fundamental flaw in your thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> You see some vague connection between two groups, such as a  tiny overlap, or some such bullshit, and then you from that point, just lump them together in your mind as a single entity.
> 
> 
> It makes no sense, and it makes everything that you build on that, equally senseless.
> 
> 
> The Tea Party as was a grass roots anti tax movement.
> 
> Lots of people support Border Security.
> 
> 
> I'm sure that there is plenty of overlap between those two groups, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who want low taxes who do not want a Wall.
> 
> 
> It would be senseless to accuse someone who was part of the Tea Party of being a Wall supporter, based on the overlap.
> 
> 
> And the "New World Order"? That is another, very different and very different THIRD group. Telling the Tea Party-er that he is a member of the New World Order, would be delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your continued dishonesty and stupidity is almost embarrassing.  The Tea Party Republicans and wallists are one and the same.  You have never gotten away from your computer for five minutes.  I know the principal players face to face.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, which is it? Am I uninformed or lying? When you throw BOTH of them out there, YOU are the one with no credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> And all you did there was prove my point. YOu see some overlap and then lump EVERYONE in those groups together.
> 
> 
> That makes no sense, and is unfair to those people who may support one group but not the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About some things you are uninformed; about other things you are both lying AND you're uninformed.  That does not affect my credibility.  When fact upon fact are put before you and you deny it, that is lying.
> 
> Personally, I don't think that you want to believe certain things so you avoid doing the requisite research.  You're content with having plausible deniability.
> 
> Many groups may feel a certain way.*  HOWEVER, the only PROPOSED SOLUTIONS are those the puppet masters have put before the people*.  So, you run with it and are afraid to stop because you think to admit the truth is to accept defeat.  But, at the end of the day, you cannot serve two masters.  I've agreed with you that problems with foreigners exist.  But, I know when the puppet masters are in control of the proposed solutions AND I know where they lead and why.  You do not have that information - not that it has not been presented to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu do not get to pretend that a Tea Party member is a member of the New World order, because you think that the behind the scene supporters of the groups overlap.
> 
> 
> That is both senseless and rude.
> 
> 
> And you do that type of thing, ALL THE TIME. Often greatly slandering and insulting the people in question, in the process.
Click to expand...


I'm not _pretending_ a damn thing cherry.  I have repeatedly shown that the Tea Party welcomes and works with those people who founded the Minutemen.  I have proven beyond any question - so there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the Minutemen were neo-Nazis organized together by a former newsman who knows a little about plausible deniability.

You mistake honesty for rudeness while you play the part of a bitch for National Socialism.  Would you like me to repeat the posts of that thread that went 4000 + posts.  You either like getting your ass whipped OR you think that by filibustering on this thread, it keeps me contained so that others don't read the truth.  Did you ever consider that I might be taking notes to debunk every possible objection and then do a documentary about people like you?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your spin fools nobody except those lacking basic reading skills.  You dumb asses have had the advantage of having the cameras on you 24 / 7 for over 15 years now.  The politicians haven't built a wall, but *YOUR NAME IS ON THEIR WORK:*
> 
> The creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN Security)  - sounds a lot like Russia's Motherland Security or Nazi Germany's Fatherland Security
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Created after 9-11, not by "wallists" but by the nation as a whole. Putting that on "Wallists" is simply dishonest.
> 
> 
> 2. It might sound like something Russian, or German, but it is not.  It is completely to be expected that security would go UP after a mass murder like 9-11.
> 
> 
> 
> The rest of your list, was just as flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *EVERYTHING* I listed was* proposed by politicians who sought the wallists vote and / or were Tea Party Republicans.*  You and I know it's true and we've explored it before.  Now, you're wanting to rehash old history just to get your ass whipped again.  You didn't access the links the last time and you won't today.
> 
> 9 / 11 provided the catalyst for a long range program that had been in place for many years.  The NEW WORLD ORDER types kept failing until 9 / 11 and then all of a sudden the legislation poured out like a thunderstorm.  All of it had been written, just waiting on the opportunity to come along.
> 
> The last time I documented every sentence, crossed every T and dotted every I, you tapped out and now we're wasting our time rehashing shit you don't read and don't know shit about.  Anyone dumb enough to follow you is going to Hell or jail.  One thread went - around 4000 or so posts.  I could repost it all here.  You'd just take a beating for nothing.  Being a racist is the least of your worries.
> 
> The strategies you hide behind have cost a lot of people their lives or gotten them put into prisons..  Yet you never have to worry; you're a nameless disinformation artist that never put his ass on the line.  So, anyone who relies on you should consider the source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To pretend that those who wanted the various changes after 9-11, or as you put it, the "New World Order" types,
> 
> 
> are the same group as the "wallists" and/or the Tea Party Republicans,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is a good example of the fundamental flaw in your thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> You see some vague connection between two groups, such as a  tiny overlap, or some such bullshit, and then you from that point, just lump them together in your mind as a single entity.
> 
> 
> It makes no sense, and it makes everything that you build on that, equally senseless.
> 
> 
> The Tea Party as was a grass roots anti tax movement.
> 
> Lots of people support Border Security.
> 
> 
> I'm sure that there is plenty of overlap between those two groups, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who want low taxes who do not want a Wall.
> 
> 
> It would be senseless to accuse someone who was part of the Tea Party of being a Wall supporter, based on the overlap.
> 
> 
> And the "New World Order"? That is another, very different and very different THIRD group. Telling the Tea Party-er that he is a member of the New World Order, would be delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no flaw in my reasoning.  As I have explained to you, in order to understand any issue, you must understand *all* sides.  You have to know how an enemy eats, breathes, and thinks at every level.  Most of all, you have to know their strategies (i.e. Hegelian Dialectics, psychopolitics, political guerrilla warfare, etc.)  You're so fricking lazy you don't even bother reading basic links explaining your own forefathers positions on the subject.  You don't have a clue as to how the puppet masters are playing you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bull. A lot of explaining why you are assigning to people, ideas, actions and responsibilities that are not theirs.
> 
> A tea party member has the right to be against more taxes, without being lumped in with the New World Order. For one limited example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are *too stupid to read* the provided links so you don't know what in the Hell I think.  You are hoping someone will buy whatever elixir you're selling.  Meanwhile, the enemies of America are out there, playing political mind games and your actions are calculated so as to do you the most long term harm while you believe that you're going to win something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a point to make, make it. Links are to provide documentation to support your point, not make them for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse a militarized border with border security.  This is analogous to the gun control crowd's argument that until all guns are banned, we are not safe.  *It's the same political reasoning! *Of course, you will fall back on your standard canard about _"illegal immigration_" which is a defense of immigration policies enacted by liberals and intended to implode at an appropriate time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't. I realize that a border does not have to be militarized to be secure. I realize that a militarized border might not be secure.
> 
> YOU, assigned to me, this belief, based on nothing I ever posted, and then attacked me, based on nothing but crap you made up in your own mind.
> 
> THAT IS A FLAW IN YOUR THINKING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As those policies implode, you are on the front lines, helping enact laws that are antithetical to the cause of Liberty.  You can't look five or ten years down the road and see the damage you're doing to this country.  You don't give a shit.  You treat America's future the way you look at your morning breakfast... pop it in the microwave and get what you want in an instant.  You are way the Hell too immature to understand that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.  What you're doing is beneficial ONLY to the people that want a NEW WORLD ORDER / One World Government.  Your views on using the military to enforce domestic legal policies are a testament to your ignorance on that point.  You need to focus on your stupidity and do some serious research.  I'm embarrassed that my own countrymen are not into seeking out sound counsel (as opposed to slinging shit at it) and attempting to find out what *everyone* is telling you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using the military to protect from invaders, is not using the military for domestic legal policies. If some moron ruled in the past that it was, that was a mistake on their part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're getting nowhere in your approach and if you check in on reality, while Trump may bring in a few crowds, at the polls, the Democrats are taking over from the ground up and gaining every day that you refuse to start using your head.  When I was in my teens and acted as impetuously as you, an older man took me aside and said, "_A man that don't use his brain may as well have been born with two assholes_."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My point about Trump's crowd was not to claim that we are winning, but to compare them to the size of nazis rallies and demonstrate that your conflating of the two was wrong.
> 
> That you got confused about that, reveals a flaw in your style of posting, ie the long rambling walls of text.
> 
> My point about that, btw, stands. It is absurd to think that the people that consider breaking into double digits a win, are the ones that drove Trump's massive outsider movement that won the Republican Primaries and then the general election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until you've manned the border, gotten into public debates on radio and tv; until the media has raked you over the coals and you've had to sit in think tanks figuring out to eke out a victory in the face of certain defeat; until you've been in courts on all sides of the fence,  you are the one bullshitting these people.  You're too lazy to even take a few weeks and read a few books, asking yourself how the actions you take today may be used against you in the future.  You are a keyboard commando with shit for brains, no experience, and a strategy that will leave the next generation in bondage with no hope to resisting tyranny.
> 
> I've tried to offer you the help and the insight.  I've told you I know the problem exists and that the end of our culture is imminent.  But, you're like a proselyte of the Scribes and Pharisees:
> 
> "_Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, you make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves._.."  Matthew 23 : 15
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And insults provided as a supporting argument.
Click to expand...


Not only are you full of shit, you realize that I will not respond to posts like the one you just made.  You asked questions and made false allegations.  The links prove the presuppositions I've shared on this board.

Since this is not a formal debate forum (where you would realistically lose your ass) the information is proof positive that the statements I have made here are honest, accurate, and factual.

One does not need to be an active participant in aiding the NEW WORLD ORDER.  There are plenty of useful idiots.  You are either one of those useful idiots (if you actually believe the shit you post) OR you are a paid disinformation agent.  If you are not being paid for what you're posting, you're screwing yourself.  If you take a look you and I are the only ones left on this thread.  The more you post, the more idiotic you appear to be.  So, who are you trying to convince... me or you?  You've hurled enough insults at me because your sorry ass has never actually put his bullshit opinions into action.  I have.  That's the difference between us.

You are not qualified to tell me what I think as you are too stupid to access links and read them.  That's not insulting you; that is simply being forthright with you.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> To pretend that those who wanted the various changes after 9-11, or as you put it, the "New World Order" types,
> 
> 
> are the same group as the "wallists" and/or the Tea Party Republicans,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is a good example of the fundamental flaw in your thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> You see some vague connection between two groups, such as a  tiny overlap, or some such bullshit, and then you from that point, just lump them together in your mind as a single entity.
> 
> 
> It makes no sense, and it makes everything that you build on that, equally senseless.
> 
> 
> The Tea Party as was a grass roots anti tax movement.
> 
> Lots of people support Border Security.
> 
> 
> I'm sure that there is plenty of overlap between those two groups, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who want low taxes who do not want a Wall.
> 
> 
> It would be senseless to accuse someone who was part of the Tea Party of being a Wall supporter, based on the overlap.
> 
> 
> And the "New World Order"? That is another, very different and very different THIRD group. Telling the Tea Party-er that he is a member of the New World Order, would be delusional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your continued dishonesty and stupidity is almost embarrassing.  The Tea Party Republicans and wallists are one and the same.  You have never gotten away from your computer for five minutes.  I know the principal players face to face.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, which is it? Am I uninformed or lying? When you throw BOTH of them out there, YOU are the one with no credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> And all you did there was prove my point. YOu see some overlap and then lump EVERYONE in those groups together.
> 
> 
> That makes no sense, and is unfair to those people who may support one group but not the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About some things you are uninformed; about other things you are both lying AND you're uninformed.  That does not affect my credibility.  When fact upon fact are put before you and you deny it, that is lying.
> 
> Personally, I don't think that you want to believe certain things so you avoid doing the requisite research.  You're content with having plausible deniability.
> 
> Many groups may feel a certain way.*  HOWEVER, the only PROPOSED SOLUTIONS are those the puppet masters have put before the people*.  So, you run with it and are afraid to stop because you think to admit the truth is to accept defeat.  But, at the end of the day, you cannot serve two masters.  I've agreed with you that problems with foreigners exist.  But, I know when the puppet masters are in control of the proposed solutions AND I know where they lead and why.  You do not have that information - not that it has not been presented to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu do not get to pretend that a Tea Party member is a member of the New World order, because you think that the behind the scene supporters of the groups overlap.
> 
> 
> That is both senseless and rude.
> 
> 
> And you do that type of thing, ALL THE TIME. Often greatly slandering and insulting the people in question, in the process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not _pretending_ a damn thing cherry.  I have repeatedly shown that the Tea Party welcomes and works with those people who founded the Minutemen.  I have proven beyond any question - so there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the Minutemen were neo-Nazis organized together by a former newsman who knows a little about plausible deniability.
> 
> You mistake honesty for rudeness while you play the part of a bitch for National Socialism.  Would you like me to repeat the posts of that thread that went 4000 + posts.  You either like getting your ass whipped OR you think that by filibustering on this thread, it keeps me contained so that others don't read the truth.  Did you ever consider that I might be taking notes to debunk every possible objection and then do a documentary about people like you?
Click to expand...



Welcoming someone, working with someone, is not the same as being the same as that person or group.


The police have worked withe me, a few times, that does not make me a police man, for one example.


That you pretend it does, that such pretenses are a basic part of your world view and  your accusations against others, 


makes your positions and posts senseless.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Created after 9-11, not by "wallists" but by the nation as a whole. Putting that on "Wallists" is simply dishonest.
> 
> 
> 2. It might sound like something Russian, or German, but it is not.  It is completely to be expected that security would go UP after a mass murder like 9-11.
> 
> 
> 
> The rest of your list, was just as flawed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *EVERYTHING* I listed was* proposed by politicians who sought the wallists vote and / or were Tea Party Republicans.*  You and I know it's true and we've explored it before.  Now, you're wanting to rehash old history just to get your ass whipped again.  You didn't access the links the last time and you won't today.
> 
> 9 / 11 provided the catalyst for a long range program that had been in place for many years.  The NEW WORLD ORDER types kept failing until 9 / 11 and then all of a sudden the legislation poured out like a thunderstorm.  All of it had been written, just waiting on the opportunity to come along.
> 
> The last time I documented every sentence, crossed every T and dotted every I, you tapped out and now we're wasting our time rehashing shit you don't read and don't know shit about.  Anyone dumb enough to follow you is going to Hell or jail.  One thread went - around 4000 or so posts.  I could repost it all here.  You'd just take a beating for nothing.  Being a racist is the least of your worries.
> 
> The strategies you hide behind have cost a lot of people their lives or gotten them put into prisons..  Yet you never have to worry; you're a nameless disinformation artist that never put his ass on the line.  So, anyone who relies on you should consider the source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To pretend that those who wanted the various changes after 9-11, or as you put it, the "New World Order" types,
> 
> 
> are the same group as the "wallists" and/or the Tea Party Republicans,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is a good example of the fundamental flaw in your thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> You see some vague connection between two groups, such as a  tiny overlap, or some such bullshit, and then you from that point, just lump them together in your mind as a single entity.
> 
> 
> It makes no sense, and it makes everything that you build on that, equally senseless.
> 
> 
> The Tea Party as was a grass roots anti tax movement.
> 
> Lots of people support Border Security.
> 
> 
> I'm sure that there is plenty of overlap between those two groups, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who want low taxes who do not want a Wall.
> 
> 
> It would be senseless to accuse someone who was part of the Tea Party of being a Wall supporter, based on the overlap.
> 
> 
> And the "New World Order"? That is another, very different and very different THIRD group. Telling the Tea Party-er that he is a member of the New World Order, would be delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no flaw in my reasoning.  As I have explained to you, in order to understand any issue, you must understand *all* sides.  You have to know how an enemy eats, breathes, and thinks at every level.  Most of all, you have to know their strategies (i.e. Hegelian Dialectics, psychopolitics, political guerrilla warfare, etc.)  You're so fricking lazy you don't even bother reading basic links explaining your own forefathers positions on the subject.  You don't have a clue as to how the puppet masters are playing you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bull. A lot of explaining why you are assigning to people, ideas, actions and responsibilities that are not theirs.
> 
> A tea party member has the right to be against more taxes, without being lumped in with the New World Order. For one limited example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are *too stupid to read* the provided links so you don't know what in the Hell I think.  You are hoping someone will buy whatever elixir you're selling.  Meanwhile, the enemies of America are out there, playing political mind games and your actions are calculated so as to do you the most long term harm while you believe that you're going to win something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a point to make, make it. Links are to provide documentation to support your point, not make them for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse a militarized border with border security.  This is analogous to the gun control crowd's argument that until all guns are banned, we are not safe.  *It's the same political reasoning! *Of course, you will fall back on your standard canard about _"illegal immigration_" which is a defense of immigration policies enacted by liberals and intended to implode at an appropriate time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't. I realize that a border does not have to be militarized to be secure. I realize that a militarized border might not be secure.
> 
> YOU, assigned to me, this belief, based on nothing I ever posted, and then attacked me, based on nothing but crap you made up in your own mind.
> 
> THAT IS A FLAW IN YOUR THINKING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As those policies implode, you are on the front lines, helping enact laws that are antithetical to the cause of Liberty.  You can't look five or ten years down the road and see the damage you're doing to this country.  You don't give a shit.  You treat America's future the way you look at your morning breakfast... pop it in the microwave and get what you want in an instant.  You are way the Hell too immature to understand that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.  What you're doing is beneficial ONLY to the people that want a NEW WORLD ORDER / One World Government.  Your views on using the military to enforce domestic legal policies are a testament to your ignorance on that point.  You need to focus on your stupidity and do some serious research.  I'm embarrassed that my own countrymen are not into seeking out sound counsel (as opposed to slinging shit at it) and attempting to find out what *everyone* is telling you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using the military to protect from invaders, is not using the military for domestic legal policies. If some moron ruled in the past that it was, that was a mistake on their part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're getting nowhere in your approach and if you check in on reality, while Trump may bring in a few crowds, at the polls, the Democrats are taking over from the ground up and gaining every day that you refuse to start using your head.  When I was in my teens and acted as impetuously as you, an older man took me aside and said, "_A man that don't use his brain may as well have been born with two assholes_."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My point about Trump's crowd was not to claim that we are winning, but to compare them to the size of nazis rallies and demonstrate that your conflating of the two was wrong.
> 
> That you got confused about that, reveals a flaw in your style of posting, ie the long rambling walls of text.
> 
> My point about that, btw, stands. It is absurd to think that the people that consider breaking into double digits a win, are the ones that drove Trump's massive outsider movement that won the Republican Primaries and then the general election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until you've manned the border, gotten into public debates on radio and tv; until the media has raked you over the coals and you've had to sit in think tanks figuring out to eke out a victory in the face of certain defeat; until you've been in courts on all sides of the fence,  you are the one bullshitting these people.  You're too lazy to even take a few weeks and read a few books, asking yourself how the actions you take today may be used against you in the future.  You are a keyboard commando with shit for brains, no experience, and a strategy that will leave the next generation in bondage with no hope to resisting tyranny.
> 
> I've tried to offer you the help and the insight.  I've told you I know the problem exists and that the end of our culture is imminent.  But, you're like a proselyte of the Scribes and Pharisees:
> 
> "_Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, you make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves._.."  Matthew 23 : 15
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And insults provided as a supporting argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only are you full of shit, you realize that I will not respond to posts like the one you just made.  You asked questions and made false allegations.  The links prove the presuppositions I've shared on this board.
> 
> Since this is not a formal debate forum (where you would realistically lose your ass) the information is proof positive that the statements I have made here are honest, accurate, and factual.
> 
> One does not need to be an active participant in aiding the NEW WORLD ORDER.  There are plenty of useful idiots.  You are either one of those useful idiots (if you actually believe the shit you post) OR you are a paid disinformation agent.  If you are not being paid for what you're posting, you're screwing yourself.  If you take a look you and I are the only ones left on this thread.  The more you post, the more idiotic you appear to be.  So, who are you trying to convince... me or you?  You've hurled enough insults at me because your sorry ass has never actually put his bullshit opinions into action.  I have.  That's the difference between us.
> 
> You are not qualified to tell me what I think as you are too stupid to access links and read them.  That's not insulting you; that is simply being forthright with you.
Click to expand...




The fact that you got confused about why we were discussing Trump rally size, shows that your style of posting is inferior.


My point about that stands. It is utterly absurd to pretend that white supremacists/nazis, who are lucky to get into double digits when they have rallies, are responsible for the massive movement that gave Trump first the Republican Nomination, and then the Presidency.


The Tea Party was a valid political movement that had valid political points to make. That you attack them based on your weird game of 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, is disrespectful to the millions of good people that were part of that movement. 


For one example of what is wrong with your methods.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your continued dishonesty and stupidity is almost embarrassing.  The Tea Party Republicans and wallists are one and the same.  You have never gotten away from your computer for five minutes.  I know the principal players face to face.
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, which is it? Am I uninformed or lying? When you throw BOTH of them out there, YOU are the one with no credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> And all you did there was prove my point. YOu see some overlap and then lump EVERYONE in those groups together.
> 
> 
> That makes no sense, and is unfair to those people who may support one group but not the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About some things you are uninformed; about other things you are both lying AND you're uninformed.  That does not affect my credibility.  When fact upon fact are put before you and you deny it, that is lying.
> 
> Personally, I don't think that you want to believe certain things so you avoid doing the requisite research.  You're content with having plausible deniability.
> 
> Many groups may feel a certain way.*  HOWEVER, the only PROPOSED SOLUTIONS are those the puppet masters have put before the people*.  So, you run with it and are afraid to stop because you think to admit the truth is to accept defeat.  But, at the end of the day, you cannot serve two masters.  I've agreed with you that problems with foreigners exist.  But, I know when the puppet masters are in control of the proposed solutions AND I know where they lead and why.  You do not have that information - not that it has not been presented to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu do not get to pretend that a Tea Party member is a member of the New World order, because you think that the behind the scene supporters of the groups overlap.
> 
> 
> That is both senseless and rude.
> 
> 
> And you do that type of thing, ALL THE TIME. Often greatly slandering and insulting the people in question, in the process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not _pretending_ a damn thing cherry.  I have repeatedly shown that the Tea Party welcomes and works with those people who founded the Minutemen.  I have proven beyond any question - so there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the Minutemen were neo-Nazis organized together by a former newsman who knows a little about plausible deniability.
> 
> You mistake honesty for rudeness while you play the part of a bitch for National Socialism.  Would you like me to repeat the posts of that thread that went 4000 + posts.  You either like getting your ass whipped OR you think that by filibustering on this thread, it keeps me contained so that others don't read the truth.  Did you ever consider that I might be taking notes to debunk every possible objection and then do a documentary about people like you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Welcoming someone, working with someone, is not the same as being the same as that person or group.
> 
> 
> The police have worked withe me, a few times, that does not make me a police man, for one example.
> 
> 
> That you pretend it does, that such pretenses are a basic part of your world view and  your accusations against others,
> 
> 
> makes your positions and posts senseless.
Click to expand...


The Tea Party and the Minutemen work toward the same *solutions.*  That makes both parties guilty of proposing National Socialist *solutions.*


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *EVERYTHING* I listed was* proposed by politicians who sought the wallists vote and / or were Tea Party Republicans.*  You and I know it's true and we've explored it before.  Now, you're wanting to rehash old history just to get your ass whipped again.  You didn't access the links the last time and you won't today.
> 
> 9 / 11 provided the catalyst for a long range program that had been in place for many years.  The NEW WORLD ORDER types kept failing until 9 / 11 and then all of a sudden the legislation poured out like a thunderstorm.  All of it had been written, just waiting on the opportunity to come along.
> 
> The last time I documented every sentence, crossed every T and dotted every I, you tapped out and now we're wasting our time rehashing shit you don't read and don't know shit about.  Anyone dumb enough to follow you is going to Hell or jail.  One thread went - around 4000 or so posts.  I could repost it all here.  You'd just take a beating for nothing.  Being a racist is the least of your worries.
> 
> The strategies you hide behind have cost a lot of people their lives or gotten them put into prisons..  Yet you never have to worry; you're a nameless disinformation artist that never put his ass on the line.  So, anyone who relies on you should consider the source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To pretend that those who wanted the various changes after 9-11, or as you put it, the "New World Order" types,
> 
> 
> are the same group as the "wallists" and/or the Tea Party Republicans,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is a good example of the fundamental flaw in your thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> You see some vague connection between two groups, such as a  tiny overlap, or some such bullshit, and then you from that point, just lump them together in your mind as a single entity.
> 
> 
> It makes no sense, and it makes everything that you build on that, equally senseless.
> 
> 
> The Tea Party as was a grass roots anti tax movement.
> 
> Lots of people support Border Security.
> 
> 
> I'm sure that there is plenty of overlap between those two groups, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who want low taxes who do not want a Wall.
> 
> 
> It would be senseless to accuse someone who was part of the Tea Party of being a Wall supporter, based on the overlap.
> 
> 
> And the "New World Order"? That is another, very different and very different THIRD group. Telling the Tea Party-er that he is a member of the New World Order, would be delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no flaw in my reasoning.  As I have explained to you, in order to understand any issue, you must understand *all* sides.  You have to know how an enemy eats, breathes, and thinks at every level.  Most of all, you have to know their strategies (i.e. Hegelian Dialectics, psychopolitics, political guerrilla warfare, etc.)  You're so fricking lazy you don't even bother reading basic links explaining your own forefathers positions on the subject.  You don't have a clue as to how the puppet masters are playing you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bull. A lot of explaining why you are assigning to people, ideas, actions and responsibilities that are not theirs.
> 
> A tea party member has the right to be against more taxes, without being lumped in with the New World Order. For one limited example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are *too stupid to read* the provided links so you don't know what in the Hell I think.  You are hoping someone will buy whatever elixir you're selling.  Meanwhile, the enemies of America are out there, playing political mind games and your actions are calculated so as to do you the most long term harm while you believe that you're going to win something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a point to make, make it. Links are to provide documentation to support your point, not make them for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse a militarized border with border security.  This is analogous to the gun control crowd's argument that until all guns are banned, we are not safe.  *It's the same political reasoning! *Of course, you will fall back on your standard canard about _"illegal immigration_" which is a defense of immigration policies enacted by liberals and intended to implode at an appropriate time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't. I realize that a border does not have to be militarized to be secure. I realize that a militarized border might not be secure.
> 
> YOU, assigned to me, this belief, based on nothing I ever posted, and then attacked me, based on nothing but crap you made up in your own mind.
> 
> THAT IS A FLAW IN YOUR THINKING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As those policies implode, you are on the front lines, helping enact laws that are antithetical to the cause of Liberty.  You can't look five or ten years down the road and see the damage you're doing to this country.  You don't give a shit.  You treat America's future the way you look at your morning breakfast... pop it in the microwave and get what you want in an instant.  You are way the Hell too immature to understand that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.  What you're doing is beneficial ONLY to the people that want a NEW WORLD ORDER / One World Government.  Your views on using the military to enforce domestic legal policies are a testament to your ignorance on that point.  You need to focus on your stupidity and do some serious research.  I'm embarrassed that my own countrymen are not into seeking out sound counsel (as opposed to slinging shit at it) and attempting to find out what *everyone* is telling you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using the military to protect from invaders, is not using the military for domestic legal policies. If some moron ruled in the past that it was, that was a mistake on their part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're getting nowhere in your approach and if you check in on reality, while Trump may bring in a few crowds, at the polls, the Democrats are taking over from the ground up and gaining every day that you refuse to start using your head.  When I was in my teens and acted as impetuously as you, an older man took me aside and said, "_A man that don't use his brain may as well have been born with two assholes_."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My point about Trump's crowd was not to claim that we are winning, but to compare them to the size of nazis rallies and demonstrate that your conflating of the two was wrong.
> 
> That you got confused about that, reveals a flaw in your style of posting, ie the long rambling walls of text.
> 
> My point about that, btw, stands. It is absurd to think that the people that consider breaking into double digits a win, are the ones that drove Trump's massive outsider movement that won the Republican Primaries and then the general election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until you've manned the border, gotten into public debates on radio and tv; until the media has raked you over the coals and you've had to sit in think tanks figuring out to eke out a victory in the face of certain defeat; until you've been in courts on all sides of the fence,  you are the one bullshitting these people.  You're too lazy to even take a few weeks and read a few books, asking yourself how the actions you take today may be used against you in the future.  You are a keyboard commando with shit for brains, no experience, and a strategy that will leave the next generation in bondage with no hope to resisting tyranny.
> 
> I've tried to offer you the help and the insight.  I've told you I know the problem exists and that the end of our culture is imminent.  But, you're like a proselyte of the Scribes and Pharisees:
> 
> "_Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, you make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves._.."  Matthew 23 : 15
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And insults provided as a supporting argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only are you full of shit, you realize that I will not respond to posts like the one you just made.  You asked questions and made false allegations.  The links prove the presuppositions I've shared on this board.
> 
> Since this is not a formal debate forum (where you would realistically lose your ass) the information is proof positive that the statements I have made here are honest, accurate, and factual.
> 
> One does not need to be an active participant in aiding the NEW WORLD ORDER.  There are plenty of useful idiots.  You are either one of those useful idiots (if you actually believe the shit you post) OR you are a paid disinformation agent.  If you are not being paid for what you're posting, you're screwing yourself.  If you take a look you and I are the only ones left on this thread.  The more you post, the more idiotic you appear to be.  So, who are you trying to convince... me or you?  You've hurled enough insults at me because your sorry ass has never actually put his bullshit opinions into action.  I have.  That's the difference between us.
> 
> You are not qualified to tell me what I think as you are too stupid to access links and read them.  That's not insulting you; that is simply being forthright with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you got confused about why we were discussing Trump rally size, shows that your style of posting is inferior.
> 
> 
> My point about that stands. It is utterly absurd to pretend that white supremacists/nazis, who are lucky to get into double digits when they have rallies, are responsible for the massive movement that gave Trump first the Republican Nomination, and then the Presidency.
> 
> 
> The Tea Party was a valid political movement that had valid political points to make. That you attack them based on your weird game of 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, is disrespectful to the millions of good people that were part of that movement.
> 
> 
> For one example of what is wrong with your methods.
Click to expand...


Compared to your other writings, this one sounds as if it were done while you were smoking weed.  Let's make it easy for you:

1)  I'm not confused about the Trump rally size.  I pointed out to you that the MSM* lied *about the size of rallies in the past and the people didn't have the advantages you do of proving their case (no cell phones with camera / video capability, no Internet, etc.)

If you want to believe in fairy tales, you believe in the MSM when it's convenient and when it isn't, it's fake news.  You're a political hack in that regard.  What counts is *RESULTS* - and Trump comes up short there

2)  You are confused.  You continue to think the rally size of the KKK is indicative of the neo - Nazis.  They are completely two, different organizations.  The REAL Nazis don't admit who they are.  They do not wear swastikas, but rather business suits.  They mix into the mainstream and they hobnob with the elite. 

That is why their think tanks are funded by people like John Tanton... a tree hugging, pro - abortion, nazi who believes in eugenics.  If I need to school you again, we can do that.

3)  Rally sizes aside, the fact is Trump lost the House in his first term.  Compare that to what you're selling and it's easy to see you are not only a political hack, but delusional as well.

You have deluded yourself into thinking your cause is not about race and that I'm making some link between you and racists.  You are deluded on both counts.  As a result, the side you're on cannot articulate their vision for a future.  I doubt they have any vision for America.   If you do not believe that whites have the same Rights as the rest of the people on this planet, *YOU* are deluded and kidding yourself.  You cannot see past your single issue in order to figure out where you are ultimately going.  But, if you keep posting just to screw with me, I *CAN *school you - and the downside is, somebody might just access the links and figure it out - You're dumber than a box of fucking rocks.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, which is it? Am I uninformed or lying? When you throw BOTH of them out there, YOU are the one with no credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> And all you did there was prove my point. YOu see some overlap and then lump EVERYONE in those groups together.
> 
> 
> That makes no sense, and is unfair to those people who may support one group but not the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About some things you are uninformed; about other things you are both lying AND you're uninformed.  That does not affect my credibility.  When fact upon fact are put before you and you deny it, that is lying.
> 
> Personally, I don't think that you want to believe certain things so you avoid doing the requisite research.  You're content with having plausible deniability.
> 
> Many groups may feel a certain way.*  HOWEVER, the only PROPOSED SOLUTIONS are those the puppet masters have put before the people*.  So, you run with it and are afraid to stop because you think to admit the truth is to accept defeat.  But, at the end of the day, you cannot serve two masters.  I've agreed with you that problems with foreigners exist.  But, I know when the puppet masters are in control of the proposed solutions AND I know where they lead and why.  You do not have that information - not that it has not been presented to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu do not get to pretend that a Tea Party member is a member of the New World order, because you think that the behind the scene supporters of the groups overlap.
> 
> 
> That is both senseless and rude.
> 
> 
> And you do that type of thing, ALL THE TIME. Often greatly slandering and insulting the people in question, in the process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not _pretending_ a damn thing cherry.  I have repeatedly shown that the Tea Party welcomes and works with those people who founded the Minutemen.  I have proven beyond any question - so there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the Minutemen were neo-Nazis organized together by a former newsman who knows a little about plausible deniability.
> 
> You mistake honesty for rudeness while you play the part of a bitch for National Socialism.  Would you like me to repeat the posts of that thread that went 4000 + posts.  You either like getting your ass whipped OR you think that by filibustering on this thread, it keeps me contained so that others don't read the truth.  Did you ever consider that I might be taking notes to debunk every possible objection and then do a documentary about people like you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Welcoming someone, working with someone, is not the same as being the same as that person or group.
> 
> 
> The police have worked withe me, a few times, that does not make me a police man, for one example.
> 
> 
> That you pretend it does, that such pretenses are a basic part of your world view and  your accusations against others,
> 
> 
> makes your positions and posts senseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Tea Party and the Minutemen work toward the same *solutions.*  That makes both parties guilty of proposing National Socialist *solutions.*
Click to expand...



The Tea Party was about Taxes. The Minutemen were about illegal immigration. 

Your 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon game, does not justify lumping them together, nor calling them nazis.


That is irrational and unfair and rude of you.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> To pretend that those who wanted the various changes after 9-11, or as you put it, the "New World Order" types,
> 
> 
> are the same group as the "wallists" and/or the Tea Party Republicans,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is a good example of the fundamental flaw in your thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> You see some vague connection between two groups, such as a  tiny overlap, or some such bullshit, and then you from that point, just lump them together in your mind as a single entity.
> 
> 
> It makes no sense, and it makes everything that you build on that, equally senseless.
> 
> 
> The Tea Party as was a grass roots anti tax movement.
> 
> Lots of people support Border Security.
> 
> 
> I'm sure that there is plenty of overlap between those two groups, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who want low taxes who do not want a Wall.
> 
> 
> It would be senseless to accuse someone who was part of the Tea Party of being a Wall supporter, based on the overlap.
> 
> 
> And the "New World Order"? That is another, very different and very different THIRD group. Telling the Tea Party-er that he is a member of the New World Order, would be delusional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no flaw in my reasoning.  As I have explained to you, in order to understand any issue, you must understand *all* sides.  You have to know how an enemy eats, breathes, and thinks at every level.  Most of all, you have to know their strategies (i.e. Hegelian Dialectics, psychopolitics, political guerrilla warfare, etc.)  You're so fricking lazy you don't even bother reading basic links explaining your own forefathers positions on the subject.  You don't have a clue as to how the puppet masters are playing you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bull. A lot of explaining why you are assigning to people, ideas, actions and responsibilities that are not theirs.
> 
> A tea party member has the right to be against more taxes, without being lumped in with the New World Order. For one limited example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are *too stupid to read* the provided links so you don't know what in the Hell I think.  You are hoping someone will buy whatever elixir you're selling.  Meanwhile, the enemies of America are out there, playing political mind games and your actions are calculated so as to do you the most long term harm while you believe that you're going to win something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a point to make, make it. Links are to provide documentation to support your point, not make them for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse a militarized border with border security.  This is analogous to the gun control crowd's argument that until all guns are banned, we are not safe.  *It's the same political reasoning! *Of course, you will fall back on your standard canard about _"illegal immigration_" which is a defense of immigration policies enacted by liberals and intended to implode at an appropriate time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't. I realize that a border does not have to be militarized to be secure. I realize that a militarized border might not be secure.
> 
> YOU, assigned to me, this belief, based on nothing I ever posted, and then attacked me, based on nothing but crap you made up in your own mind.
> 
> THAT IS A FLAW IN YOUR THINKING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As those policies implode, you are on the front lines, helping enact laws that are antithetical to the cause of Liberty.  You can't look five or ten years down the road and see the damage you're doing to this country.  You don't give a shit.  You treat America's future the way you look at your morning breakfast... pop it in the microwave and get what you want in an instant.  You are way the Hell too immature to understand that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.  What you're doing is beneficial ONLY to the people that want a NEW WORLD ORDER / One World Government.  Your views on using the military to enforce domestic legal policies are a testament to your ignorance on that point.  You need to focus on your stupidity and do some serious research.  I'm embarrassed that my own countrymen are not into seeking out sound counsel (as opposed to slinging shit at it) and attempting to find out what *everyone* is telling you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using the military to protect from invaders, is not using the military for domestic legal policies. If some moron ruled in the past that it was, that was a mistake on their part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're getting nowhere in your approach and if you check in on reality, while Trump may bring in a few crowds, at the polls, the Democrats are taking over from the ground up and gaining every day that you refuse to start using your head.  When I was in my teens and acted as impetuously as you, an older man took me aside and said, "_A man that don't use his brain may as well have been born with two assholes_."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My point about Trump's crowd was not to claim that we are winning, but to compare them to the size of nazis rallies and demonstrate that your conflating of the two was wrong.
> 
> That you got confused about that, reveals a flaw in your style of posting, ie the long rambling walls of text.
> 
> My point about that, btw, stands. It is absurd to think that the people that consider breaking into double digits a win, are the ones that drove Trump's massive outsider movement that won the Republican Primaries and then the general election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until you've manned the border, gotten into public debates on radio and tv; until the media has raked you over the coals and you've had to sit in think tanks figuring out to eke out a victory in the face of certain defeat; until you've been in courts on all sides of the fence,  you are the one bullshitting these people.  You're too lazy to even take a few weeks and read a few books, asking yourself how the actions you take today may be used against you in the future.  You are a keyboard commando with shit for brains, no experience, and a strategy that will leave the next generation in bondage with no hope to resisting tyranny.
> 
> I've tried to offer you the help and the insight.  I've told you I know the problem exists and that the end of our culture is imminent.  But, you're like a proselyte of the Scribes and Pharisees:
> 
> "_Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, you make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves._.."  Matthew 23 : 15
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And insults provided as a supporting argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only are you full of shit, you realize that I will not respond to posts like the one you just made.  You asked questions and made false allegations.  The links prove the presuppositions I've shared on this board.
> 
> Since this is not a formal debate forum (where you would realistically lose your ass) the information is proof positive that the statements I have made here are honest, accurate, and factual.
> 
> One does not need to be an active participant in aiding the NEW WORLD ORDER.  There are plenty of useful idiots.  You are either one of those useful idiots (if you actually believe the shit you post) OR you are a paid disinformation agent.  If you are not being paid for what you're posting, you're screwing yourself.  If you take a look you and I are the only ones left on this thread.  The more you post, the more idiotic you appear to be.  So, who are you trying to convince... me or you?  You've hurled enough insults at me because your sorry ass has never actually put his bullshit opinions into action.  I have.  That's the difference between us.
> 
> You are not qualified to tell me what I think as you are too stupid to access links and read them.  That's not insulting you; that is simply being forthright with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you got confused about why we were discussing Trump rally size, shows that your style of posting is inferior.
> 
> 
> My point about that stands. It is utterly absurd to pretend that white supremacists/nazis, who are lucky to get into double digits when they have rallies, are responsible for the massive movement that gave Trump first the Republican Nomination, and then the Presidency.
> 
> 
> The Tea Party was a valid political movement that had valid political points to make. That you attack them based on your weird game of 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, is disrespectful to the millions of good people that were part of that movement.
> 
> 
> For one example of what is wrong with your methods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to your other writings, this one sounds as if it were done while you were smoking weed.  Let's make it easy for you:
> 
> 1)  I'm not confused about the Trump rally size.  I pointed out to you that the MSM* lied *about the size of rallies in the past and the people didn't have the advantages you do of proving their case (no cell phones with camera / video capability, no Internet, etc.)
> 
> If you want to believe in fairy tales, you believe in the MSM when it's convenient and when it isn't, it's fake news.  You're a political hack in that regard.  What counts is *RESULTS* - and Trump comes up short there
> 
> 2)  You are confused.  You continue to think the rally size of the KKK is indicative of the neo - Nazis.  They are completely two, different organizations.  The REAL Nazis don't admit who they are.  They do not wear swastikas, but rather business suits.  They mix into the mainstream and they hobnob with the elite.
> 
> That is why their think tanks are funded by people like John Tanton... a tree hugging, pro - abortion, nazi who believes in eugenics.  If I need to school you again, we can do that.
> 
> 3)  Rally sizes aside, the fact is Trump lost the House in his first term.  Compare that to what you're selling and it's easy to see you are not only a political hack, but delusional as well.
> 
> You have deluded yourself into thinking your cause is not about race and that I'm making some link between you and racists.  You are deluded on both counts.  As a result, the side you're on cannot articulate their vision for a future.  I doubt they have any vision for America.   If you do not believe that whites have the same Rights as the rest of the people on this planet, *YOU* are deluded and kidding yourself.  You cannot see past your single issue in order to figure out where you are ultimately going.  But, if you keep posting just to screw with me, I *CAN *school you - and the downside is, somebody might just access the links and figure it out - You're dumber than a box of fucking rocks.
Click to expand...




1. I have posted pictures of Trump rallies that dwarf any modern white supremacist and/or klan rally. Your denial of this fact is irrational.

2. My point stands. It is absurd to credit a movements(s) that considers hitting double digits at a rally, a big win, for the massive political movement that Trump led to the White House. Absolutely absurd. 

3. Not sure what point you think you are making with "Trump lost the House" argument. You seem to be arguing against someone voicing confidence in future victories. Which I have not done, so, whatever.

4. Nothing I have said, justifies your implication that I do not believe that whites have the same rights as anyone else. Is that based on some silly 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon nonsense again?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> About some things you are uninformed; about other things you are both lying AND you're uninformed.  That does not affect my credibility.  When fact upon fact are put before you and you deny it, that is lying.
> 
> Personally, I don't think that you want to believe certain things so you avoid doing the requisite research.  You're content with having plausible deniability.
> 
> Many groups may feel a certain way.*  HOWEVER, the only PROPOSED SOLUTIONS are those the puppet masters have put before the people*.  So, you run with it and are afraid to stop because you think to admit the truth is to accept defeat.  But, at the end of the day, you cannot serve two masters.  I've agreed with you that problems with foreigners exist.  But, I know when the puppet masters are in control of the proposed solutions AND I know where they lead and why.  You do not have that information - not that it has not been presented to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu do not get to pretend that a Tea Party member is a member of the New World order, because you think that the behind the scene supporters of the groups overlap.
> 
> 
> That is both senseless and rude.
> 
> 
> And you do that type of thing, ALL THE TIME. Often greatly slandering and insulting the people in question, in the process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not _pretending_ a damn thing cherry.  I have repeatedly shown that the Tea Party welcomes and works with those people who founded the Minutemen.  I have proven beyond any question - so there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the Minutemen were neo-Nazis organized together by a former newsman who knows a little about plausible deniability.
> 
> You mistake honesty for rudeness while you play the part of a bitch for National Socialism.  Would you like me to repeat the posts of that thread that went 4000 + posts.  You either like getting your ass whipped OR you think that by filibustering on this thread, it keeps me contained so that others don't read the truth.  Did you ever consider that I might be taking notes to debunk every possible objection and then do a documentary about people like you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Welcoming someone, working with someone, is not the same as being the same as that person or group.
> 
> 
> The police have worked withe me, a few times, that does not make me a police man, for one example.
> 
> 
> That you pretend it does, that such pretenses are a basic part of your world view and  your accusations against others,
> 
> 
> makes your positions and posts senseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Tea Party and the Minutemen work toward the same *solutions.*  That makes both parties guilty of proposing National Socialist *solutions.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party was about Taxes. The Minutemen were about illegal immigration.
> 
> Your 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon game, does not justify lumping them together, nor calling them nazis.
> 
> 
> That is irrational and unfair and rude of you.
Click to expand...



The Tea Party also took up positions on immigration and issues with foreigners.

U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, a *Tea Party Republican*, introduced both the  so - called "_Patriot Act_" and the National ID / REAL ID Act.  

Here is liberal take on what the liberals caught Tea Party rally goers doing:


Your strategy is that the right has toned down the rhetoric - like calling Hispanics _"illegal aliens_" instead of derogatory terms like **** or wetback, but it's all semantics.  You and I know the score so no point trying to pee down my neck and saying it's raining.

Correll, get your head out of your ass.  The problem is with their *proposed solutions.*


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOu do not get to pretend that a Tea Party member is a member of the New World order, because you think that the behind the scene supporters of the groups overlap.
> 
> 
> That is both senseless and rude.
> 
> 
> And you do that type of thing, ALL THE TIME. Often greatly slandering and insulting the people in question, in the process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not _pretending_ a damn thing cherry.  I have repeatedly shown that the Tea Party welcomes and works with those people who founded the Minutemen.  I have proven beyond any question - so there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the Minutemen were neo-Nazis organized together by a former newsman who knows a little about plausible deniability.
> 
> You mistake honesty for rudeness while you play the part of a bitch for National Socialism.  Would you like me to repeat the posts of that thread that went 4000 + posts.  You either like getting your ass whipped OR you think that by filibustering on this thread, it keeps me contained so that others don't read the truth.  Did you ever consider that I might be taking notes to debunk every possible objection and then do a documentary about people like you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Welcoming someone, working with someone, is not the same as being the same as that person or group.
> 
> 
> The police have worked withe me, a few times, that does not make me a police man, for one example.
> 
> 
> That you pretend it does, that such pretenses are a basic part of your world view and  your accusations against others,
> 
> 
> makes your positions and posts senseless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Tea Party and the Minutemen work toward the same *solutions.*  That makes both parties guilty of proposing National Socialist *solutions.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party was about Taxes. The Minutemen were about illegal immigration.
> 
> Your 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon game, does not justify lumping them together, nor calling them nazis.
> 
> 
> That is irrational and unfair and rude of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party also took up positions on immigration and issues with foreigners.
> 
> U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, a *Tea Party Republican*, introduced both the  so - called "_Patriot Act_" and the National ID / REAL ID Act.
> 
> Here is liberal take on what the liberals caught Tea Party rally goers doing:
> 
> 
> Your strategy is that the right has toned down the rhetoric - like calling Hispanics _"illegal aliens_" instead of derogatory terms like **** or wetback, but it's all semantics.  You and I know the score so no point trying to pee down my neck and saying it's raining.
> 
> Correll, get your head out of your ass.  The problem is with their *proposed solutions.*
Click to expand...





You say "the tea party" did something, and then support that by mentioning something an individual person did.


That type of sloppy thinking is a basic part of how you get to your conclusions, and why they have so little to do with reality.



IF you have a problem with any proposed solutions, then state the problems you have with them. Your little 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, is nothing but the logical fallacy of guilt by association, and really, really weak associations at that.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no flaw in my reasoning.  As I have explained to you, in order to understand any issue, you must understand *all* sides.  You have to know how an enemy eats, breathes, and thinks at every level.  Most of all, you have to know their strategies (i.e. Hegelian Dialectics, psychopolitics, political guerrilla warfare, etc.)  You're so fricking lazy you don't even bother reading basic links explaining your own forefathers positions on the subject.  You don't have a clue as to how the puppet masters are playing you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull. A lot of explaining why you are assigning to people, ideas, actions and responsibilities that are not theirs.
> 
> A tea party member has the right to be against more taxes, without being lumped in with the New World Order. For one limited example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are *too stupid to read* the provided links so you don't know what in the Hell I think.  You are hoping someone will buy whatever elixir you're selling.  Meanwhile, the enemies of America are out there, playing political mind games and your actions are calculated so as to do you the most long term harm while you believe that you're going to win something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a point to make, make it. Links are to provide documentation to support your point, not make them for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse a militarized border with border security.  This is analogous to the gun control crowd's argument that until all guns are banned, we are not safe.  *It's the same political reasoning! *Of course, you will fall back on your standard canard about _"illegal immigration_" which is a defense of immigration policies enacted by liberals and intended to implode at an appropriate time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't. I realize that a border does not have to be militarized to be secure. I realize that a militarized border might not be secure.
> 
> YOU, assigned to me, this belief, based on nothing I ever posted, and then attacked me, based on nothing but crap you made up in your own mind.
> 
> THAT IS A FLAW IN YOUR THINKING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As those policies implode, you are on the front lines, helping enact laws that are antithetical to the cause of Liberty.  You can't look five or ten years down the road and see the damage you're doing to this country.  You don't give a shit.  You treat America's future the way you look at your morning breakfast... pop it in the microwave and get what you want in an instant.  You are way the Hell too immature to understand that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.  What you're doing is beneficial ONLY to the people that want a NEW WORLD ORDER / One World Government.  Your views on using the military to enforce domestic legal policies are a testament to your ignorance on that point.  You need to focus on your stupidity and do some serious research.  I'm embarrassed that my own countrymen are not into seeking out sound counsel (as opposed to slinging shit at it) and attempting to find out what *everyone* is telling you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using the military to protect from invaders, is not using the military for domestic legal policies. If some moron ruled in the past that it was, that was a mistake on their part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're getting nowhere in your approach and if you check in on reality, while Trump may bring in a few crowds, at the polls, the Democrats are taking over from the ground up and gaining every day that you refuse to start using your head.  When I was in my teens and acted as impetuously as you, an older man took me aside and said, "_A man that don't use his brain may as well have been born with two assholes_."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My point about Trump's crowd was not to claim that we are winning, but to compare them to the size of nazis rallies and demonstrate that your conflating of the two was wrong.
> 
> That you got confused about that, reveals a flaw in your style of posting, ie the long rambling walls of text.
> 
> My point about that, btw, stands. It is absurd to think that the people that consider breaking into double digits a win, are the ones that drove Trump's massive outsider movement that won the Republican Primaries and then the general election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until you've manned the border, gotten into public debates on radio and tv; until the media has raked you over the coals and you've had to sit in think tanks figuring out to eke out a victory in the face of certain defeat; until you've been in courts on all sides of the fence,  you are the one bullshitting these people.  You're too lazy to even take a few weeks and read a few books, asking yourself how the actions you take today may be used against you in the future.  You are a keyboard commando with shit for brains, no experience, and a strategy that will leave the next generation in bondage with no hope to resisting tyranny.
> 
> I've tried to offer you the help and the insight.  I've told you I know the problem exists and that the end of our culture is imminent.  But, you're like a proselyte of the Scribes and Pharisees:
> 
> "_Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, you make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves._.."  Matthew 23 : 15
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And insults provided as a supporting argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only are you full of shit, you realize that I will not respond to posts like the one you just made.  You asked questions and made false allegations.  The links prove the presuppositions I've shared on this board.
> 
> Since this is not a formal debate forum (where you would realistically lose your ass) the information is proof positive that the statements I have made here are honest, accurate, and factual.
> 
> One does not need to be an active participant in aiding the NEW WORLD ORDER.  There are plenty of useful idiots.  You are either one of those useful idiots (if you actually believe the shit you post) OR you are a paid disinformation agent.  If you are not being paid for what you're posting, you're screwing yourself.  If you take a look you and I are the only ones left on this thread.  The more you post, the more idiotic you appear to be.  So, who are you trying to convince... me or you?  You've hurled enough insults at me because your sorry ass has never actually put his bullshit opinions into action.  I have.  That's the difference between us.
> 
> You are not qualified to tell me what I think as you are too stupid to access links and read them.  That's not insulting you; that is simply being forthright with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you got confused about why we were discussing Trump rally size, shows that your style of posting is inferior.
> 
> 
> My point about that stands. It is utterly absurd to pretend that white supremacists/nazis, who are lucky to get into double digits when they have rallies, are responsible for the massive movement that gave Trump first the Republican Nomination, and then the Presidency.
> 
> 
> The Tea Party was a valid political movement that had valid political points to make. That you attack them based on your weird game of 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, is disrespectful to the millions of good people that were part of that movement.
> 
> 
> For one example of what is wrong with your methods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to your other writings, this one sounds as if it were done while you were smoking weed.  Let's make it easy for you:
> 
> 1)  I'm not confused about the Trump rally size.  I pointed out to you that the MSM* lied *about the size of rallies in the past and the people didn't have the advantages you do of proving their case (no cell phones with camera / video capability, no Internet, etc.)
> 
> If you want to believe in fairy tales, you believe in the MSM when it's convenient and when it isn't, it's fake news.  You're a political hack in that regard.  What counts is *RESULTS* - and Trump comes up short there
> 
> 2)  You are confused.  You continue to think the rally size of the KKK is indicative of the neo - Nazis.  They are completely two, different organizations.  The REAL Nazis don't admit who they are.  They do not wear swastikas, but rather business suits.  They mix into the mainstream and they hobnob with the elite.
> 
> That is why their think tanks are funded by people like John Tanton... a tree hugging, pro - abortion, nazi who believes in eugenics.  If I need to school you again, we can do that.
> 
> 3)  Rally sizes aside, the fact is Trump lost the House in his first term.  Compare that to what you're selling and it's easy to see you are not only a political hack, but delusional as well.
> 
> You have deluded yourself into thinking your cause is not about race and that I'm making some link between you and racists.  You are deluded on both counts.  As a result, the side you're on cannot articulate their vision for a future.  I doubt they have any vision for America.   If you do not believe that whites have the same Rights as the rest of the people on this planet, *YOU* are deluded and kidding yourself.  You cannot see past your single issue in order to figure out where you are ultimately going.  But, if you keep posting just to screw with me, I *CAN *school you - and the downside is, somebody might just access the links and figure it out - You're dumber than a box of fucking rocks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I have posted pictures of Trump rallies that dwarf any modern white supremacist and/or klan rally. Your denial of this fact is irrational.
> 
> 2. My point stands. It is absurd to credit a movements(s) that considers hitting double digits at a rally, a big win, for the massive political movement that Trump led to the White House. Absolutely absurd.
> 
> 3. Not sure what point you think you are making with "Trump lost the House" argument. You seem to be arguing against someone voicing confidence in future victories. Which I have not done, so, whatever.
> 
> 4. Nothing I have said, justifies your implication that I do not believe that whites have the same rights as anyone else. Is that based on some silly 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon nonsense again?
Click to expand...


1) * You are LYING*  I used the Trump analogy because the MSM has attempted to downplay the numbers at Trump rallies and they were even worse in the 1970s through 1990s

2)  Trump is a one hit wonder that cannot get his most trusted allies of many years to stay on board his sinking ship.  The Dems will turn a lot of states in the next election.  The right will be a shell of its old self

3)  I don't get your six degrees bullshit.  The people I am linking together KNOW one another... despite Trump's cow poop lies that he didn't know David Duke.  Know this son, Duke screwed some friends out of money so I don't like him all that well.  But, at the height of his popularity, he had worldwide support.  So, in some respects, he did bring peoples attention to some of the problems we are having.

My issue was and is, Trump and Duke share the same ideology toward solutions (that won't work.)  Other than that, you're pecking a keyboard, hoping for a miracle.  It's just you and me and when you get your nose out of Trump's ass for a moment, you might find a constitutionalist that realizes a problem exists, but has a much more honest response and a more effective plan to fight for Liberty.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bull. A lot of explaining why you are assigning to people, ideas, actions and responsibilities that are not theirs.
> 
> A tea party member has the right to be against more taxes, without being lumped in with the New World Order. For one limited example.
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a point to make, make it. Links are to provide documentation to support your point, not make them for you.
> 
> 
> No, I don't. I realize that a border does not have to be militarized to be secure. I realize that a militarized border might not be secure.
> 
> YOU, assigned to me, this belief, based on nothing I ever posted, and then attacked me, based on nothing but crap you made up in your own mind.
> 
> THAT IS A FLAW IN YOUR THINKING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using the military to protect from invaders, is not using the military for domestic legal policies. If some moron ruled in the past that it was, that was a mistake on their part.
> 
> 
> My point about Trump's crowd was not to claim that we are winning, but to compare them to the size of nazis rallies and demonstrate that your conflating of the two was wrong.
> 
> That you got confused about that, reveals a flaw in your style of posting, ie the long rambling walls of text.
> 
> My point about that, btw, stands. It is absurd to think that the people that consider breaking into double digits a win, are the ones that drove Trump's massive outsider movement that won the Republican Primaries and then the general election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And insults provided as a supporting argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only are you full of shit, you realize that I will not respond to posts like the one you just made.  You asked questions and made false allegations.  The links prove the presuppositions I've shared on this board.
> 
> Since this is not a formal debate forum (where you would realistically lose your ass) the information is proof positive that the statements I have made here are honest, accurate, and factual.
> 
> One does not need to be an active participant in aiding the NEW WORLD ORDER.  There are plenty of useful idiots.  You are either one of those useful idiots (if you actually believe the shit you post) OR you are a paid disinformation agent.  If you are not being paid for what you're posting, you're screwing yourself.  If you take a look you and I are the only ones left on this thread.  The more you post, the more idiotic you appear to be.  So, who are you trying to convince... me or you?  You've hurled enough insults at me because your sorry ass has never actually put his bullshit opinions into action.  I have.  That's the difference between us.
> 
> You are not qualified to tell me what I think as you are too stupid to access links and read them.  That's not insulting you; that is simply being forthright with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you got confused about why we were discussing Trump rally size, shows that your style of posting is inferior.
> 
> 
> My point about that stands. It is utterly absurd to pretend that white supremacists/nazis, who are lucky to get into double digits when they have rallies, are responsible for the massive movement that gave Trump first the Republican Nomination, and then the Presidency.
> 
> 
> The Tea Party was a valid political movement that had valid political points to make. That you attack them based on your weird game of 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, is disrespectful to the millions of good people that were part of that movement.
> 
> 
> For one example of what is wrong with your methods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to your other writings, this one sounds as if it were done while you were smoking weed.  Let's make it easy for you:
> 
> 1)  I'm not confused about the Trump rally size.  I pointed out to you that the MSM* lied *about the size of rallies in the past and the people didn't have the advantages you do of proving their case (no cell phones with camera / video capability, no Internet, etc.)
> 
> If you want to believe in fairy tales, you believe in the MSM when it's convenient and when it isn't, it's fake news.  You're a political hack in that regard.  What counts is *RESULTS* - and Trump comes up short there
> 
> 2)  You are confused.  You continue to think the rally size of the KKK is indicative of the neo - Nazis.  They are completely two, different organizations.  The REAL Nazis don't admit who they are.  They do not wear swastikas, but rather business suits.  They mix into the mainstream and they hobnob with the elite.
> 
> That is why their think tanks are funded by people like John Tanton... a tree hugging, pro - abortion, nazi who believes in eugenics.  If I need to school you again, we can do that.
> 
> 3)  Rally sizes aside, the fact is Trump lost the House in his first term.  Compare that to what you're selling and it's easy to see you are not only a political hack, but delusional as well.
> 
> You have deluded yourself into thinking your cause is not about race and that I'm making some link between you and racists.  You are deluded on both counts.  As a result, the side you're on cannot articulate their vision for a future.  I doubt they have any vision for America.   If you do not believe that whites have the same Rights as the rest of the people on this planet, *YOU* are deluded and kidding yourself.  You cannot see past your single issue in order to figure out where you are ultimately going.  But, if you keep posting just to screw with me, I *CAN *school you - and the downside is, somebody might just access the links and figure it out - You're dumber than a box of fucking rocks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I have posted pictures of Trump rallies that dwarf any modern white supremacist and/or klan rally. Your denial of this fact is irrational.
> 
> 2. My point stands. It is absurd to credit a movements(s) that considers hitting double digits at a rally, a big win, for the massive political movement that Trump led to the White House. Absolutely absurd.
> 
> 3. Not sure what point you think you are making with "Trump lost the House" argument. You seem to be arguing against someone voicing confidence in future victories. Which I have not done, so, whatever.
> 
> 4. Nothing I have said, justifies your implication that I do not believe that whites have the same rights as anyone else. Is that based on some silly 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon nonsense again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) * You are LYING*  I used the Trump analogy because the MSM has attempted to downplay the numbers at Trump rallies and they were even worse in the 1970s through 1990s
> 
> 2)  Trump is a one hit wonder that cannot get his most trusted allies of many years to stay on board his sinking ship.  The Dems will turn a lot of states in the next election.  The right will be a shell of its old self
> 
> 3)  I don't get you six degrees bullshit.  The people I am linking together KNOW one another... despite Trump's cow poop lies that he didn't know David Duke.  Know this son, Duke screwed some friends out of money so I don't like him all that well.  But, at the height of his popularity, he had worldwide support.  So, in some respects, he did bring peoples attention to some of the problems we are having.
> 
> My issue was and is, Trump and Duke share the same ideology toward solutions (that won't work.)  Other than that, you're pecking a keyboard, hoping for a miracle.  It's just you and me and when you get your nose out of Trump's ass for a moment, you might find a constitutionalist that realizes a problem exists, but has a much more honest response and a more effective plan to fight for Liberty.
Click to expand...





1. You said that Trump's base was white supremacist and nazis. I pointed out, correctly that it is absurd to give credit to the those who are lucking to get to double digits at their rallies, for the thousands that regularly turn out for Trump. That point stands.


2. Nothing I have said, has implied that I am confident about the future nor based on winning in the future. I don't know if you have confused me with someone else, or if this is another invention of yours. But you are wasting your time addressing something I have never said, nor believe.


3. I have repeatedly explained my opinion of the way you conflate different groups. It is wrong and unfair of you, that way you do that. 


4. If I hear a nazi arguing for good dental hygiene, I am not going to stop brushing my teeth. THat fact that I brush my teeth, despite hearing a nazi say it was a good idea, does not make me a nazi. 

And all of that, is still nothing but the logical fallacy of guilt by association. Very weak association.


----------



## danielpalos

Our original Constitution is both gender and race neutral, from Inception. 

natural rights apply to Persons subject to US jurisdiction.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only are you full of shit, you realize that I will not respond to posts like the one you just made.  You asked questions and made false allegations.  The links prove the presuppositions I've shared on this board.
> 
> Since this is not a formal debate forum (where you would realistically lose your ass) the information is proof positive that the statements I have made here are honest, accurate, and factual.
> 
> One does not need to be an active participant in aiding the NEW WORLD ORDER.  There are plenty of useful idiots.  You are either one of those useful idiots (if you actually believe the shit you post) OR you are a paid disinformation agent.  If you are not being paid for what you're posting, you're screwing yourself.  If you take a look you and I are the only ones left on this thread.  The more you post, the more idiotic you appear to be.  So, who are you trying to convince... me or you?  You've hurled enough insults at me because your sorry ass has never actually put his bullshit opinions into action.  I have.  That's the difference between us.
> 
> You are not qualified to tell me what I think as you are too stupid to access links and read them.  That's not insulting you; that is simply being forthright with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you got confused about why we were discussing Trump rally size, shows that your style of posting is inferior.
> 
> 
> My point about that stands. It is utterly absurd to pretend that white supremacists/nazis, who are lucky to get into double digits when they have rallies, are responsible for the massive movement that gave Trump first the Republican Nomination, and then the Presidency.
> 
> 
> The Tea Party was a valid political movement that had valid political points to make. That you attack them based on your weird game of 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, is disrespectful to the millions of good people that were part of that movement.
> 
> 
> For one example of what is wrong with your methods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to your other writings, this one sounds as if it were done while you were smoking weed.  Let's make it easy for you:
> 
> 1)  I'm not confused about the Trump rally size.  I pointed out to you that the MSM* lied *about the size of rallies in the past and the people didn't have the advantages you do of proving their case (no cell phones with camera / video capability, no Internet, etc.)
> 
> If you want to believe in fairy tales, you believe in the MSM when it's convenient and when it isn't, it's fake news.  You're a political hack in that regard.  What counts is *RESULTS* - and Trump comes up short there
> 
> 2)  You are confused.  You continue to think the rally size of the KKK is indicative of the neo - Nazis.  They are completely two, different organizations.  The REAL Nazis don't admit who they are.  They do not wear swastikas, but rather business suits.  They mix into the mainstream and they hobnob with the elite.
> 
> That is why their think tanks are funded by people like John Tanton... a tree hugging, pro - abortion, nazi who believes in eugenics.  If I need to school you again, we can do that.
> 
> 3)  Rally sizes aside, the fact is Trump lost the House in his first term.  Compare that to what you're selling and it's easy to see you are not only a political hack, but delusional as well.
> 
> You have deluded yourself into thinking your cause is not about race and that I'm making some link between you and racists.  You are deluded on both counts.  As a result, the side you're on cannot articulate their vision for a future.  I doubt they have any vision for America.   If you do not believe that whites have the same Rights as the rest of the people on this planet, *YOU* are deluded and kidding yourself.  You cannot see past your single issue in order to figure out where you are ultimately going.  But, if you keep posting just to screw with me, I *CAN *school you - and the downside is, somebody might just access the links and figure it out - You're dumber than a box of fucking rocks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I have posted pictures of Trump rallies that dwarf any modern white supremacist and/or klan rally. Your denial of this fact is irrational.
> 
> 2. My point stands. It is absurd to credit a movements(s) that considers hitting double digits at a rally, a big win, for the massive political movement that Trump led to the White House. Absolutely absurd.
> 
> 3. Not sure what point you think you are making with "Trump lost the House" argument. You seem to be arguing against someone voicing confidence in future victories. Which I have not done, so, whatever.
> 
> 4. Nothing I have said, justifies your implication that I do not believe that whites have the same rights as anyone else. Is that based on some silly 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon nonsense again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) * You are LYING*  I used the Trump analogy because the MSM has attempted to downplay the numbers at Trump rallies and they were even worse in the 1970s through 1990s
> 
> 2)  Trump is a one hit wonder that cannot get his most trusted allies of many years to stay on board his sinking ship.  The Dems will turn a lot of states in the next election.  The right will be a shell of its old self
> 
> 3)  I don't get you six degrees bullshit.  The people I am linking together KNOW one another... despite Trump's cow poop lies that he didn't know David Duke.  Know this son, Duke screwed some friends out of money so I don't like him all that well.  But, at the height of his popularity, he had worldwide support.  So, in some respects, he did bring peoples attention to some of the problems we are having.
> 
> My issue was and is, Trump and Duke share the same ideology toward solutions (that won't work.)  Other than that, you're pecking a keyboard, hoping for a miracle.  It's just you and me and when you get your nose out of Trump's ass for a moment, you might find a constitutionalist that realizes a problem exists, but has a much more honest response and a more effective plan to fight for Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You said that Trump's base was white supremacist and nazis. I pointed out, correctly that it is absurd to give credit to the those who are lucking to get to double digits at their rallies, for the thousands that regularly turn out for Trump. That point stands.
> 
> 
> 2. Nothing I have said, has implied that I am confident about the future nor based on winning in the future. I don't know if you have confused me with someone else, or if this is another invention of yours. But you are wasting your time addressing something I have never said, nor believe.
> 
> 
> 3. I have repeatedly explained my opinion of the way you conflate different groups. It is wrong and unfair of you, that way you do that.
> 
> 
> 4. If I hear a nazi arguing for good dental hygiene, I am not going to stop brushing my teeth. THat fact that I brush my teeth, despite hearing a nazi say it was a good idea, does not make me a nazi.
> 
> And all of that, is still nothing but the logical fallacy of guilt by association. Very weak association.
Click to expand...


Correll, you are extremely childish, uninformed and uneducated.  You make the argument that the size of Trump's rallies versus the size of grass roots rallies is the determining factor in Trump's popularity.

Son, it is irrelevant.  Richard Spencer put a little money in the kitty and Charlottesville drew one Hell of a crowd.  People don't go out of their way to support grass roots organizations, but the reality is, the grass roots organizations are where you find the ground troops.

MOST white people will not identify as racists because they feel, and justifiably so, that working for White Rights (no matter how you try to spin it) is not a crime, so they will not put themselves nor their families into jeopardy by speaking out.  

After more than 1000 exchanges with you I see that you are stupid enough to argue with a tree stump and dumb enough to lose to one.  You can bullshit people until Hell freezes over, but if you want to retain your culture; if you care about the Constitution of the United States; if you really believe in the Rule of Law, then you have to be _"racist" _by today's standards.  You conflate Nazism with racism.  All Nazis are racists, but not all racists are Nazis.  

The non-white world is attuned to this bullshit, double standard line that you are about the Rule of Law in one breath and then trying to enlist the support of non-whites in the next breath while standing beside a political platform that denounces multiculturalism.  Could you be more screwed up!!!  I don't conflate different groups.  Whether you agree or not, like it or not, if your dumb ass got out there and *WORKED* among the activists, you would figure out that the white collar, suit and tie yuppie is saying the same thing that most white supremacists are saying.

There are a lot of Americans that are tired of watching their flags, monuments, plaques, memorials, and statues being torn down.  There are those who get fed up with one guy wearing a diaper on his head and we're supposed to respect his religion while telling others they cannot wear anything with a cross on it as it offends the diaper wearing asshat on his head that demands you respect him.  There are those who think the black people wanting reparations are a joke.  Some people even get fed up that the blacks can play that nasty rap where it's heard all over the neighborhood and the demeaning lyrics about hos and bitches and sexually humiliating white chicks.  Not everybody goes along with inter-racial marriages, double standards that allow the black guys to run around saying the N word, but you aren't supposed to be allowed.  

There are a lot of different racists in different degrees.  You don't have to hate the other races; you might even be married to someone of another race.  But, if you value anything about your culture, then the Dems, most blacks, and all the liberals say you're racist.  So, live with it.

The problem your dumb ass can't see is that people like Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and the other high rollers don't give a rat's ass about your petty issue.  A lot of what you want won't pass constitutional muster, so politicians don't give a shit.  They get over-ruled in the courts and things don't change.  The only things that change for those who cherish Liberty is that you and those of your ilk support an agenda that is antithetical to the core principles of Liberty.  You simply cannot build a government big enough to save you from yourself and if you take away the ability of your generation or the next to resist tyranny, you are a puppet of the NEW WORLD ORDER / One World Government.  Know this: your demi-god Trump is part and parcel to the type of people who want to* control *you. 

I can't save you from your actions, so when you advocate and work for laws that restrict my Liberty / *unalienable *Rights, I will oppose you.  The only fundamental difference between the crowd you have chosen to stick your nose up their ass and Bernie Sanders is the race issue.

You can use the standard canard of "_logical fallacy_,"  and all that other puffed up meaningless bullshit, but until you've been IN the fight, you keyboard commando illiteracy is worth what you paid for it.  If you studied instead of posting 50,000 posts on this board, you might have a clue.  Today you don't, son.  You are a useful idiot taking the tools required of a free society and making resistance to tyranny impossible... A*ND YOUR BOYS DON'T HAVE A DAMN THING TO SHOW FOR IT IN OVER 15 YEARS OF THIS MONOTONOUS "ILLEGAL ALIEN" - SECURE THE BORDER BABBOON LEVEL THINKING AND SHIT SPEWING*.

anyone have a problem with

Read post  # 44  You might get it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

danielpalos said:


> Our original Constitution is both gender and race neutral, from Inception.
> 
> natural rights apply to Persons subject to US jurisdiction.




*FALSE*.  Within six months of the ratification of the United States Constitution, the FIRST Naturalization Act was passed.  Here is what it says:

"_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free *white person*, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court.._."    *United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790)  1 Stat. 103*


----------



## LilOlLady

ozro said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with repelling an invading horde of diseased criminals from our country?  If killing a few thousand stops the migration, that would be a good thing...Those that die in the desert are far worse, so show those who are willing to make the arduous trek, that it isnt worth it, and save even more lives, by killing a few...The needs of the many out way the needs of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do not have to condone murder. ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Murder isnt defending your borders from diseases that want to cross into our country and kill US.  Murder isnt defending yourself from criminals with the intent to rape our women and kill US.  Is it really that hard to see why we need to "Shoot" people who shouldn't belong here?  They are dying in the 10 of 1000s crossing into areas that will kill them anyway.  Why aren't we just euthanizing them out of their misery...Call it "Post Birth Abortions"..​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This group did the right thing, held them for bp.
> There are those that do not, they kill them. that is murder.
Click to expand...

A citizen's arrest is an arrest made by a person who is not acting as a sworn law-enforcement official. In common law jurisdictions, the practice dates back to medieval England and the English common law, in which sheriffs encouraged ordinary citizens to help apprehend law breakers.


----------



## bodecea

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your spin fools nobody except those lacking basic reading skills.  You dumb asses have had the advantage of having the cameras on you 24 / 7 for over 15 years now.  The politicians haven't built a wall, but *YOUR NAME IS ON THEIR WORK:*
> 
> The creation of the Dept. of Homeland (IN Security)  - sounds a lot like Russia's Motherland Security or Nazi Germany's Fatherland Security
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Created after 9-11, not by "wallists" but by the nation as a whole. Putting that on "Wallists" is simply dishonest.
> 
> 
> 2. It might sound like something Russian, or German, but it is not.  It is completely to be expected that security would go UP after a mass murder like 9-11.
> 
> 
> 
> The rest of your list, was just as flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *EVERYTHING* I listed was* proposed by politicians who sought the wallists vote and / or were Tea Party Republicans.*  You and I know it's true and we've explored it before.  Now, you're wanting to rehash old history just to get your ass whipped again.  You didn't access the links the last time and you won't today.
> 
> 9 / 11 provided the catalyst for a long range program that had been in place for many years.  The NEW WORLD ORDER types kept failing until 9 / 11 and then all of a sudden the legislation poured out like a thunderstorm.  All of it had been written, just waiting on the opportunity to come along.
> 
> The last time I documented every sentence, crossed every T and dotted every I, you tapped out and now we're wasting our time rehashing shit you don't read and don't know shit about.  Anyone dumb enough to follow you is going to Hell or jail.  One thread went - around 4000 or so posts.  I could repost it all here.  You'd just take a beating for nothing.  Being a racist is the least of your worries.
> 
> The strategies you hide behind have cost a lot of people their lives or gotten them put into prisons..  Yet you never have to worry; you're a nameless disinformation artist that never put his ass on the line.  So, anyone who relies on you should consider the source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To pretend that those who wanted the various changes after 9-11, or as you put it, the "New World Order" types,
> 
> 
> are the same group as the "wallists" and/or the Tea Party Republicans,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is a good example of the fundamental flaw in your thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> You see some vague connection between two groups, such as a  tiny overlap, or some such bullshit, and then you from that point, just lump them together in your mind as a single entity.
> 
> 
> It makes no sense, and it makes everything that you build on that, equally senseless.
> 
> 
> The Tea Party as was a grass roots anti tax movement.
> 
> Lots of people support Border Security.
> 
> 
> I'm sure that there is plenty of overlap between those two groups, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who want low taxes who do not want a Wall.
> 
> 
> It would be senseless to accuse someone who was part of the Tea Party of being a Wall supporter, based on the overlap.
> 
> 
> And the "New World Order"? That is another, very different and very different THIRD group. Telling the Tea Party-er that he is a member of the New World Order, would be delusional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no flaw in my reasoning.  As I have explained to you, in order to understand any issue, you must understand *all* sides.  You have to know how an enemy eats, breathes, and thinks at every level.  Most of all, you have to know their strategies (i.e. Hegelian Dialectics, psychopolitics, political guerrilla warfare, etc.)  You're so fricking lazy you don't even bother reading basic links explaining your own forefathers positions on the subject.  You don't have a clue as to how the puppet masters are playing you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bull. A lot of explaining why you are assigning to people, ideas, actions and responsibilities that are not theirs.
> 
> A tea party member has the right to be against more taxes, without being lumped in with the New World Order. For one limited example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are *too stupid to read* the provided links so you don't know what in the Hell I think.  You are hoping someone will buy whatever elixir you're selling.  Meanwhile, the enemies of America are out there, playing political mind games and your actions are calculated so as to do you the most long term harm while you believe that you're going to win something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a point to make, make it. Links are to provide documentation to support your point, not make them for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You confuse a militarized border with border security.  This is analogous to the gun control crowd's argument that until all guns are banned, we are not safe.  *It's the same political reasoning! *Of course, you will fall back on your standard canard about _"illegal immigration_" which is a defense of immigration policies enacted by liberals and intended to implode at an appropriate time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't. I realize that a border does not have to be militarized to be secure. I realize that a militarized border might not be secure.
> 
> YOU, assigned to me, this belief, based on nothing I ever posted, and then attacked me, based on nothing but crap you made up in your own mind.
> 
> THAT IS A FLAW IN YOUR THINKING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As those policies implode, you are on the front lines, helping enact laws that are antithetical to the cause of Liberty.  You can't look five or ten years down the road and see the damage you're doing to this country.  You don't give a shit.  You treat America's future the way you look at your morning breakfast... pop it in the microwave and get what you want in an instant.  You are way the Hell too immature to understand that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.  What you're doing is beneficial ONLY to the people that want a NEW WORLD ORDER / One World Government.  Your views on using the military to enforce domestic legal policies are a testament to your ignorance on that point.  You need to focus on your stupidity and do some serious research.  I'm embarrassed that my own countrymen are not into seeking out sound counsel (as opposed to slinging shit at it) and attempting to find out what *everyone* is telling you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using the military to protect from invaders, is not using the military for domestic legal policies. If some moron ruled in the past that it was, that was a mistake on their part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're getting nowhere in your approach and if you check in on reality, while Trump may bring in a few crowds, at the polls, the Democrats are taking over from the ground up and gaining every day that you refuse to start using your head.  When I was in my teens and acted as impetuously as you, an older man took me aside and said, "_A man that don't use his brain may as well have been born with two assholes_."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My point about Trump's crowd was not to claim that we are winning, but to compare them to the size of nazis rallies and demonstrate that your conflating of the two was wrong.
> 
> That you got confused about that, reveals a flaw in your style of posting, ie the long rambling walls of text.
> 
> My point about that, btw, stands. It is absurd to think that the people that consider breaking into double digits a win, are the ones that drove Trump's massive outsider movement that won the Republican Primaries and then the general election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until you've manned the border, gotten into public debates on radio and tv; until the media has raked you over the coals and you've had to sit in think tanks figuring out to eke out a victory in the face of certain defeat; until you've been in courts on all sides of the fence,  you are the one bullshitting these people.  You're too lazy to even take a few weeks and read a few books, asking yourself how the actions you take today may be used against you in the future.  You are a keyboard commando with shit for brains, no experience, and a strategy that will leave the next generation in bondage with no hope to resisting tyranny.
> 
> I've tried to offer you the help and the insight.  I've told you I know the problem exists and that the end of our culture is imminent.  But, you're like a proselyte of the Scribes and Pharisees:
> 
> "_Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, you make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves._.."  Matthew 23 : 15
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And insults provided as a supporting argument.
Click to expand...

What happened to the Tea Party anyways?


----------



## Crixus

Jitss617 said:


> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?





They don’t have to. Those retards are only making it worse. They would be better served going out and getting Jobs. I’m thinking their wives are sick of buying them all that taxticool bullshit and mountain house food. Shits expensive.


----------



## Crixus

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwing fear, hate, and bigotry.
Click to expand...




Pseudo intellectual  rap y’all say on the rare occasions you have nothing to say.


----------



## danielpalos

Porter Rockwell said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our original Constitution is both gender and race neutral, from Inception.
> 
> natural rights apply to Persons subject to US jurisdiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *FALSE*.  Within six months of the ratification of the United States Constitution, the FIRST Naturalization Act was passed.  Here is what it says:
> 
> "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free *white person*, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court.._."    *United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790)  1 Stat. 103*
Click to expand...

Our *Constitution* is both _gender_ and _race_ neutral from inception.  That Act was unconstitutional.


----------



## Jitss617

Crixus said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don’t have to. Those retards are only making it worse. They would be better served going out and getting Jobs. I’m thinking their wives are sick of buying them all that taxticool bullshit and mountain house food. Shits expensive.
Click to expand...

Actually they have a go fund me page ,, I support them so does thousands of Americans..


----------



## Porter Rockwell

danielpalos said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our original Constitution is both gender and race neutral, from Inception.
> 
> natural rights apply to Persons subject to US jurisdiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *FALSE*.  Within six months of the ratification of the United States Constitution, the FIRST Naturalization Act was passed.  Here is what it says:
> 
> "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free *white person*, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court.._."    *United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790)  1 Stat. 103*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our *Constitution* is both _gender_ and _race_ neutral from inception.  That Act was unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


No, it wasn't.  The way they passed the 14th Amendment, however, *WAS* unconstitutional.  Without the illegally ratified 14th Amendment, the Constitution only had relevance to the whites.

It took an unconstitutionally ratified Amendment to make the Constitution race "_neutral_" (which it still is not - it just changed the flavors) and it's leading us down a road toward internal civil war OR genocide against the whites.

The wallists are pushing us toward a war while, at the same time, handicapping the whites so that they will not be able to resist the reign of terror that is about to be unleashed on them.


----------



## Crixus

Jitss617 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don’t have to. Those retards are only making it worse. They would be better served going out and getting Jobs. I’m thinking their wives are sick of buying them all that taxticool bullshit and mountain house food. Shits expensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually they have a go fund me page ,, I support them so does thousands of Americans..
Click to expand...



Yeah until they get their ass shot up. They are morons. Dumb fags from Iowa who were to fat or stupid to make it into the military or law enforcers so they asked their old lady’s to buy them an AR and some army clothes. Somewhere out there there is a photo of one of these tards sitting in front of a McDonads eating an MRE. They will get someone killed.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Crixus said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don’t have to. Those retards are only making it worse. They would be better served going out and getting Jobs. I’m thinking their wives are sick of buying them all that taxticool bullshit and mountain house food. Shits expensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually they have a go fund me page ,, I support them so does thousands of Americans..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah until they get their ass shot up. They are morons. Dumb fags from Iowa who were to fat or stupid to make it into the military or law enforcers so they asked their old lady’s to buy them an AR and some army clothes. Somewhere out there there is a photo of one of these tards sitting in front of a McDonads eating an MRE. They will get someone killed.
Click to expand...


I continue to point out that it is *NOT* the job of any civilian militia to enforce domestic law *NOR* pretend to be qualified to be military personnel defending the border.  The militia answers to the governor of the state.

Back in the late 1990s and 2000s I admonished many of these wannabe militias to follow a legal and effective path to which they still ridicule  (see the ongoing whizzing contest I have with Correll.)  In over 15 years these people continue to get their own thrown into jails, prisons, and graves... and few of them get flipped and become snitch bitches for some alphabet agency of the government.  What they're advocating has been about as effective as a eunuch in a whorehouse over the past decade and a half. 

What is worse, in my opinion, are the many laws that make future resistance impossible due to the stupid actions of civilian groups thinking they have any authority to over-ride the Commander in Chief at the state level.  Their wives and girlfriends should tell them to quit making excuses, go out and get a job rather than post on boards and play with guns all day.  If they'd work the jobs, Hispanics would not be needed and wouldn't come here if lazy ass Americans were changing their own culture and finding it immoral to lay around, blaming everyone, except themselves for not working.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

ozro said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with repelling an invading horde of diseased criminals from our country?  If killing a few thousand stops the migration, that would be a good thing...Those that die in the desert are far worse, so show those who are willing to make the arduous trek, that it isnt worth it, and save even more lives, by killing a few...The needs of the many out way the needs of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do not have to condone murder. ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Murder isnt defending your borders from diseases that want to cross into our country and kill US.  Murder isnt defending yourself from criminals with the intent to rape our women and kill US.  Is it really that hard to see why we need to "Shoot" people who shouldn't belong here?  They are dying in the 10 of 1000s crossing into areas that will kill them anyway.  Why aren't we just euthanizing them out of their misery...Call it "Post Birth Abortions"..​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This group did the right thing, held them for bp.
> There are those that do not, they kill them. that is murder.
Click to expand...


It was the wrong thing to do.  Remember: the wallists are claiming this is about an "_illegal"_ act.  Here's some advice for those of you considering taking the advice of ozro:

Self-Defense Tip: Don't Hold Anyone At Gunpoint - The Truth About Guns

Secondly, civilian militias destroyed their own arguments in 2003 on this issue.  Basically, a border patrol effort called Ranch Rescue was watching private property along the border at a landowner's behest.

Some Salvadorans came along and tried to trespass (improper entry is the legal term)  whereupon Ranch Rescue and the Salvadorans got into a tiff with the Salvadorans losing.  The matter ended up in court.

The judge put Ranch Rescue members in prison for violating the "_civil rights_" of the Salvadorans.    BTW, Ranch Rescue members refused to take my advice to appeal.  The ranch owner lost his home and land to the Salvadorans.  

Leiva v. Ranch Rescue

We have a problem, but if you take the advice of the wallists, your ass is going to jail, prison, into a grave - or you will become a snitch bitch for an alphabet agency.  Meanwhile the strategies these people employ are taking away your ability to resist tyranny in the future.


----------



## ozro

Porter Rockwell said:


> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ozro said:
> 
> 
> 
> They held them for bp. That doesn't always happen. There are actually those that will kill them, knowing it is damn near impossible to get caught.
> 
> fix the border already, it's the right thing to do
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with repelling an invading horde of diseased criminals from our country?  If killing a few thousand stops the migration, that would be a good thing...Those that die in the desert are far worse, so show those who are willing to make the arduous trek, that it isnt worth it, and save even more lives, by killing a few...The needs of the many out way the needs of the few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do not have to condone murder. ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Murder isnt defending your borders from diseases that want to cross into our country and kill US.  Murder isnt defending yourself from criminals with the intent to rape our women and kill US.  Is it really that hard to see why we need to "Shoot" people who shouldn't belong here?  They are dying in the 10 of 1000s crossing into areas that will kill them anyway.  Why aren't we just euthanizing them out of their misery...Call it "Post Birth Abortions"..​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This group did the right thing, held them for bp.
> There are those that do not, they kill them. that is murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was the wrong thing to do.  Remember: the wallists are claiming this is about an "_illegal"_ act.  Here's some advice for those of you considering taking the advice of ozro:
> 
> Self-Defense Tip: Don't Hold Anyone At Gunpoint - The Truth About Guns
> 
> Secondly, civilian militias destroyed their own arguments in 2003 on this issue.  Basically, a border patrol effort called Ranch Rescue was watching private property along the border at a landowner's behest.
> 
> Some Salvadorans came along and tried to trespass (improper entry is the legal term)  whereupon Ranch Rescue and the Salvadorans got into a tiff with the Salvadorans losing.  The matter ended up in court.
> 
> The judge put Ranch Rescue members in prison for violating the "_civil rights_" of the Salvadorans.    BTW, Ranch Rescue members refused to take my advice to appeal.  The ranch owner lost his home and land to the Salvadorans.
> 
> Leiva v. Ranch Rescue
> 
> We have a problem, but if you take the advice of the wallists, your ass is going to jail, prison, into a grave - or you will become a snitch bitch for an alphabet agency.  Meanwhile the strategies these people employ are taking away your ability to resist tyranny in the future.
Click to expand...



all i meant was, they didn't shoot them. 

there are some that do shoot them.


----------



## Jitss617

Porter Rockwell said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don’t have to. Those retards are only making it worse. They would be better served going out and getting Jobs. I’m thinking their wives are sick of buying them all that taxticool bullshit and mountain house food. Shits expensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually they have a go fund me page ,, I support them so does thousands of Americans..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah until they get their ass shot up. They are morons. Dumb fags from Iowa who were to fat or stupid to make it into the military or law enforcers so they asked their old lady’s to buy them an AR and some army clothes. Somewhere out there there is a photo of one of these tards sitting in front of a McDonads eating an MRE. They will get someone killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I continue to point out that it is *NOT* the job of any civilian militia to enforce domestic law *NOR* pretend to be qualified to be military personnel defending the border.  The militia answers to the governor of the state.
> 
> Back in the late 1990s and 2000s I admonished many of these wannabe militias to follow a legal and effective path to which they still ridicule  (see the ongoing whizzing contest I have with Correll.)  In over 15 years these people continue to get their own thrown into jails, prisons, and graves... and few of them get flipped and become snitch bitches for some alphabet agency of the government.  What they're advocating has been about as effective as a eunuch in a whorehouse over the past decade and a half.
> 
> What is worse, in my opinion, are the many laws that make future resistance impossible due to the stupid actions of civilian groups thinking they have any authority to over-ride the Commander in Chief at the state level.  Their wives and girlfriends should tell them to quit making excuses, go out and get a job rather than post on boards and play with guns all day.  If they'd work the jobs, Hispanics would not be needed and wouldn't come here if lazy ass Americans were changing their own culture and finding it immoral to lay around, blaming everyone, except themselves for not working.
Click to expand...

Sorry I will never allow this country to be Inavded.. Nothing you can do about it.. tic toc


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Jitss617 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don’t have to. Those retards are only making it worse. They would be better served going out and getting Jobs. I’m thinking their wives are sick of buying them all that taxticool bullshit and mountain house food. Shits expensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually they have a go fund me page ,, I support them so does thousands of Americans..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah until they get their ass shot up. They are morons. Dumb fags from Iowa who were to fat or stupid to make it into the military or law enforcers so they asked their old lady’s to buy them an AR and some army clothes. Somewhere out there there is a photo of one of these tards sitting in front of a McDonads eating an MRE. They will get someone killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I continue to point out that it is *NOT* the job of any civilian militia to enforce domestic law *NOR* pretend to be qualified to be military personnel defending the border.  The militia answers to the governor of the state.
> 
> Back in the late 1990s and 2000s I admonished many of these wannabe militias to follow a legal and effective path to which they still ridicule  (see the ongoing whizzing contest I have with Correll.)  In over 15 years these people continue to get their own thrown into jails, prisons, and graves... and few of them get flipped and become snitch bitches for some alphabet agency of the government.  What they're advocating has been about as effective as a eunuch in a whorehouse over the past decade and a half.
> 
> What is worse, in my opinion, are the many laws that make future resistance impossible due to the stupid actions of civilian groups thinking they have any authority to over-ride the Commander in Chief at the state level.  Their wives and girlfriends should tell them to quit making excuses, go out and get a job rather than post on boards and play with guns all day.  If they'd work the jobs, Hispanics would not be needed and wouldn't come here if lazy ass Americans were changing their own culture and finding it immoral to lay around, blaming everyone, except themselves for not working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry I will never allow this country to be Inavded.. Nothing you can do about it.. tic toc
Click to expand...


This country is not being invaded.  Check Black's Law Dictionary.  If you're going to hide behind the law, at least have the courage to understand the meaning of the words.

Do we have a problem?  Yes.  Do the wallists have the answers?  NO.  In the last decade and a half or so they have ended up with dozens upon dozens of their followers in jails, prisons, and graves.  Some are bitch snitches.  Embarrassingly, they don't have squat to show for it other than the loss of those they deluded.

If you hold yourself to the Rule of Law, you will have to choose another strategy *OR* you will have to ask yourself where you will end up in those categories.  Bear in mind, with your help, the left is turning America into a democracy AND there are more of them than there are of people like you.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you got confused about why we were discussing Trump rally size, shows that your style of posting is inferior.
> 
> 
> My point about that stands. It is utterly absurd to pretend that white supremacists/nazis, who are lucky to get into double digits when they have rallies, are responsible for the massive movement that gave Trump first the Republican Nomination, and then the Presidency.
> 
> 
> The Tea Party was a valid political movement that had valid political points to make. That you attack them based on your weird game of 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, is disrespectful to the millions of good people that were part of that movement.
> 
> 
> For one example of what is wrong with your methods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compared to your other writings, this one sounds as if it were done while you were smoking weed.  Let's make it easy for you:
> 
> 1)  I'm not confused about the Trump rally size.  I pointed out to you that the MSM* lied *about the size of rallies in the past and the people didn't have the advantages you do of proving their case (no cell phones with camera / video capability, no Internet, etc.)
> 
> If you want to believe in fairy tales, you believe in the MSM when it's convenient and when it isn't, it's fake news.  You're a political hack in that regard.  What counts is *RESULTS* - and Trump comes up short there
> 
> 2)  You are confused.  You continue to think the rally size of the KKK is indicative of the neo - Nazis.  They are completely two, different organizations.  The REAL Nazis don't admit who they are.  They do not wear swastikas, but rather business suits.  They mix into the mainstream and they hobnob with the elite.
> 
> That is why their think tanks are funded by people like John Tanton... a tree hugging, pro - abortion, nazi who believes in eugenics.  If I need to school you again, we can do that.
> 
> 3)  Rally sizes aside, the fact is Trump lost the House in his first term.  Compare that to what you're selling and it's easy to see you are not only a political hack, but delusional as well.
> 
> You have deluded yourself into thinking your cause is not about race and that I'm making some link between you and racists.  You are deluded on both counts.  As a result, the side you're on cannot articulate their vision for a future.  I doubt they have any vision for America.   If you do not believe that whites have the same Rights as the rest of the people on this planet, *YOU* are deluded and kidding yourself.  You cannot see past your single issue in order to figure out where you are ultimately going.  But, if you keep posting just to screw with me, I *CAN *school you - and the downside is, somebody might just access the links and figure it out - You're dumber than a box of fucking rocks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I have posted pictures of Trump rallies that dwarf any modern white supremacist and/or klan rally. Your denial of this fact is irrational.
> 
> 2. My point stands. It is absurd to credit a movements(s) that considers hitting double digits at a rally, a big win, for the massive political movement that Trump led to the White House. Absolutely absurd.
> 
> 3. Not sure what point you think you are making with "Trump lost the House" argument. You seem to be arguing against someone voicing confidence in future victories. Which I have not done, so, whatever.
> 
> 4. Nothing I have said, justifies your implication that I do not believe that whites have the same rights as anyone else. Is that based on some silly 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon nonsense again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) * You are LYING*  I used the Trump analogy because the MSM has attempted to downplay the numbers at Trump rallies and they were even worse in the 1970s through 1990s
> 
> 2)  Trump is a one hit wonder that cannot get his most trusted allies of many years to stay on board his sinking ship.  The Dems will turn a lot of states in the next election.  The right will be a shell of its old self
> 
> 3)  I don't get you six degrees bullshit.  The people I am linking together KNOW one another... despite Trump's cow poop lies that he didn't know David Duke.  Know this son, Duke screwed some friends out of money so I don't like him all that well.  But, at the height of his popularity, he had worldwide support.  So, in some respects, he did bring peoples attention to some of the problems we are having.
> 
> My issue was and is, Trump and Duke share the same ideology toward solutions (that won't work.)  Other than that, you're pecking a keyboard, hoping for a miracle.  It's just you and me and when you get your nose out of Trump's ass for a moment, you might find a constitutionalist that realizes a problem exists, but has a much more honest response and a more effective plan to fight for Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You said that Trump's base was white supremacist and nazis. I pointed out, correctly that it is absurd to give credit to the those who are lucking to get to double digits at their rallies, for the thousands that regularly turn out for Trump. That point stands.
> 
> 
> 2. Nothing I have said, has implied that I am confident about the future nor based on winning in the future. I don't know if you have confused me with someone else, or if this is another invention of yours. But you are wasting your time addressing something I have never said, nor believe.
> 
> 
> 3. I have repeatedly explained my opinion of the way you conflate different groups. It is wrong and unfair of you, that way you do that.
> 
> 
> 4. If I hear a nazi arguing for good dental hygiene, I am not going to stop brushing my teeth. THat fact that I brush my teeth, despite hearing a nazi say it was a good idea, does not make me a nazi.
> 
> And all of that, is still nothing but the logical fallacy of guilt by association. Very weak association.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll, you are extremely childish, uninformed and uneducated.  You make the argument that the size of Trump's rallies versus the size of grass roots rallies is the determining factor in Trump's popularity.
> 
> Son, it is irrelevant.  Richard Spencer put a little money in the kitty and Charlottesville drew one Hell of a crowd.  People don't go out of their way to support grass roots organizations, but the reality is, the grass roots organizations are where you find the ground troops.
> 
> MOST white people will not identify as racists because they feel, and justifiably so, that working for White Rights (no matter how you try to spin it) is not a crime, so they will not put themselves nor their families into jeopardy by speaking out.
> 
> After more than 1000 exchanges with you I see that you are stupid enough to argue with a tree stump and dumb enough to lose to one.  You can bullshit people until Hell freezes over, but if you want to retain your culture; if you care about the Constitution of the United States; if you really believe in the Rule of Law, then you have to be _"racist" _by today's standards.  You conflate Nazism with racism.  All Nazis are racists, but not all racists are Nazis.
> 
> The non-white world is attuned to this bullshit, double standard line that you are about the Rule of Law in one breath and then trying to enlist the support of non-whites in the next breath while standing beside a political platform that denounces multiculturalism.  Could you be more screwed up!!!  I don't conflate different groups.  Whether you agree or not, like it or not, if your dumb ass got out there and *WORKED* among the activists, you would figure out that the white collar, suit and tie yuppie is saying the same thing that most white supremacists are saying.
> 
> There are a lot of Americans that are tired of watching their flags, monuments, plaques, memorials, and statues being torn down.  There are those who get fed up with one guy wearing a diaper on his head and we're supposed to respect his religion while telling others they cannot wear anything with a cross on it as it offends the diaper wearing asshat on his head that demands you respect him.  There are those who think the black people wanting reparations are a joke.  Some people even get fed up that the blacks can play that nasty rap where it's heard all over the neighborhood and the demeaning lyrics about hos and bitches and sexually humiliating white chicks.  Not everybody goes along with inter-racial marriages, double standards that allow the black guys to run around saying the N word, but you aren't supposed to be allowed.
> 
> There are a lot of different racists in different degrees.  You don't have to hate the other races; you might even be married to someone of another race.  But, if you value anything about your culture, then the Dems, most blacks, and all the liberals say you're racist.  So, live with it.
> 
> The problem your dumb ass can't see is that people like Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and the other high rollers don't give a rat's ass about your petty issue.  A lot of what you want won't pass constitutional muster, so politicians don't give a shit.  They get over-ruled in the courts and things don't change.  The only things that change for those who cherish Liberty is that you and those of your ilk support an agenda that is antithetical to the core principles of Liberty.  You simply cannot build a government big enough to save you from yourself and if you take away the ability of your generation or the next to resist tyranny, you are a puppet of the NEW WORLD ORDER / One World Government.  Know this: your demi-god Trump is part and parcel to the type of people who want to* control *you.
> 
> I can't save you from your actions, so when you advocate and work for laws that restrict my Liberty / *unalienable *Rights, I will oppose you.  The only fundamental difference between the crowd you have chosen to stick your nose up their ass and Bernie Sanders is the race issue.
> 
> You can use the standard canard of "_logical fallacy_,"  and all that other puffed up meaningless bullshit, but until you've been IN the fight, you keyboard commando illiteracy is worth what you paid for it.  If you studied instead of posting 50,000 posts on this board, you might have a clue.  Today you don't, son.  You are a useful idiot taking the tools required of a free society and making resistance to tyranny impossible... A*ND YOUR BOYS DON'T HAVE A DAMN THING TO SHOW FOR IT IN OVER 15 YEARS OF THIS MONOTONOUS "ILLEGAL ALIEN" - SECURE THE BORDER BABBOON LEVEL THINKING AND SHIT SPEWING*.
> 
> anyone have a problem with
> 
> Read post  # 44  You might get it.
Click to expand...





1. AGAIN, we were discussing rally size, not to point out how popular Trump is, but to show that it is insane of you to give credit to Trump's popularity to a fringe movement that cannot get anything like the rallies that Trump can. 


And it is, insane of you to do that. Also, your insults are the type of shit people do, when they know their arguments are losing.



2.I agree that most white people do not identify as racist. However I think most white people have accepted that is it Taboo to even talk about white interests, because they have been told over and over again that it is racist to do so. Indeed, told that by people that play a game of guilt by association very similar to what you do.


3. I do care about my culture and my nation. I reject the idea that that is racism, despite the lies of the Left and I will call them on their bullshit about that, as doggedly and as annoyingly as I am calling you on yours.


4. I reject your claim that the "white collar types", whoever you think they are, are saying the same things that the white supremacists are saying. White supremacists are a fringe group. No one is saying the same shit they are.


5. I understand that "non-whites" are likely to see me as an enemy for denouncing multiculturalism, and that that is a problem for any attempts to find common ground with them. But my points about multiculturalism are true. It has been shown to be a lie. I cannot ignore that. It is tearing this nation apart.


6. I agree that many Americans are tired of "seeing their statues torn down", ect, but I will not let the liars call that racism. I will call them on any such bullshit, no matter how they present it. The same way I will not let you do so, with your game of guilt by association. 


7. I do not claim that Trump "cares about my issues".  I have not commented on his motives for his political platform. HIs platform is what I want and I support it. That you attack me for that, is just you being rude and condescending, very unfairly. 


8. I acknowledge the problem of the courts. But surrendering on these issues is just national suicide. All we can hope is that Trump will nominate real judges instead of lefty activists. 


9. This nation is turning into a Third World shithole. Your long term concerns about the size and shape of government is irrelevant, because it is just a little more paper work for the Dems and the Deep State to ignore when they get the control they want. 


10. I agree that we don't have much to show for it. This is probably too little to late. But the effects of even the limited reduction in illegal immigration flow Trump has done, has already had very impressive results for wages, especially on the lower end. It shows what could have been, or could be. Though the media will not tell the people that obvious fact.

11. We have to try. THe alternative that you support, ie surrender, is national suicide.


----------



## danielpalos

Porter Rockwell said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our original Constitution is both gender and race neutral, from Inception.
> 
> natural rights apply to Persons subject to US jurisdiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *FALSE*.  Within six months of the ratification of the United States Constitution, the FIRST Naturalization Act was passed.  Here is what it says:
> 
> "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free *white person*, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court.._."    *United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790)  1 Stat. 103*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our *Constitution* is both _gender_ and _race_ neutral from inception.  That Act was unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it wasn't.  The way they passed the 14th Amendment, however, *WAS* unconstitutional.  Without the illegally ratified 14th Amendment, the Constitution only had relevance to the whites.
> 
> It took an unconstitutionally ratified Amendment to make the Constitution race "_neutral_" (which it still is not - it just changed the flavors) and it's leading us down a road toward internal civil war OR genocide against the whites.
> 
> The wallists are pushing us toward a war while, at the same time, handicapping the whites so that they will not be able to resist the reign of terror that is about to be unleashed on them.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is.


----------



## danielpalos

Jitss617 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don’t have to. Those retards are only making it worse. They would be better served going out and getting Jobs. I’m thinking their wives are sick of buying them all that taxticool bullshit and mountain house food. Shits expensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually they have a go fund me page ,, I support them so does thousands of Americans..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah until they get their ass shot up. They are morons. Dumb fags from Iowa who were to fat or stupid to make it into the military or law enforcers so they asked their old lady’s to buy them an AR and some army clothes. Somewhere out there there is a photo of one of these tards sitting in front of a McDonads eating an MRE. They will get someone killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I continue to point out that it is *NOT* the job of any civilian militia to enforce domestic law *NOR* pretend to be qualified to be military personnel defending the border.  The militia answers to the governor of the state.
> 
> Back in the late 1990s and 2000s I admonished many of these wannabe militias to follow a legal and effective path to which they still ridicule  (see the ongoing whizzing contest I have with Correll.)  In over 15 years these people continue to get their own thrown into jails, prisons, and graves... and few of them get flipped and become snitch bitches for some alphabet agency of the government.  What they're advocating has been about as effective as a eunuch in a whorehouse over the past decade and a half.
> 
> What is worse, in my opinion, are the many laws that make future resistance impossible due to the stupid actions of civilian groups thinking they have any authority to over-ride the Commander in Chief at the state level.  Their wives and girlfriends should tell them to quit making excuses, go out and get a job rather than post on boards and play with guns all day.  If they'd work the jobs, Hispanics would not be needed and wouldn't come here if lazy ass Americans were changing their own culture and finding it immoral to lay around, blaming everyone, except themselves for not working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry I will never allow this country to be Inavded.. Nothing you can do about it.. tic toc
Click to expand...

you have to be federalized to enforce federal laws.


----------



## Crixus

danielpalos said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don’t have to. Those retards are only making it worse. They would be better served going out and getting Jobs. I’m thinking their wives are sick of buying them all that taxticool bullshit and mountain house food. Shits expensive.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually they have a go fund me page ,, I support them so does thousands of Americans..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah until they get their ass shot up. They are morons. Dumb fags from Iowa who were to fat or stupid to make it into the military or law enforcers so they asked their old lady’s to buy them an AR and some army clothes. Somewhere out there there is a photo of one of these tards sitting in front of a McDonads eating an MRE. They will get someone killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I continue to point out that it is *NOT* the job of any civilian militia to enforce domestic law *NOR* pretend to be qualified to be military personnel defending the border.  The militia answers to the governor of the state.
> 
> Back in the late 1990s and 2000s I admonished many of these wannabe militias to follow a legal and effective path to which they still ridicule  (see the ongoing whizzing contest I have with Correll.)  In over 15 years these people continue to get their own thrown into jails, prisons, and graves... and few of them get flipped and become snitch bitches for some alphabet agency of the government.  What they're advocating has been about as effective as a eunuch in a whorehouse over the past decade and a half.
> 
> What is worse, in my opinion, are the many laws that make future resistance impossible due to the stupid actions of civilian groups thinking they have any authority to over-ride the Commander in Chief at the state level.  Their wives and girlfriends should tell them to quit making excuses, go out and get a job rather than post on boards and play with guns all day.  If they'd work the jobs, Hispanics would not be needed and wouldn't come here if lazy ass Americans were changing their own culture and finding it immoral to lay around, blaming everyone, except themselves for not working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry I will never allow this country to be Inavded.. Nothing you can do about it.. tic toc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have to be federalized to enforce federal laws.
Click to expand...





I’ll be a devils advocate here and say I can see where these guys are coming from, but all there efforts are useless. Now the drug cartel guys are not the dumb hicks living in mud huts along the rio. These cartel guys have money comparable to a small country.  They have better guns, gear and cars then a few stupid honkys with AK’s could ever muster. If these Militia people were really having any impact on anything the cartel does they would be killed in three days. The cartel guys won’t go out of there way to kill cops, but a few stupid 4F rednecks? Why not?


----------



## danielpalos

Crixus said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually they have a go fund me page ,, I support them so does thousands of Americans..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah until they get their ass shot up. They are morons. Dumb fags from Iowa who were to fat or stupid to make it into the military or law enforcers so they asked their old lady’s to buy them an AR and some army clothes. Somewhere out there there is a photo of one of these tards sitting in front of a McDonads eating an MRE. They will get someone killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I continue to point out that it is *NOT* the job of any civilian militia to enforce domestic law *NOR* pretend to be qualified to be military personnel defending the border.  The militia answers to the governor of the state.
> 
> Back in the late 1990s and 2000s I admonished many of these wannabe militias to follow a legal and effective path to which they still ridicule  (see the ongoing whizzing contest I have with Correll.)  In over 15 years these people continue to get their own thrown into jails, prisons, and graves... and few of them get flipped and become snitch bitches for some alphabet agency of the government.  What they're advocating has been about as effective as a eunuch in a whorehouse over the past decade and a half.
> 
> What is worse, in my opinion, are the many laws that make future resistance impossible due to the stupid actions of civilian groups thinking they have any authority to over-ride the Commander in Chief at the state level.  Their wives and girlfriends should tell them to quit making excuses, go out and get a job rather than post on boards and play with guns all day.  If they'd work the jobs, Hispanics would not be needed and wouldn't come here if lazy ass Americans were changing their own culture and finding it immoral to lay around, blaming everyone, except themselves for not working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry I will never allow this country to be Inavded.. Nothing you can do about it.. tic toc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have to be federalized to enforce federal laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’ll be a devils advocate here and say I can see where these guys are coming from, but all there efforts are useless. Now the drug cartel guys are not the dumb hicks living in mud huts along the rio. These cartel guys have money comparable to a small country.  They have better guns, gear and cars then a few stupid honkys with AK’s could ever muster. If these Militia people were really having any impact on anything the cartel does they would be killed in three days. The cartel guys won’t go out of there way to kill cops, but a few stupid 4F rednecks? Why not?
Click to expand...

I am on the left; there is no drug war clause.  The right wing only knows socialism on a national basis and are all Talk concerning Capitalism.


----------



## Jitss617

Crixus said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually they have a go fund me page ,, I support them so does thousands of Americans..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah until they get their ass shot up. They are morons. Dumb fags from Iowa who were to fat or stupid to make it into the military or law enforcers so they asked their old lady’s to buy them an AR and some army clothes. Somewhere out there there is a photo of one of these tards sitting in front of a McDonads eating an MRE. They will get someone killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I continue to point out that it is *NOT* the job of any civilian militia to enforce domestic law *NOR* pretend to be qualified to be military personnel defending the border.  The militia answers to the governor of the state.
> 
> Back in the late 1990s and 2000s I admonished many of these wannabe militias to follow a legal and effective path to which they still ridicule  (see the ongoing whizzing contest I have with Correll.)  In over 15 years these people continue to get their own thrown into jails, prisons, and graves... and few of them get flipped and become snitch bitches for some alphabet agency of the government.  What they're advocating has been about as effective as a eunuch in a whorehouse over the past decade and a half.
> 
> What is worse, in my opinion, are the many laws that make future resistance impossible due to the stupid actions of civilian groups thinking they have any authority to over-ride the Commander in Chief at the state level.  Their wives and girlfriends should tell them to quit making excuses, go out and get a job rather than post on boards and play with guns all day.  If they'd work the jobs, Hispanics would not be needed and wouldn't come here if lazy ass Americans were changing their own culture and finding it immoral to lay around, blaming everyone, except themselves for not working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry I will never allow this country to be Inavded.. Nothing you can do about it.. tic toc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have to be federalized to enforce federal laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’ll be a devils advocate here and say I can see where these guys are coming from, but all there efforts are useless. Now the drug cartel guys are not the dumb hicks living in mud huts along the rio. These cartel guys have money comparable to a small country.  They have better guns, gear and cars then a few stupid honkys with AK’s could ever muster. If these Militia people were really having any impact on anything the cartel does they would be killed in three days. The cartel guys won’t go out of there way to kill cops, but a few stupid 4F rednecks? Why not?
Click to expand...

Lol a few honkys conquered Mexico lol us cowboys are the best shooters in the world


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Compared to your other writings, this one sounds as if it were done while you were smoking weed.  Let's make it easy for you:
> 
> 1)  I'm not confused about the Trump rally size.  I pointed out to you that the MSM* lied *about the size of rallies in the past and the people didn't have the advantages you do of proving their case (no cell phones with camera / video capability, no Internet, etc.)
> 
> If you want to believe in fairy tales, you believe in the MSM when it's convenient and when it isn't, it's fake news.  You're a political hack in that regard.  What counts is *RESULTS* - and Trump comes up short there
> 
> 2)  You are confused.  You continue to think the rally size of the KKK is indicative of the neo - Nazis.  They are completely two, different organizations.  The REAL Nazis don't admit who they are.  They do not wear swastikas, but rather business suits.  They mix into the mainstream and they hobnob with the elite.
> 
> That is why their think tanks are funded by people like John Tanton... a tree hugging, pro - abortion, nazi who believes in eugenics.  If I need to school you again, we can do that.
> 
> 3)  Rally sizes aside, the fact is Trump lost the House in his first term.  Compare that to what you're selling and it's easy to see you are not only a political hack, but delusional as well.
> 
> You have deluded yourself into thinking your cause is not about race and that I'm making some link between you and racists.  You are deluded on both counts.  As a result, the side you're on cannot articulate their vision for a future.  I doubt they have any vision for America.   If you do not believe that whites have the same Rights as the rest of the people on this planet, *YOU* are deluded and kidding yourself.  You cannot see past your single issue in order to figure out where you are ultimately going.  But, if you keep posting just to screw with me, I *CAN *school you - and the downside is, somebody might just access the links and figure it out - You're dumber than a box of fucking rocks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I have posted pictures of Trump rallies that dwarf any modern white supremacist and/or klan rally. Your denial of this fact is irrational.
> 
> 2. My point stands. It is absurd to credit a movements(s) that considers hitting double digits at a rally, a big win, for the massive political movement that Trump led to the White House. Absolutely absurd.
> 
> 3. Not sure what point you think you are making with "Trump lost the House" argument. You seem to be arguing against someone voicing confidence in future victories. Which I have not done, so, whatever.
> 
> 4. Nothing I have said, justifies your implication that I do not believe that whites have the same rights as anyone else. Is that based on some silly 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon nonsense again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) * You are LYING*  I used the Trump analogy because the MSM has attempted to downplay the numbers at Trump rallies and they were even worse in the 1970s through 1990s
> 
> 2)  Trump is a one hit wonder that cannot get his most trusted allies of many years to stay on board his sinking ship.  The Dems will turn a lot of states in the next election.  The right will be a shell of its old self
> 
> 3)  I don't get you six degrees bullshit.  The people I am linking together KNOW one another... despite Trump's cow poop lies that he didn't know David Duke.  Know this son, Duke screwed some friends out of money so I don't like him all that well.  But, at the height of his popularity, he had worldwide support.  So, in some respects, he did bring peoples attention to some of the problems we are having.
> 
> My issue was and is, Trump and Duke share the same ideology toward solutions (that won't work.)  Other than that, you're pecking a keyboard, hoping for a miracle.  It's just you and me and when you get your nose out of Trump's ass for a moment, you might find a constitutionalist that realizes a problem exists, but has a much more honest response and a more effective plan to fight for Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You said that Trump's base was white supremacist and nazis. I pointed out, correctly that it is absurd to give credit to the those who are lucking to get to double digits at their rallies, for the thousands that regularly turn out for Trump. That point stands.
> 
> 
> 2. Nothing I have said, has implied that I am confident about the future nor based on winning in the future. I don't know if you have confused me with someone else, or if this is another invention of yours. But you are wasting your time addressing something I have never said, nor believe.
> 
> 
> 3. I have repeatedly explained my opinion of the way you conflate different groups. It is wrong and unfair of you, that way you do that.
> 
> 
> 4. If I hear a nazi arguing for good dental hygiene, I am not going to stop brushing my teeth. THat fact that I brush my teeth, despite hearing a nazi say it was a good idea, does not make me a nazi.
> 
> And all of that, is still nothing but the logical fallacy of guilt by association. Very weak association.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll, you are extremely childish, uninformed and uneducated.  You make the argument that the size of Trump's rallies versus the size of grass roots rallies is the determining factor in Trump's popularity.
> 
> Son, it is irrelevant.  Richard Spencer put a little money in the kitty and Charlottesville drew one Hell of a crowd.  People don't go out of their way to support grass roots organizations, but the reality is, the grass roots organizations are where you find the ground troops.
> 
> MOST white people will not identify as racists because they feel, and justifiably so, that working for White Rights (no matter how you try to spin it) is not a crime, so they will not put themselves nor their families into jeopardy by speaking out.
> 
> After more than 1000 exchanges with you I see that you are stupid enough to argue with a tree stump and dumb enough to lose to one.  You can bullshit people until Hell freezes over, but if you want to retain your culture; if you care about the Constitution of the United States; if you really believe in the Rule of Law, then you have to be _"racist" _by today's standards.  You conflate Nazism with racism.  All Nazis are racists, but not all racists are Nazis.
> 
> The non-white world is attuned to this bullshit, double standard line that you are about the Rule of Law in one breath and then trying to enlist the support of non-whites in the next breath while standing beside a political platform that denounces multiculturalism.  Could you be more screwed up!!!  I don't conflate different groups.  Whether you agree or not, like it or not, if your dumb ass got out there and *WORKED* among the activists, you would figure out that the white collar, suit and tie yuppie is saying the same thing that most white supremacists are saying.
> 
> There are a lot of Americans that are tired of watching their flags, monuments, plaques, memorials, and statues being torn down.  There are those who get fed up with one guy wearing a diaper on his head and we're supposed to respect his religion while telling others they cannot wear anything with a cross on it as it offends the diaper wearing asshat on his head that demands you respect him.  There are those who think the black people wanting reparations are a joke.  Some people even get fed up that the blacks can play that nasty rap where it's heard all over the neighborhood and the demeaning lyrics about hos and bitches and sexually humiliating white chicks.  Not everybody goes along with inter-racial marriages, double standards that allow the black guys to run around saying the N word, but you aren't supposed to be allowed.
> 
> There are a lot of different racists in different degrees.  You don't have to hate the other races; you might even be married to someone of another race.  But, if you value anything about your culture, then the Dems, most blacks, and all the liberals say you're racist.  So, live with it.
> 
> The problem your dumb ass can't see is that people like Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and the other high rollers don't give a rat's ass about your petty issue.  A lot of what you want won't pass constitutional muster, so politicians don't give a shit.  They get over-ruled in the courts and things don't change.  The only things that change for those who cherish Liberty is that you and those of your ilk support an agenda that is antithetical to the core principles of Liberty.  You simply cannot build a government big enough to save you from yourself and if you take away the ability of your generation or the next to resist tyranny, you are a puppet of the NEW WORLD ORDER / One World Government.  Know this: your demi-god Trump is part and parcel to the type of people who want to* control *you.
> 
> I can't save you from your actions, so when you advocate and work for laws that restrict my Liberty / *unalienable *Rights, I will oppose you.  The only fundamental difference between the crowd you have chosen to stick your nose up their ass and Bernie Sanders is the race issue.
> 
> You can use the standard canard of "_logical fallacy_,"  and all that other puffed up meaningless bullshit, but until you've been IN the fight, you keyboard commando illiteracy is worth what you paid for it.  If you studied instead of posting 50,000 posts on this board, you might have a clue.  Today you don't, son.  You are a useful idiot taking the tools required of a free society and making resistance to tyranny impossible... A*ND YOUR BOYS DON'T HAVE A DAMN THING TO SHOW FOR IT IN OVER 15 YEARS OF THIS MONOTONOUS "ILLEGAL ALIEN" - SECURE THE BORDER BABBOON LEVEL THINKING AND SHIT SPEWING*.
> 
> anyone have a problem with
> 
> Read post  # 44  You might get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. AGAIN, we were discussing rally size, not to point out how popular Trump is, but to show that it is insane of you to give credit to Trump's popularity to a fringe movement that cannot get anything like the rallies that Trump can.
> 
> 
> And it is, insane of you to do that. Also, your insults are the type of shit people do, when they know their arguments are losing.
> 
> 
> 
> 2.I agree that most white people do not identify as racist. However I think most white people have accepted that is it Taboo to even talk about white interests, because they have been told over and over again that it is racist to do so. Indeed, told that by people that play a game of guilt by association very similar to what you do.
> 
> 
> 3. I do care about my culture and my nation. I reject the idea that that is racism, despite the lies of the Left and I will call them on their bullshit about that, as doggedly and as annoyingly as I am calling you on yours.
> 
> 
> 4. I reject your claim that the "white collar types", whoever you think they are, are saying the same things that the white supremacists are saying. White supremacists are a fringe group. No one is saying the same shit they are.
> 
> 
> 5. I understand that "non-whites" are likely to see me as an enemy for denouncing multiculturalism, and that that is a problem for any attempts to find common ground with them. But my points about multiculturalism are true. It has been shown to be a lie. I cannot ignore that. It is tearing this nation apart.
> 
> 
> 6. I agree that many Americans are tired of "seeing their statues torn down", ect, but I will not let the liars call that racism. I will call them on any such bullshit, no matter how they present it. The same way I will not let you do so, with your game of guilt by association.
> 
> 
> 7. I do not claim that Trump "cares about my issues".  I have not commented on his motives for his political platform. HIs platform is what I want and I support it. That you attack me for that, is just you being rude and condescending, very unfairly.
> 
> 
> 8. I acknowledge the problem of the courts. But surrendering on these issues is just national suicide. All we can hope is that Trump will nominate real judges instead of lefty activists.
> 
> 
> 9. This nation is turning into a Third World shithole. Your long term concerns about the size and shape of government is irrelevant, because it is just a little more paper work for the Dems and the Deep State to ignore when they get the control they want.
> 
> 
> 10. I agree that we don't have much to show for it. This is probably too little to late. But the effects of even the limited reduction in illegal immigration flow Trump has done, has already had very impressive results for wages, especially on the lower end. It shows what could have been, or could be. Though the media will not tell the people that obvious fact.
> 
> 11. We have to try. THe alternative that you support, ie surrender, is national suicide.
Click to expand...



I do not address posts where you go on and on.  For the benefit of the readers, I will repeat the points made before:

Dollar for dollar spent, Trump's rallies are rather small.  Second to that rally size is *NOT* a determining factor in results.  If that were the case, then back in the late 1990s through early 2000s, we could have repealed the 16th Amendment, gotten rid of the income tax AND the IRS.  That effort spawned TWO books to make it to the New York Times Bestseller list.  Trump = ZERO on that count.

Correll pretends to be "_calling me out on something_."  He is delusional, dishonest, and his credibility is so bad he has to stick he chest out and proclaim he's called me out and beat me.... when in *FACT*, *his bullshit strategies have not seen a single, solitary victory in the 15 + years his side has been preaching them.* 

Next, Correll has faith in the government.  I don't.  What he calls surrender is his abject stupidity.  I have been in a civilian militia for 32 years now.  Terminology that has been used to describe people like me is survivalist, prepper, and citizen soldier.  

Correll has never manned the border; never participated in a rally or march (except MAYBE as an onlooker.)  He's never been in a stand-off, never been in a physical altercation with those on the extreme left.  He's never debated top name activists on tv and radio.  He's never had his ass on the line in a court action, never had to represent himself in court, and never written a legal brief.  He's never trained with hard core vets nor been a part of a think tank that plans for different kinds of scenarios.  He's never read books on warfare like _The Art of War_  (Hell, I haven't been able to get the guy to read a single court case.)  

Correll has never managed a political campaign, never held public office, and never studied guerrilla warfare.  If I said the classic three-phase Maoist model, he'd have to Google it to see what in the Hell I was talking about.  Yet I've been doing that for 32 years.  The bottom line is, he has NO experience outside of 50,000 plus posts spouting bullshit to the minions of the Supreme Pretender of the United States.  

Lastly, I am the last person who will *EVER* be talking surrender.  You have to exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress.  Then you have to leave the doors open for nonviolent solutions.  You have to go through a process* without *surrendering.  Correll has already surrendered because he thinks crowd sizes at a Trump rally are going to magically transform into a Hispanic free America.  They aren't.  Furthermore, Correll's strategy is to surrender your *unalienable* Rights on the false belief that government will save you and you won't have to fight.  Some day if you intend on being free, you* WILL* have to fight.  Therefore, you *do not shut down *the avenues that allow you to resist tyranny.  You do not forfeit your Rights for the promise of Safety... which Correll advocates.  If you believe in his drivel, you WILL wind up in prison, jail, Hell, or become a snitch bitch for an alphabet agency.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Crixus said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually they have a go fund me page ,, I support them so does thousands of Americans..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah until they get their ass shot up. They are morons. Dumb fags from Iowa who were to fat or stupid to make it into the military or law enforcers so they asked their old lady’s to buy them an AR and some army clothes. Somewhere out there there is a photo of one of these tards sitting in front of a McDonads eating an MRE. They will get someone killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I continue to point out that it is *NOT* the job of any civilian militia to enforce domestic law *NOR* pretend to be qualified to be military personnel defending the border.  The militia answers to the governor of the state.
> 
> Back in the late 1990s and 2000s I admonished many of these wannabe militias to follow a legal and effective path to which they still ridicule  (see the ongoing whizzing contest I have with Correll.)  In over 15 years these people continue to get their own thrown into jails, prisons, and graves... and few of them get flipped and become snitch bitches for some alphabet agency of the government.  What they're advocating has been about as effective as a eunuch in a whorehouse over the past decade and a half.
> 
> What is worse, in my opinion, are the many laws that make future resistance impossible due to the stupid actions of civilian groups thinking they have any authority to over-ride the Commander in Chief at the state level.  Their wives and girlfriends should tell them to quit making excuses, go out and get a job rather than post on boards and play with guns all day.  If they'd work the jobs, Hispanics would not be needed and wouldn't come here if lazy ass Americans were changing their own culture and finding it immoral to lay around, blaming everyone, except themselves for not working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry I will never allow this country to be Inavded.. Nothing you can do about it.. tic toc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have to be federalized to enforce federal laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’ll be a devils advocate here and say I can see where these guys are coming from, but all there efforts are useless. Now the drug cartel guys are not the dumb hicks living in mud huts along the rio. These cartel guys have money comparable to a small country.  They have better guns, gear and cars then a few stupid honkys with AK’s could ever muster. If these Militia people were really having any impact on anything the cartel does they would be killed in three days. The cartel guys won’t go out of there way to kill cops, but a few stupid 4F rednecks? Why not?
Click to expand...


What the wallists are *NOT* telling you is that * THEY legally abandoned* the premise that they could man the border in the name of assisting law enforcement.  If you surrender to tyranny and then try to draft others into illegal acts (as my critics do) you're either an idiot or a shill.  I'll let you decide - unless you want to follow their multi thousands of posts, get into trouble, and then thrown under the bus.

How many of my critics do you think donated to *ANY* legal cause wherein dumb asses as in the OP got put in jail and will have to go to court?  Yep. Take their advice and see if they have your back when you get into trouble.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Jitss617 said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah until they get their ass shot up. They are morons. Dumb fags from Iowa who were to fat or stupid to make it into the military or law enforcers so they asked their old lady’s to buy them an AR and some army clothes. Somewhere out there there is a photo of one of these tards sitting in front of a McDonads eating an MRE. They will get someone killed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I continue to point out that it is *NOT* the job of any civilian militia to enforce domestic law *NOR* pretend to be qualified to be military personnel defending the border.  The militia answers to the governor of the state.
> 
> Back in the late 1990s and 2000s I admonished many of these wannabe militias to follow a legal and effective path to which they still ridicule  (see the ongoing whizzing contest I have with Correll.)  In over 15 years these people continue to get their own thrown into jails, prisons, and graves... and few of them get flipped and become snitch bitches for some alphabet agency of the government.  What they're advocating has been about as effective as a eunuch in a whorehouse over the past decade and a half.
> 
> What is worse, in my opinion, are the many laws that make future resistance impossible due to the stupid actions of civilian groups thinking they have any authority to over-ride the Commander in Chief at the state level.  Their wives and girlfriends should tell them to quit making excuses, go out and get a job rather than post on boards and play with guns all day.  If they'd work the jobs, Hispanics would not be needed and wouldn't come here if lazy ass Americans were changing their own culture and finding it immoral to lay around, blaming everyone, except themselves for not working.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry I will never allow this country to be Inavded.. Nothing you can do about it.. tic toc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have to be federalized to enforce federal laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’ll be a devils advocate here and say I can see where these guys are coming from, but all there efforts are useless. Now the drug cartel guys are not the dumb hicks living in mud huts along the rio. These cartel guys have money comparable to a small country.  They have better guns, gear and cars then a few stupid honkys with AK’s could ever muster. If these Militia people were really having any impact on anything the cartel does they would be killed in three days. The cartel guys won’t go out of there way to kill cops, but a few stupid 4F rednecks? Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol a few honkys conquered Mexico lol us cowboys are the best shooters in the world
Click to expand...


Keep telling yourselves that.  I've had the opportunity to see some really badasses:

north korean special forces - Bing video

If the SHTF, unless you are SPIKE trained, you're pretty much fucked, pal.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I have posted pictures of Trump rallies that dwarf any modern white supremacist and/or klan rally. Your denial of this fact is irrational.
> 
> 2. My point stands. It is absurd to credit a movements(s) that considers hitting double digits at a rally, a big win, for the massive political movement that Trump led to the White House. Absolutely absurd.
> 
> 3. Not sure what point you think you are making with "Trump lost the House" argument. You seem to be arguing against someone voicing confidence in future victories. Which I have not done, so, whatever.
> 
> 4. Nothing I have said, justifies your implication that I do not believe that whites have the same rights as anyone else. Is that based on some silly 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon nonsense again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) * You are LYING*  I used the Trump analogy because the MSM has attempted to downplay the numbers at Trump rallies and they were even worse in the 1970s through 1990s
> 
> 2)  Trump is a one hit wonder that cannot get his most trusted allies of many years to stay on board his sinking ship.  The Dems will turn a lot of states in the next election.  The right will be a shell of its old self
> 
> 3)  I don't get you six degrees bullshit.  The people I am linking together KNOW one another... despite Trump's cow poop lies that he didn't know David Duke.  Know this son, Duke screwed some friends out of money so I don't like him all that well.  But, at the height of his popularity, he had worldwide support.  So, in some respects, he did bring peoples attention to some of the problems we are having.
> 
> My issue was and is, Trump and Duke share the same ideology toward solutions (that won't work.)  Other than that, you're pecking a keyboard, hoping for a miracle.  It's just you and me and when you get your nose out of Trump's ass for a moment, you might find a constitutionalist that realizes a problem exists, but has a much more honest response and a more effective plan to fight for Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You said that Trump's base was white supremacist and nazis. I pointed out, correctly that it is absurd to give credit to the those who are lucking to get to double digits at their rallies, for the thousands that regularly turn out for Trump. That point stands.
> 
> 
> 2. Nothing I have said, has implied that I am confident about the future nor based on winning in the future. I don't know if you have confused me with someone else, or if this is another invention of yours. But you are wasting your time addressing something I have never said, nor believe.
> 
> 
> 3. I have repeatedly explained my opinion of the way you conflate different groups. It is wrong and unfair of you, that way you do that.
> 
> 
> 4. If I hear a nazi arguing for good dental hygiene, I am not going to stop brushing my teeth. THat fact that I brush my teeth, despite hearing a nazi say it was a good idea, does not make me a nazi.
> 
> And all of that, is still nothing but the logical fallacy of guilt by association. Very weak association.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll, you are extremely childish, uninformed and uneducated.  You make the argument that the size of Trump's rallies versus the size of grass roots rallies is the determining factor in Trump's popularity.
> 
> Son, it is irrelevant.  Richard Spencer put a little money in the kitty and Charlottesville drew one Hell of a crowd.  People don't go out of their way to support grass roots organizations, but the reality is, the grass roots organizations are where you find the ground troops.
> 
> MOST white people will not identify as racists because they feel, and justifiably so, that working for White Rights (no matter how you try to spin it) is not a crime, so they will not put themselves nor their families into jeopardy by speaking out.
> 
> After more than 1000 exchanges with you I see that you are stupid enough to argue with a tree stump and dumb enough to lose to one.  You can bullshit people until Hell freezes over, but if you want to retain your culture; if you care about the Constitution of the United States; if you really believe in the Rule of Law, then you have to be _"racist" _by today's standards.  You conflate Nazism with racism.  All Nazis are racists, but not all racists are Nazis.
> 
> The non-white world is attuned to this bullshit, double standard line that you are about the Rule of Law in one breath and then trying to enlist the support of non-whites in the next breath while standing beside a political platform that denounces multiculturalism.  Could you be more screwed up!!!  I don't conflate different groups.  Whether you agree or not, like it or not, if your dumb ass got out there and *WORKED* among the activists, you would figure out that the white collar, suit and tie yuppie is saying the same thing that most white supremacists are saying.
> 
> There are a lot of Americans that are tired of watching their flags, monuments, plaques, memorials, and statues being torn down.  There are those who get fed up with one guy wearing a diaper on his head and we're supposed to respect his religion while telling others they cannot wear anything with a cross on it as it offends the diaper wearing asshat on his head that demands you respect him.  There are those who think the black people wanting reparations are a joke.  Some people even get fed up that the blacks can play that nasty rap where it's heard all over the neighborhood and the demeaning lyrics about hos and bitches and sexually humiliating white chicks.  Not everybody goes along with inter-racial marriages, double standards that allow the black guys to run around saying the N word, but you aren't supposed to be allowed.
> 
> There are a lot of different racists in different degrees.  You don't have to hate the other races; you might even be married to someone of another race.  But, if you value anything about your culture, then the Dems, most blacks, and all the liberals say you're racist.  So, live with it.
> 
> The problem your dumb ass can't see is that people like Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and the other high rollers don't give a rat's ass about your petty issue.  A lot of what you want won't pass constitutional muster, so politicians don't give a shit.  They get over-ruled in the courts and things don't change.  The only things that change for those who cherish Liberty is that you and those of your ilk support an agenda that is antithetical to the core principles of Liberty.  You simply cannot build a government big enough to save you from yourself and if you take away the ability of your generation or the next to resist tyranny, you are a puppet of the NEW WORLD ORDER / One World Government.  Know this: your demi-god Trump is part and parcel to the type of people who want to* control *you.
> 
> I can't save you from your actions, so when you advocate and work for laws that restrict my Liberty / *unalienable *Rights, I will oppose you.  The only fundamental difference between the crowd you have chosen to stick your nose up their ass and Bernie Sanders is the race issue.
> 
> You can use the standard canard of "_logical fallacy_,"  and all that other puffed up meaningless bullshit, but until you've been IN the fight, you keyboard commando illiteracy is worth what you paid for it.  If you studied instead of posting 50,000 posts on this board, you might have a clue.  Today you don't, son.  You are a useful idiot taking the tools required of a free society and making resistance to tyranny impossible... A*ND YOUR BOYS DON'T HAVE A DAMN THING TO SHOW FOR IT IN OVER 15 YEARS OF THIS MONOTONOUS "ILLEGAL ALIEN" - SECURE THE BORDER BABBOON LEVEL THINKING AND SHIT SPEWING*.
> 
> anyone have a problem with
> 
> Read post  # 44  You might get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. AGAIN, we were discussing rally size, not to point out how popular Trump is, but to show that it is insane of you to give credit to Trump's popularity to a fringe movement that cannot get anything like the rallies that Trump can.
> 
> 
> And it is, insane of you to do that. Also, your insults are the type of shit people do, when they know their arguments are losing.
> 
> 
> 
> 2.I agree that most white people do not identify as racist. However I think most white people have accepted that is it Taboo to even talk about white interests, because they have been told over and over again that it is racist to do so. Indeed, told that by people that play a game of guilt by association very similar to what you do.
> 
> 
> 3. I do care about my culture and my nation. I reject the idea that that is racism, despite the lies of the Left and I will call them on their bullshit about that, as doggedly and as annoyingly as I am calling you on yours.
> 
> 
> 4. I reject your claim that the "white collar types", whoever you think they are, are saying the same things that the white supremacists are saying. White supremacists are a fringe group. No one is saying the same shit they are.
> 
> 
> 5. I understand that "non-whites" are likely to see me as an enemy for denouncing multiculturalism, and that that is a problem for any attempts to find common ground with them. But my points about multiculturalism are true. It has been shown to be a lie. I cannot ignore that. It is tearing this nation apart.
> 
> 
> 6. I agree that many Americans are tired of "seeing their statues torn down", ect, but I will not let the liars call that racism. I will call them on any such bullshit, no matter how they present it. The same way I will not let you do so, with your game of guilt by association.
> 
> 
> 7. I do not claim that Trump "cares about my issues".  I have not commented on his motives for his political platform. HIs platform is what I want and I support it. That you attack me for that, is just you being rude and condescending, very unfairly.
> 
> 
> 8. I acknowledge the problem of the courts. But surrendering on these issues is just national suicide. All we can hope is that Trump will nominate real judges instead of lefty activists.
> 
> 
> 9. This nation is turning into a Third World shithole. Your long term concerns about the size and shape of government is irrelevant, because it is just a little more paper work for the Dems and the Deep State to ignore when they get the control they want.
> 
> 
> 10. I agree that we don't have much to show for it. This is probably too little to late. But the effects of even the limited reduction in illegal immigration flow Trump has done, has already had very impressive results for wages, especially on the lower end. It shows what could have been, or could be. Though the media will not tell the people that obvious fact.
> 
> 11. We have to try. THe alternative that you support, ie surrender, is national suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I do not address posts where you go on and on.  For the benefit of the readers, I will repeat the points made before:
Click to expand...



I went "on and on" because I responded to each point you actually made. Indeed, I only gave an one or two word response, very concise. It seems that part of your style is to want to be able to pepper your long rambling posts with points that you want to pass unchallenged.


Denied.



> Dollar for dollar spent, Trump's rallies are rather small.  Second to that rally size is *NOT* a determining factor in results.  If that were the case, then back in the late 1990s through early 2000s, we could have repealed the 16th Amendment, gotten rid of the income tax AND the IRS.  That effort spawned TWO books to make it to the New York Times Bestseller list.  Trump = ZERO on that count.





We were only talking about rally size to point out how absurd it is, for you to give Credit to the White Supremacists for Trumps rise.

You keep trying to twist this into something it never was.





> Correll pretends to be "_calling me out on something_."  He is delusional, dishonest, and his credibility is so bad he has to stick he chest out and proclaim he's called me out and beat me.... when in *FACT*, *his bullshit strategies have not seen a single, solitary victory in the 15 + years his side has been preaching them.*




Oh, I am certainly calling you out on a lot of stuff. 




> Next, Correll has faith in the government.  I don't.  What he calls surrender is his abject stupidity.  I have been in a civilian militia for 32 years now.  Terminology that has been used to describe people like me is survivalist, prepper, and citizen soldier.





I have no faith in our government. I have hopes that they might do their job(s) someday.




> Correll has never manned the border; never participated in a rally or march (except MAYBE as an onlooker.)  He's never been in a stand-off, never been in a physical altercation with those on the extreme left.  He's never debated top name activists on tv and radio.  He's never had his ass on the line in a court action, never had to represent himself in court, and never written a legal brief.  He's never trained with hard core vets nor been a part of a think tank that plans for different kinds of scenarios.  He's never read books on warfare like _The Art of War_  (Hell, I haven't been able to get the guy to read a single court case.)




With all due respect to your history of political activism, all of that is just you attacking the source, something someone does, when they can't made their case, based on it's actual merits.



> Correll has never managed a political campaign, never held public office, and never studied guerrilla warfare.  If I said the classic three-phase Maoist model, he'd have to Google it to see what in the Hell I was talking about.  Yet I've been doing that for 32 years.  The bottom line is, he has NO experience outside of 50,000 plus posts spouting bullshit to the minions of the Supreme Pretender of the United States.


 


More irrelevant garbage.




> Lastly, I am the last person who will *EVER* be talking surrender.  You have to exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress.  Then you have to leave the doors open for nonviolent solutions.  You have to go through a process* without *surrendering.  Correll has already surrendered because he thinks crowd sizes at a Trump rally are going to magically transform into a Hispanic free America.  They aren't.  Furthermore, Correll's strategy is to surrender your *unalienable* Rights on the false belief that government will save you and you won't have to fight.  Some day if you intend on being free, you* WILL* have to fight.  Therefore, you *do not shut down *the avenues that allow you to resist tyranny.  You do not forfeit your Rights for the promise of Safety... which Correll advocates.  If you believe in his drivel, you WILL wind up in prison, jail, Hell, or become a snitch bitch for an alphabet agency.




You want to leave the border open, and let the illegals in. That is surrender.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) * You are LYING*  I used the Trump analogy because the MSM has attempted to downplay the numbers at Trump rallies and they were even worse in the 1970s through 1990s
> 
> 2)  Trump is a one hit wonder that cannot get his most trusted allies of many years to stay on board his sinking ship.  The Dems will turn a lot of states in the next election.  The right will be a shell of its old self
> 
> 3)  I don't get you six degrees bullshit.  The people I am linking together KNOW one another... despite Trump's cow poop lies that he didn't know David Duke.  Know this son, Duke screwed some friends out of money so I don't like him all that well.  But, at the height of his popularity, he had worldwide support.  So, in some respects, he did bring peoples attention to some of the problems we are having.
> 
> My issue was and is, Trump and Duke share the same ideology toward solutions (that won't work.)  Other than that, you're pecking a keyboard, hoping for a miracle.  It's just you and me and when you get your nose out of Trump's ass for a moment, you might find a constitutionalist that realizes a problem exists, but has a much more honest response and a more effective plan to fight for Liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You said that Trump's base was white supremacist and nazis. I pointed out, correctly that it is absurd to give credit to the those who are lucking to get to double digits at their rallies, for the thousands that regularly turn out for Trump. That point stands.
> 
> 
> 2. Nothing I have said, has implied that I am confident about the future nor based on winning in the future. I don't know if you have confused me with someone else, or if this is another invention of yours. But you are wasting your time addressing something I have never said, nor believe.
> 
> 
> 3. I have repeatedly explained my opinion of the way you conflate different groups. It is wrong and unfair of you, that way you do that.
> 
> 
> 4. If I hear a nazi arguing for good dental hygiene, I am not going to stop brushing my teeth. THat fact that I brush my teeth, despite hearing a nazi say it was a good idea, does not make me a nazi.
> 
> And all of that, is still nothing but the logical fallacy of guilt by association. Very weak association.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll, you are extremely childish, uninformed and uneducated.  You make the argument that the size of Trump's rallies versus the size of grass roots rallies is the determining factor in Trump's popularity.
> 
> Son, it is irrelevant.  Richard Spencer put a little money in the kitty and Charlottesville drew one Hell of a crowd.  People don't go out of their way to support grass roots organizations, but the reality is, the grass roots organizations are where you find the ground troops.
> 
> MOST white people will not identify as racists because they feel, and justifiably so, that working for White Rights (no matter how you try to spin it) is not a crime, so they will not put themselves nor their families into jeopardy by speaking out.
> 
> After more than 1000 exchanges with you I see that you are stupid enough to argue with a tree stump and dumb enough to lose to one.  You can bullshit people until Hell freezes over, but if you want to retain your culture; if you care about the Constitution of the United States; if you really believe in the Rule of Law, then you have to be _"racist" _by today's standards.  You conflate Nazism with racism.  All Nazis are racists, but not all racists are Nazis.
> 
> The non-white world is attuned to this bullshit, double standard line that you are about the Rule of Law in one breath and then trying to enlist the support of non-whites in the next breath while standing beside a political platform that denounces multiculturalism.  Could you be more screwed up!!!  I don't conflate different groups.  Whether you agree or not, like it or not, if your dumb ass got out there and *WORKED* among the activists, you would figure out that the white collar, suit and tie yuppie is saying the same thing that most white supremacists are saying.
> 
> There are a lot of Americans that are tired of watching their flags, monuments, plaques, memorials, and statues being torn down.  There are those who get fed up with one guy wearing a diaper on his head and we're supposed to respect his religion while telling others they cannot wear anything with a cross on it as it offends the diaper wearing asshat on his head that demands you respect him.  There are those who think the black people wanting reparations are a joke.  Some people even get fed up that the blacks can play that nasty rap where it's heard all over the neighborhood and the demeaning lyrics about hos and bitches and sexually humiliating white chicks.  Not everybody goes along with inter-racial marriages, double standards that allow the black guys to run around saying the N word, but you aren't supposed to be allowed.
> 
> There are a lot of different racists in different degrees.  You don't have to hate the other races; you might even be married to someone of another race.  But, if you value anything about your culture, then the Dems, most blacks, and all the liberals say you're racist.  So, live with it.
> 
> The problem your dumb ass can't see is that people like Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and the other high rollers don't give a rat's ass about your petty issue.  A lot of what you want won't pass constitutional muster, so politicians don't give a shit.  They get over-ruled in the courts and things don't change.  The only things that change for those who cherish Liberty is that you and those of your ilk support an agenda that is antithetical to the core principles of Liberty.  You simply cannot build a government big enough to save you from yourself and if you take away the ability of your generation or the next to resist tyranny, you are a puppet of the NEW WORLD ORDER / One World Government.  Know this: your demi-god Trump is part and parcel to the type of people who want to* control *you.
> 
> I can't save you from your actions, so when you advocate and work for laws that restrict my Liberty / *unalienable *Rights, I will oppose you.  The only fundamental difference between the crowd you have chosen to stick your nose up their ass and Bernie Sanders is the race issue.
> 
> You can use the standard canard of "_logical fallacy_,"  and all that other puffed up meaningless bullshit, but until you've been IN the fight, you keyboard commando illiteracy is worth what you paid for it.  If you studied instead of posting 50,000 posts on this board, you might have a clue.  Today you don't, son.  You are a useful idiot taking the tools required of a free society and making resistance to tyranny impossible... A*ND YOUR BOYS DON'T HAVE A DAMN THING TO SHOW FOR IT IN OVER 15 YEARS OF THIS MONOTONOUS "ILLEGAL ALIEN" - SECURE THE BORDER BABBOON LEVEL THINKING AND SHIT SPEWING*.
> 
> anyone have a problem with
> 
> Read post  # 44  You might get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. AGAIN, we were discussing rally size, not to point out how popular Trump is, but to show that it is insane of you to give credit to Trump's popularity to a fringe movement that cannot get anything like the rallies that Trump can.
> 
> 
> And it is, insane of you to do that. Also, your insults are the type of shit people do, when they know their arguments are losing.
> 
> 
> 
> 2.I agree that most white people do not identify as racist. However I think most white people have accepted that is it Taboo to even talk about white interests, because they have been told over and over again that it is racist to do so. Indeed, told that by people that play a game of guilt by association very similar to what you do.
> 
> 
> 3. I do care about my culture and my nation. I reject the idea that that is racism, despite the lies of the Left and I will call them on their bullshit about that, as doggedly and as annoyingly as I am calling you on yours.
> 
> 
> 4. I reject your claim that the "white collar types", whoever you think they are, are saying the same things that the white supremacists are saying. White supremacists are a fringe group. No one is saying the same shit they are.
> 
> 
> 5. I understand that "non-whites" are likely to see me as an enemy for denouncing multiculturalism, and that that is a problem for any attempts to find common ground with them. But my points about multiculturalism are true. It has been shown to be a lie. I cannot ignore that. It is tearing this nation apart.
> 
> 
> 6. I agree that many Americans are tired of "seeing their statues torn down", ect, but I will not let the liars call that racism. I will call them on any such bullshit, no matter how they present it. The same way I will not let you do so, with your game of guilt by association.
> 
> 
> 7. I do not claim that Trump "cares about my issues".  I have not commented on his motives for his political platform. HIs platform is what I want and I support it. That you attack me for that, is just you being rude and condescending, very unfairly.
> 
> 
> 8. I acknowledge the problem of the courts. But surrendering on these issues is just national suicide. All we can hope is that Trump will nominate real judges instead of lefty activists.
> 
> 
> 9. This nation is turning into a Third World shithole. Your long term concerns about the size and shape of government is irrelevant, because it is just a little more paper work for the Dems and the Deep State to ignore when they get the control they want.
> 
> 
> 10. I agree that we don't have much to show for it. This is probably too little to late. But the effects of even the limited reduction in illegal immigration flow Trump has done, has already had very impressive results for wages, especially on the lower end. It shows what could have been, or could be. Though the media will not tell the people that obvious fact.
> 
> 11. We have to try. THe alternative that you support, ie surrender, is national suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I do not address posts where you go on and on.  For the benefit of the readers, I will repeat the points made before:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I went "on and on" because I responded to each point you actually made. Indeed, I only gave an one or two word response, very concise. It seems that part of your style is to want to be able to pepper your long rambling posts with points that you want to pass unchallenged.
> 
> 
> Denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dollar for dollar spent, Trump's rallies are rather small.  Second to that rally size is *NOT* a determining factor in results.  If that were the case, then back in the late 1990s through early 2000s, we could have repealed the 16th Amendment, gotten rid of the income tax AND the IRS.  That effort spawned TWO books to make it to the New York Times Bestseller list.  Trump = ZERO on that count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were only talking about rally size to point out how absurd it is, for you to give Credit to the White Supremacists for Trumps rise.
> 
> You keep trying to twist this into something it never was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll pretends to be "_calling me out on something_."  He is delusional, dishonest, and his credibility is so bad he has to stick he chest out and proclaim he's called me out and beat me.... when in *FACT*, *his bullshit strategies have not seen a single, solitary victory in the 15 + years his side has been preaching them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I am certainly calling you out on a lot of stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next, Correll has faith in the government.  I don't.  What he calls surrender is his abject stupidity.  I have been in a civilian militia for 32 years now.  Terminology that has been used to describe people like me is survivalist, prepper, and citizen soldier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no faith in our government. I have hopes that they might do their job(s) someday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll has never manned the border; never participated in a rally or march (except MAYBE as an onlooker.)  He's never been in a stand-off, never been in a physical altercation with those on the extreme left.  He's never debated top name activists on tv and radio.  He's never had his ass on the line in a court action, never had to represent himself in court, and never written a legal brief.  He's never trained with hard core vets nor been a part of a think tank that plans for different kinds of scenarios.  He's never read books on warfare like _The Art of War_  (Hell, I haven't been able to get the guy to read a single court case.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect to your history of political activism, all of that is just you attacking the source, something someone does, when they can't made their case, based on it's actual merits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll has never managed a political campaign, never held public office, and never studied guerrilla warfare.  If I said the classic three-phase Maoist model, he'd have to Google it to see what in the Hell I was talking about.  Yet I've been doing that for 32 years.  The bottom line is, he has NO experience outside of 50,000 plus posts spouting bullshit to the minions of the Supreme Pretender of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More irrelevant garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, I am the last person who will *EVER* be talking surrender.  You have to exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress.  Then you have to leave the doors open for nonviolent solutions.  You have to go through a process* without *surrendering.  Correll has already surrendered because he thinks crowd sizes at a Trump rally are going to magically transform into a Hispanic free America.  They aren't.  Furthermore, Correll's strategy is to surrender your *unalienable* Rights on the false belief that government will save you and you won't have to fight.  Some day if you intend on being free, you* WILL* have to fight.  Therefore, you *do not shut down *the avenues that allow you to resist tyranny.  You do not forfeit your Rights for the promise of Safety... which Correll advocates.  If you believe in his drivel, you WILL wind up in prison, jail, Hell, or become a snitch bitch for an alphabet agency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want to leave the border open, and let the illegals in. That is surrender.
Click to expand...



You are a liar, an idiot and a deceiver.  You have your nose stuck so far up Trumps ass, the only time you get a breath of fresh air is if Trump farts.

No, I do not want a militarized border that costs more in terms of Liberty than it pays in return.  If your worthless, lazy white ass were working a job or at least using some of your time to help others, Americans would take the jobs and they wouldn't be available for the foreigners.

If you got out of your mother's basement, quit sucking dope and snorting shit up your nose while you get off on* pretending to be something your ARE NOT and doing things YOU CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY HAVEN'T DONE*, you might be able to set an example so that we can reclaim our Rights and Liberties.  That and that alone will insure that you don't have an "_illegal_" problem.  A wall ups the ante, it don't stop people from coming.  

Your dumb ass can't fathom that there is no such thing as an illegal (sic) problem.  There is too much government; there are too many worthless pieces of shit like you running around complaining about not having a job while you're too fucking lazy to look for one... and if you weren't on drugs, the drug cartels wouldn't exist.  

Without drug cartels, the people from south of the border would learn how to grow food and get into industry.  They don't stop coming over a wall and any idiot who thinks so is out of touch with reality.  You are a danger to Freedom and Liberty.  

Accusing me of being for some kind of surrender is pure bullshit - the kind of stuff you hear from Keyboard Commandos who have never been IN the real fight.  You talk shit because you're a coward and you've proven it.  If you think I'm about surrender, you might want to explain why it is *YOU* with your nose up the government's ass, looking for a solution when it's people like* YOU* that created the problem and only when you walk the walk will you ever be able to have earned the Right to criticize me.  The reason you don't know me is because you have never been *IN *the fight.  You aren't going to get there taunting me and cowering behind your keyboard like the scared piece of shit you really are.  You get in the mix of things and see how involved I am, then preach your false doctrine to the lazy fucks like you.  Until then you are so full of yourself you lost your last ounce of credibility.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You said that Trump's base was white supremacist and nazis. I pointed out, correctly that it is absurd to give credit to the those who are lucking to get to double digits at their rallies, for the thousands that regularly turn out for Trump. That point stands.
> 
> 
> 2. Nothing I have said, has implied that I am confident about the future nor based on winning in the future. I don't know if you have confused me with someone else, or if this is another invention of yours. But you are wasting your time addressing something I have never said, nor believe.
> 
> 
> 3. I have repeatedly explained my opinion of the way you conflate different groups. It is wrong and unfair of you, that way you do that.
> 
> 
> 4. If I hear a nazi arguing for good dental hygiene, I am not going to stop brushing my teeth. THat fact that I brush my teeth, despite hearing a nazi say it was a good idea, does not make me a nazi.
> 
> And all of that, is still nothing but the logical fallacy of guilt by association. Very weak association.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll, you are extremely childish, uninformed and uneducated.  You make the argument that the size of Trump's rallies versus the size of grass roots rallies is the determining factor in Trump's popularity.
> 
> Son, it is irrelevant.  Richard Spencer put a little money in the kitty and Charlottesville drew one Hell of a crowd.  People don't go out of their way to support grass roots organizations, but the reality is, the grass roots organizations are where you find the ground troops.
> 
> MOST white people will not identify as racists because they feel, and justifiably so, that working for White Rights (no matter how you try to spin it) is not a crime, so they will not put themselves nor their families into jeopardy by speaking out.
> 
> After more than 1000 exchanges with you I see that you are stupid enough to argue with a tree stump and dumb enough to lose to one.  You can bullshit people until Hell freezes over, but if you want to retain your culture; if you care about the Constitution of the United States; if you really believe in the Rule of Law, then you have to be _"racist" _by today's standards.  You conflate Nazism with racism.  All Nazis are racists, but not all racists are Nazis.
> 
> The non-white world is attuned to this bullshit, double standard line that you are about the Rule of Law in one breath and then trying to enlist the support of non-whites in the next breath while standing beside a political platform that denounces multiculturalism.  Could you be more screwed up!!!  I don't conflate different groups.  Whether you agree or not, like it or not, if your dumb ass got out there and *WORKED* among the activists, you would figure out that the white collar, suit and tie yuppie is saying the same thing that most white supremacists are saying.
> 
> There are a lot of Americans that are tired of watching their flags, monuments, plaques, memorials, and statues being torn down.  There are those who get fed up with one guy wearing a diaper on his head and we're supposed to respect his religion while telling others they cannot wear anything with a cross on it as it offends the diaper wearing asshat on his head that demands you respect him.  There are those who think the black people wanting reparations are a joke.  Some people even get fed up that the blacks can play that nasty rap where it's heard all over the neighborhood and the demeaning lyrics about hos and bitches and sexually humiliating white chicks.  Not everybody goes along with inter-racial marriages, double standards that allow the black guys to run around saying the N word, but you aren't supposed to be allowed.
> 
> There are a lot of different racists in different degrees.  You don't have to hate the other races; you might even be married to someone of another race.  But, if you value anything about your culture, then the Dems, most blacks, and all the liberals say you're racist.  So, live with it.
> 
> The problem your dumb ass can't see is that people like Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and the other high rollers don't give a rat's ass about your petty issue.  A lot of what you want won't pass constitutional muster, so politicians don't give a shit.  They get over-ruled in the courts and things don't change.  The only things that change for those who cherish Liberty is that you and those of your ilk support an agenda that is antithetical to the core principles of Liberty.  You simply cannot build a government big enough to save you from yourself and if you take away the ability of your generation or the next to resist tyranny, you are a puppet of the NEW WORLD ORDER / One World Government.  Know this: your demi-god Trump is part and parcel to the type of people who want to* control *you.
> 
> I can't save you from your actions, so when you advocate and work for laws that restrict my Liberty / *unalienable *Rights, I will oppose you.  The only fundamental difference between the crowd you have chosen to stick your nose up their ass and Bernie Sanders is the race issue.
> 
> You can use the standard canard of "_logical fallacy_,"  and all that other puffed up meaningless bullshit, but until you've been IN the fight, you keyboard commando illiteracy is worth what you paid for it.  If you studied instead of posting 50,000 posts on this board, you might have a clue.  Today you don't, son.  You are a useful idiot taking the tools required of a free society and making resistance to tyranny impossible... A*ND YOUR BOYS DON'T HAVE A DAMN THING TO SHOW FOR IT IN OVER 15 YEARS OF THIS MONOTONOUS "ILLEGAL ALIEN" - SECURE THE BORDER BABBOON LEVEL THINKING AND SHIT SPEWING*.
> 
> anyone have a problem with
> 
> Read post  # 44  You might get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. AGAIN, we were discussing rally size, not to point out how popular Trump is, but to show that it is insane of you to give credit to Trump's popularity to a fringe movement that cannot get anything like the rallies that Trump can.
> 
> 
> And it is, insane of you to do that. Also, your insults are the type of shit people do, when they know their arguments are losing.
> 
> 
> 
> 2.I agree that most white people do not identify as racist. However I think most white people have accepted that is it Taboo to even talk about white interests, because they have been told over and over again that it is racist to do so. Indeed, told that by people that play a game of guilt by association very similar to what you do.
> 
> 
> 3. I do care about my culture and my nation. I reject the idea that that is racism, despite the lies of the Left and I will call them on their bullshit about that, as doggedly and as annoyingly as I am calling you on yours.
> 
> 
> 4. I reject your claim that the "white collar types", whoever you think they are, are saying the same things that the white supremacists are saying. White supremacists are a fringe group. No one is saying the same shit they are.
> 
> 
> 5. I understand that "non-whites" are likely to see me as an enemy for denouncing multiculturalism, and that that is a problem for any attempts to find common ground with them. But my points about multiculturalism are true. It has been shown to be a lie. I cannot ignore that. It is tearing this nation apart.
> 
> 
> 6. I agree that many Americans are tired of "seeing their statues torn down", ect, but I will not let the liars call that racism. I will call them on any such bullshit, no matter how they present it. The same way I will not let you do so, with your game of guilt by association.
> 
> 
> 7. I do not claim that Trump "cares about my issues".  I have not commented on his motives for his political platform. HIs platform is what I want and I support it. That you attack me for that, is just you being rude and condescending, very unfairly.
> 
> 
> 8. I acknowledge the problem of the courts. But surrendering on these issues is just national suicide. All we can hope is that Trump will nominate real judges instead of lefty activists.
> 
> 
> 9. This nation is turning into a Third World shithole. Your long term concerns about the size and shape of government is irrelevant, because it is just a little more paper work for the Dems and the Deep State to ignore when they get the control they want.
> 
> 
> 10. I agree that we don't have much to show for it. This is probably too little to late. But the effects of even the limited reduction in illegal immigration flow Trump has done, has already had very impressive results for wages, especially on the lower end. It shows what could have been, or could be. Though the media will not tell the people that obvious fact.
> 
> 11. We have to try. THe alternative that you support, ie surrender, is national suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I do not address posts where you go on and on.  For the benefit of the readers, I will repeat the points made before:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I went "on and on" because I responded to each point you actually made. Indeed, I only gave an one or two word response, very concise. It seems that part of your style is to want to be able to pepper your long rambling posts with points that you want to pass unchallenged.
> 
> 
> Denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dollar for dollar spent, Trump's rallies are rather small.  Second to that rally size is *NOT* a determining factor in results.  If that were the case, then back in the late 1990s through early 2000s, we could have repealed the 16th Amendment, gotten rid of the income tax AND the IRS.  That effort spawned TWO books to make it to the New York Times Bestseller list.  Trump = ZERO on that count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were only talking about rally size to point out how absurd it is, for you to give Credit to the White Supremacists for Trumps rise.
> 
> You keep trying to twist this into something it never was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll pretends to be "_calling me out on something_."  He is delusional, dishonest, and his credibility is so bad he has to stick he chest out and proclaim he's called me out and beat me.... when in *FACT*, *his bullshit strategies have not seen a single, solitary victory in the 15 + years his side has been preaching them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I am certainly calling you out on a lot of stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next, Correll has faith in the government.  I don't.  What he calls surrender is his abject stupidity.  I have been in a civilian militia for 32 years now.  Terminology that has been used to describe people like me is survivalist, prepper, and citizen soldier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no faith in our government. I have hopes that they might do their job(s) someday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll has never manned the border; never participated in a rally or march (except MAYBE as an onlooker.)  He's never been in a stand-off, never been in a physical altercation with those on the extreme left.  He's never debated top name activists on tv and radio.  He's never had his ass on the line in a court action, never had to represent himself in court, and never written a legal brief.  He's never trained with hard core vets nor been a part of a think tank that plans for different kinds of scenarios.  He's never read books on warfare like _The Art of War_  (Hell, I haven't been able to get the guy to read a single court case.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect to your history of political activism, all of that is just you attacking the source, something someone does, when they can't made their case, based on it's actual merits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll has never managed a political campaign, never held public office, and never studied guerrilla warfare.  If I said the classic three-phase Maoist model, he'd have to Google it to see what in the Hell I was talking about.  Yet I've been doing that for 32 years.  The bottom line is, he has NO experience outside of 50,000 plus posts spouting bullshit to the minions of the Supreme Pretender of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More irrelevant garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, I am the last person who will *EVER* be talking surrender.  You have to exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress.  Then you have to leave the doors open for nonviolent solutions.  You have to go through a process* without *surrendering.  Correll has already surrendered because he thinks crowd sizes at a Trump rally are going to magically transform into a Hispanic free America.  They aren't.  Furthermore, Correll's strategy is to surrender your *unalienable* Rights on the false belief that government will save you and you won't have to fight.  Some day if you intend on being free, you* WILL* have to fight.  Therefore, you *do not shut down *the avenues that allow you to resist tyranny.  You do not forfeit your Rights for the promise of Safety... which Correll advocates.  If you believe in his drivel, you WILL wind up in prison, jail, Hell, or become a snitch bitch for an alphabet agency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want to leave the border open, and let the illegals in. That is surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar, an idiot and a deceiver.  You have your nose stuck so far up Trumps ass, the only time you get a breath of fresh air is if Trump farts.
> 
> No, I do not want a militarized border that costs more in terms of Liberty than it pays in return.  If your worthless, lazy white ass were working a job or at least using some of your time to help others, Americans would take the jobs and they wouldn't be available for the foreigners.
> 
> If you got out of your mother's basement, quit sucking dope and snorting shit up your nose while you get off on* pretending to be something your ARE NOT and doing things YOU CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY HAVEN'T DONE*, you might be able to set an example so that we can reclaim our Rights and Liberties.  That and that alone will insure that you don't have an "_illegal_" problem.  A wall ups the ante, it don't stop people from coming.
> 
> Your dumb ass can't fathom that there is no such thing as an illegal (sic) problem.  There is too much government; there are too many worthless pieces of shit like you running around complaining about not having a job while you're too fucking lazy to look for one... and if you weren't on drugs, the drug cartels wouldn't exist.
> 
> Without drug cartels, the people from south of the border would learn how to grow food and get into industry.  They don't stop coming over a wall and any idiot who thinks so is out of touch with reality.  You are a danger to Freedom and Liberty.
> 
> Accusing me of being for some kind of surrender is pure bullshit - the kind of stuff you hear from Keyboard Commandos who have never been IN the real fight.  You talk shit because you're a coward and you've proven it.  If you think I'm about surrender, you might want to explain why it is *YOU* with your nose up the government's ass, looking for a solution when it's people like* YOU* that created the problem and only when you walk the walk will you ever be able to have earned the Right to criticize me.  The reason you don't know me is because you have never been *IN *the fight.  You aren't going to get there taunting me and cowering behind your keyboard like the scared piece of shit you really are.  You get in the mix of things and see how involved I am, then preach your false doctrine to the lazy fucks like you.  Until then you are so full of yourself you lost your last ounce of credibility.
Click to expand...





IF militarizing the border worked, would you support that?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correll, you are extremely childish, uninformed and uneducated.  You make the argument that the size of Trump's rallies versus the size of grass roots rallies is the determining factor in Trump's popularity.
> 
> Son, it is irrelevant.  Richard Spencer put a little money in the kitty and Charlottesville drew one Hell of a crowd.  People don't go out of their way to support grass roots organizations, but the reality is, the grass roots organizations are where you find the ground troops.
> 
> MOST white people will not identify as racists because they feel, and justifiably so, that working for White Rights (no matter how you try to spin it) is not a crime, so they will not put themselves nor their families into jeopardy by speaking out.
> 
> After more than 1000 exchanges with you I see that you are stupid enough to argue with a tree stump and dumb enough to lose to one.  You can bullshit people until Hell freezes over, but if you want to retain your culture; if you care about the Constitution of the United States; if you really believe in the Rule of Law, then you have to be _"racist" _by today's standards.  You conflate Nazism with racism.  All Nazis are racists, but not all racists are Nazis.
> 
> The non-white world is attuned to this bullshit, double standard line that you are about the Rule of Law in one breath and then trying to enlist the support of non-whites in the next breath while standing beside a political platform that denounces multiculturalism.  Could you be more screwed up!!!  I don't conflate different groups.  Whether you agree or not, like it or not, if your dumb ass got out there and *WORKED* among the activists, you would figure out that the white collar, suit and tie yuppie is saying the same thing that most white supremacists are saying.
> 
> There are a lot of Americans that are tired of watching their flags, monuments, plaques, memorials, and statues being torn down.  There are those who get fed up with one guy wearing a diaper on his head and we're supposed to respect his religion while telling others they cannot wear anything with a cross on it as it offends the diaper wearing asshat on his head that demands you respect him.  There are those who think the black people wanting reparations are a joke.  Some people even get fed up that the blacks can play that nasty rap where it's heard all over the neighborhood and the demeaning lyrics about hos and bitches and sexually humiliating white chicks.  Not everybody goes along with inter-racial marriages, double standards that allow the black guys to run around saying the N word, but you aren't supposed to be allowed.
> 
> There are a lot of different racists in different degrees.  You don't have to hate the other races; you might even be married to someone of another race.  But, if you value anything about your culture, then the Dems, most blacks, and all the liberals say you're racist.  So, live with it.
> 
> The problem your dumb ass can't see is that people like Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and the other high rollers don't give a rat's ass about your petty issue.  A lot of what you want won't pass constitutional muster, so politicians don't give a shit.  They get over-ruled in the courts and things don't change.  The only things that change for those who cherish Liberty is that you and those of your ilk support an agenda that is antithetical to the core principles of Liberty.  You simply cannot build a government big enough to save you from yourself and if you take away the ability of your generation or the next to resist tyranny, you are a puppet of the NEW WORLD ORDER / One World Government.  Know this: your demi-god Trump is part and parcel to the type of people who want to* control *you.
> 
> I can't save you from your actions, so when you advocate and work for laws that restrict my Liberty / *unalienable *Rights, I will oppose you.  The only fundamental difference between the crowd you have chosen to stick your nose up their ass and Bernie Sanders is the race issue.
> 
> You can use the standard canard of "_logical fallacy_,"  and all that other puffed up meaningless bullshit, but until you've been IN the fight, you keyboard commando illiteracy is worth what you paid for it.  If you studied instead of posting 50,000 posts on this board, you might have a clue.  Today you don't, son.  You are a useful idiot taking the tools required of a free society and making resistance to tyranny impossible... A*ND YOUR BOYS DON'T HAVE A DAMN THING TO SHOW FOR IT IN OVER 15 YEARS OF THIS MONOTONOUS "ILLEGAL ALIEN" - SECURE THE BORDER BABBOON LEVEL THINKING AND SHIT SPEWING*.
> 
> anyone have a problem with
> 
> Read post  # 44  You might get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. AGAIN, we were discussing rally size, not to point out how popular Trump is, but to show that it is insane of you to give credit to Trump's popularity to a fringe movement that cannot get anything like the rallies that Trump can.
> 
> 
> And it is, insane of you to do that. Also, your insults are the type of shit people do, when they know their arguments are losing.
> 
> 
> 
> 2.I agree that most white people do not identify as racist. However I think most white people have accepted that is it Taboo to even talk about white interests, because they have been told over and over again that it is racist to do so. Indeed, told that by people that play a game of guilt by association very similar to what you do.
> 
> 
> 3. I do care about my culture and my nation. I reject the idea that that is racism, despite the lies of the Left and I will call them on their bullshit about that, as doggedly and as annoyingly as I am calling you on yours.
> 
> 
> 4. I reject your claim that the "white collar types", whoever you think they are, are saying the same things that the white supremacists are saying. White supremacists are a fringe group. No one is saying the same shit they are.
> 
> 
> 5. I understand that "non-whites" are likely to see me as an enemy for denouncing multiculturalism, and that that is a problem for any attempts to find common ground with them. But my points about multiculturalism are true. It has been shown to be a lie. I cannot ignore that. It is tearing this nation apart.
> 
> 
> 6. I agree that many Americans are tired of "seeing their statues torn down", ect, but I will not let the liars call that racism. I will call them on any such bullshit, no matter how they present it. The same way I will not let you do so, with your game of guilt by association.
> 
> 
> 7. I do not claim that Trump "cares about my issues".  I have not commented on his motives for his political platform. HIs platform is what I want and I support it. That you attack me for that, is just you being rude and condescending, very unfairly.
> 
> 
> 8. I acknowledge the problem of the courts. But surrendering on these issues is just national suicide. All we can hope is that Trump will nominate real judges instead of lefty activists.
> 
> 
> 9. This nation is turning into a Third World shithole. Your long term concerns about the size and shape of government is irrelevant, because it is just a little more paper work for the Dems and the Deep State to ignore when they get the control they want.
> 
> 
> 10. I agree that we don't have much to show for it. This is probably too little to late. But the effects of even the limited reduction in illegal immigration flow Trump has done, has already had very impressive results for wages, especially on the lower end. It shows what could have been, or could be. Though the media will not tell the people that obvious fact.
> 
> 11. We have to try. THe alternative that you support, ie surrender, is national suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I do not address posts where you go on and on.  For the benefit of the readers, I will repeat the points made before:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I went "on and on" because I responded to each point you actually made. Indeed, I only gave an one or two word response, very concise. It seems that part of your style is to want to be able to pepper your long rambling posts with points that you want to pass unchallenged.
> 
> 
> Denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dollar for dollar spent, Trump's rallies are rather small.  Second to that rally size is *NOT* a determining factor in results.  If that were the case, then back in the late 1990s through early 2000s, we could have repealed the 16th Amendment, gotten rid of the income tax AND the IRS.  That effort spawned TWO books to make it to the New York Times Bestseller list.  Trump = ZERO on that count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were only talking about rally size to point out how absurd it is, for you to give Credit to the White Supremacists for Trumps rise.
> 
> You keep trying to twist this into something it never was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll pretends to be "_calling me out on something_."  He is delusional, dishonest, and his credibility is so bad he has to stick he chest out and proclaim he's called me out and beat me.... when in *FACT*, *his bullshit strategies have not seen a single, solitary victory in the 15 + years his side has been preaching them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I am certainly calling you out on a lot of stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next, Correll has faith in the government.  I don't.  What he calls surrender is his abject stupidity.  I have been in a civilian militia for 32 years now.  Terminology that has been used to describe people like me is survivalist, prepper, and citizen soldier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no faith in our government. I have hopes that they might do their job(s) someday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll has never manned the border; never participated in a rally or march (except MAYBE as an onlooker.)  He's never been in a stand-off, never been in a physical altercation with those on the extreme left.  He's never debated top name activists on tv and radio.  He's never had his ass on the line in a court action, never had to represent himself in court, and never written a legal brief.  He's never trained with hard core vets nor been a part of a think tank that plans for different kinds of scenarios.  He's never read books on warfare like _The Art of War_  (Hell, I haven't been able to get the guy to read a single court case.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect to your history of political activism, all of that is just you attacking the source, something someone does, when they can't made their case, based on it's actual merits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll has never managed a political campaign, never held public office, and never studied guerrilla warfare.  If I said the classic three-phase Maoist model, he'd have to Google it to see what in the Hell I was talking about.  Yet I've been doing that for 32 years.  The bottom line is, he has NO experience outside of 50,000 plus posts spouting bullshit to the minions of the Supreme Pretender of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More irrelevant garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, I am the last person who will *EVER* be talking surrender.  You have to exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress.  Then you have to leave the doors open for nonviolent solutions.  You have to go through a process* without *surrendering.  Correll has already surrendered because he thinks crowd sizes at a Trump rally are going to magically transform into a Hispanic free America.  They aren't.  Furthermore, Correll's strategy is to surrender your *unalienable* Rights on the false belief that government will save you and you won't have to fight.  Some day if you intend on being free, you* WILL* have to fight.  Therefore, you *do not shut down *the avenues that allow you to resist tyranny.  You do not forfeit your Rights for the promise of Safety... which Correll advocates.  If you believe in his drivel, you WILL wind up in prison, jail, Hell, or become a snitch bitch for an alphabet agency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want to leave the border open, and let the illegals in. That is surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar, an idiot and a deceiver.  You have your nose stuck so far up Trumps ass, the only time you get a breath of fresh air is if Trump farts.
> 
> No, I do not want a militarized border that costs more in terms of Liberty than it pays in return.  If your worthless, lazy white ass were working a job or at least using some of your time to help others, Americans would take the jobs and they wouldn't be available for the foreigners.
> 
> If you got out of your mother's basement, quit sucking dope and snorting shit up your nose while you get off on* pretending to be something your ARE NOT and doing things YOU CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY HAVEN'T DONE*, you might be able to set an example so that we can reclaim our Rights and Liberties.  That and that alone will insure that you don't have an "_illegal_" problem.  A wall ups the ante, it don't stop people from coming.
> 
> Your dumb ass can't fathom that there is no such thing as an illegal (sic) problem.  There is too much government; there are too many worthless pieces of shit like you running around complaining about not having a job while you're too fucking lazy to look for one... and if you weren't on drugs, the drug cartels wouldn't exist.
> 
> Without drug cartels, the people from south of the border would learn how to grow food and get into industry.  They don't stop coming over a wall and any idiot who thinks so is out of touch with reality.  You are a danger to Freedom and Liberty.
> 
> Accusing me of being for some kind of surrender is pure bullshit - the kind of stuff you hear from Keyboard Commandos who have never been IN the real fight.  You talk shit because you're a coward and you've proven it.  If you think I'm about surrender, you might want to explain why it is *YOU* with your nose up the government's ass, looking for a solution when it's people like* YOU* that created the problem and only when you walk the walk will you ever be able to have earned the Right to criticize me.  The reason you don't know me is because you have never been *IN *the fight.  You aren't going to get there taunting me and cowering behind your keyboard like the scared piece of shit you really are.  You get in the mix of things and see how involved I am, then preach your false doctrine to the lazy fucks like you.  Until then you are so full of yourself you lost your last ounce of credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF militarizing the border worked, would you support that?
Click to expand...


NO, I do not support a militarized border and you can lie all the Hell you want, but the trade-off in terms of Freedoms and Liberties makes that trade one that our forefathers found to be reprehensible.

"_He who would give up Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserves neither Liberty NOR safety_"  Benjamin Franklin

You want a popularity contest?  Let me tell you a *FACT*, son.  Ever since the people voted to worship the Golden calf when Moses went up to Mount Sinai, it has been shown that the masses are proven wrong.  So, in the time of Moses it was a Golden Calf and today it is a fat ass white boy that inherited a lot of his daddy's money.  You're still wrong.

Until you curb Americans insatiable appetite for drugs (our country represents the world's most prolific amount of drug users) a militarized border simply will not work.  It will corrupt the government even further and give a lot of U.S. servicemen and women a reason to commit criminal acts.  That is not counting the number of Liberties lost in the peripheral legislation that will be enforced making us a POLICE STATE.  *SO HELL NO BECAUSE NO WALL OR MILITARIZED BORDER CAN SAVE YOU FROM YOURSELF!*


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. AGAIN, we were discussing rally size, not to point out how popular Trump is, but to show that it is insane of you to give credit to Trump's popularity to a fringe movement that cannot get anything like the rallies that Trump can.
> 
> 
> And it is, insane of you to do that. Also, your insults are the type of shit people do, when they know their arguments are losing.
> 
> 
> 
> 2.I agree that most white people do not identify as racist. However I think most white people have accepted that is it Taboo to even talk about white interests, because they have been told over and over again that it is racist to do so. Indeed, told that by people that play a game of guilt by association very similar to what you do.
> 
> 
> 3. I do care about my culture and my nation. I reject the idea that that is racism, despite the lies of the Left and I will call them on their bullshit about that, as doggedly and as annoyingly as I am calling you on yours.
> 
> 
> 4. I reject your claim that the "white collar types", whoever you think they are, are saying the same things that the white supremacists are saying. White supremacists are a fringe group. No one is saying the same shit they are.
> 
> 
> 5. I understand that "non-whites" are likely to see me as an enemy for denouncing multiculturalism, and that that is a problem for any attempts to find common ground with them. But my points about multiculturalism are true. It has been shown to be a lie. I cannot ignore that. It is tearing this nation apart.
> 
> 
> 6. I agree that many Americans are tired of "seeing their statues torn down", ect, but I will not let the liars call that racism. I will call them on any such bullshit, no matter how they present it. The same way I will not let you do so, with your game of guilt by association.
> 
> 
> 7. I do not claim that Trump "cares about my issues".  I have not commented on his motives for his political platform. HIs platform is what I want and I support it. That you attack me for that, is just you being rude and condescending, very unfairly.
> 
> 
> 8. I acknowledge the problem of the courts. But surrendering on these issues is just national suicide. All we can hope is that Trump will nominate real judges instead of lefty activists.
> 
> 
> 9. This nation is turning into a Third World shithole. Your long term concerns about the size and shape of government is irrelevant, because it is just a little more paper work for the Dems and the Deep State to ignore when they get the control they want.
> 
> 
> 10. I agree that we don't have much to show for it. This is probably too little to late. But the effects of even the limited reduction in illegal immigration flow Trump has done, has already had very impressive results for wages, especially on the lower end. It shows what could have been, or could be. Though the media will not tell the people that obvious fact.
> 
> 11. We have to try. THe alternative that you support, ie surrender, is national suicide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not address posts where you go on and on.  For the benefit of the readers, I will repeat the points made before:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I went "on and on" because I responded to each point you actually made. Indeed, I only gave an one or two word response, very concise. It seems that part of your style is to want to be able to pepper your long rambling posts with points that you want to pass unchallenged.
> 
> 
> Denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dollar for dollar spent, Trump's rallies are rather small.  Second to that rally size is *NOT* a determining factor in results.  If that were the case, then back in the late 1990s through early 2000s, we could have repealed the 16th Amendment, gotten rid of the income tax AND the IRS.  That effort spawned TWO books to make it to the New York Times Bestseller list.  Trump = ZERO on that count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were only talking about rally size to point out how absurd it is, for you to give Credit to the White Supremacists for Trumps rise.
> 
> You keep trying to twist this into something it never was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll pretends to be "_calling me out on something_."  He is delusional, dishonest, and his credibility is so bad he has to stick he chest out and proclaim he's called me out and beat me.... when in *FACT*, *his bullshit strategies have not seen a single, solitary victory in the 15 + years his side has been preaching them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I am certainly calling you out on a lot of stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next, Correll has faith in the government.  I don't.  What he calls surrender is his abject stupidity.  I have been in a civilian militia for 32 years now.  Terminology that has been used to describe people like me is survivalist, prepper, and citizen soldier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no faith in our government. I have hopes that they might do their job(s) someday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll has never manned the border; never participated in a rally or march (except MAYBE as an onlooker.)  He's never been in a stand-off, never been in a physical altercation with those on the extreme left.  He's never debated top name activists on tv and radio.  He's never had his ass on the line in a court action, never had to represent himself in court, and never written a legal brief.  He's never trained with hard core vets nor been a part of a think tank that plans for different kinds of scenarios.  He's never read books on warfare like _The Art of War_  (Hell, I haven't been able to get the guy to read a single court case.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect to your history of political activism, all of that is just you attacking the source, something someone does, when they can't made their case, based on it's actual merits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll has never managed a political campaign, never held public office, and never studied guerrilla warfare.  If I said the classic three-phase Maoist model, he'd have to Google it to see what in the Hell I was talking about.  Yet I've been doing that for 32 years.  The bottom line is, he has NO experience outside of 50,000 plus posts spouting bullshit to the minions of the Supreme Pretender of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More irrelevant garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, I am the last person who will *EVER* be talking surrender.  You have to exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress.  Then you have to leave the doors open for nonviolent solutions.  You have to go through a process* without *surrendering.  Correll has already surrendered because he thinks crowd sizes at a Trump rally are going to magically transform into a Hispanic free America.  They aren't.  Furthermore, Correll's strategy is to surrender your *unalienable* Rights on the false belief that government will save you and you won't have to fight.  Some day if you intend on being free, you* WILL* have to fight.  Therefore, you *do not shut down *the avenues that allow you to resist tyranny.  You do not forfeit your Rights for the promise of Safety... which Correll advocates.  If you believe in his drivel, you WILL wind up in prison, jail, Hell, or become a snitch bitch for an alphabet agency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want to leave the border open, and let the illegals in. That is surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar, an idiot and a deceiver.  You have your nose stuck so far up Trumps ass, the only time you get a breath of fresh air is if Trump farts.
> 
> No, I do not want a militarized border that costs more in terms of Liberty than it pays in return.  If your worthless, lazy white ass were working a job or at least using some of your time to help others, Americans would take the jobs and they wouldn't be available for the foreigners.
> 
> If you got out of your mother's basement, quit sucking dope and snorting shit up your nose while you get off on* pretending to be something your ARE NOT and doing things YOU CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY HAVEN'T DONE*, you might be able to set an example so that we can reclaim our Rights and Liberties.  That and that alone will insure that you don't have an "_illegal_" problem.  A wall ups the ante, it don't stop people from coming.
> 
> Your dumb ass can't fathom that there is no such thing as an illegal (sic) problem.  There is too much government; there are too many worthless pieces of shit like you running around complaining about not having a job while you're too fucking lazy to look for one... and if you weren't on drugs, the drug cartels wouldn't exist.
> 
> Without drug cartels, the people from south of the border would learn how to grow food and get into industry.  They don't stop coming over a wall and any idiot who thinks so is out of touch with reality.  You are a danger to Freedom and Liberty.
> 
> Accusing me of being for some kind of surrender is pure bullshit - the kind of stuff you hear from Keyboard Commandos who have never been IN the real fight.  You talk shit because you're a coward and you've proven it.  If you think I'm about surrender, you might want to explain why it is *YOU* with your nose up the government's ass, looking for a solution when it's people like* YOU* that created the problem and only when you walk the walk will you ever be able to have earned the Right to criticize me.  The reason you don't know me is because you have never been *IN *the fight.  You aren't going to get there taunting me and cowering behind your keyboard like the scared piece of shit you really are.  You get in the mix of things and see how involved I am, then preach your false doctrine to the lazy fucks like you.  Until then you are so full of yourself you lost your last ounce of credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF militarizing the border worked, would you support that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, I do not support a militarized border and you can lie all the Hell you want, but the trade-off in terms of Freedoms and Liberties makes that trade one that our forefathers found to be reprehensible.
> 
> "_He who would give up Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserves neither Liberty NOR safety_"  Benjamin Franklin
> 
> You want a popularity contest?  Let me tell you a *FACT*, son.  Ever since the people voted to worship the Golden calf when Moses went up to Mount Sinai, it has been shown that the masses are proven wrong.  So, in the time of Moses it was a Golden Calf and today it is a fat ass white boy that inherited a lot of his daddy's money.  You're still wrong.
> 
> Until you curb Americans insatiable appetite for drugs (our country represents the world's most prolific amount of drug users) a militarized border simply will not work.  It will corrupt the government even further and give a lot of U.S. servicemen and women a reason to commit criminal acts.  That is not counting the number of Liberties lost in the peripheral legislation that will be enforced making us a POLICE STATE.  *SO HELL NO BECAUSE NO WALL OR MILITARIZED BORDER CAN SAVE YOU FROM YOURSELF!*
Click to expand...

WTF???

protecting the borders/country is the main job of the military


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correll, you are extremely childish, uninformed and uneducated.  You make the argument that the size of Trump's rallies versus the size of grass roots rallies is the determining factor in Trump's popularity.
> 
> Son, it is irrelevant.  Richard Spencer put a little money in the kitty and Charlottesville drew one Hell of a crowd.  People don't go out of their way to support grass roots organizations, but the reality is, the grass roots organizations are where you find the ground troops.
> 
> MOST white people will not identify as racists because they feel, and justifiably so, that working for White Rights (no matter how you try to spin it) is not a crime, so they will not put themselves nor their families into jeopardy by speaking out.
> 
> After more than 1000 exchanges with you I see that you are stupid enough to argue with a tree stump and dumb enough to lose to one.  You can bullshit people until Hell freezes over, but if you want to retain your culture; if you care about the Constitution of the United States; if you really believe in the Rule of Law, then you have to be _"racist" _by today's standards.  You conflate Nazism with racism.  All Nazis are racists, but not all racists are Nazis.
> 
> The non-white world is attuned to this bullshit, double standard line that you are about the Rule of Law in one breath and then trying to enlist the support of non-whites in the next breath while standing beside a political platform that denounces multiculturalism.  Could you be more screwed up!!!  I don't conflate different groups.  Whether you agree or not, like it or not, if your dumb ass got out there and *WORKED* among the activists, you would figure out that the white collar, suit and tie yuppie is saying the same thing that most white supremacists are saying.
> 
> There are a lot of Americans that are tired of watching their flags, monuments, plaques, memorials, and statues being torn down.  There are those who get fed up with one guy wearing a diaper on his head and we're supposed to respect his religion while telling others they cannot wear anything with a cross on it as it offends the diaper wearing asshat on his head that demands you respect him.  There are those who think the black people wanting reparations are a joke.  Some people even get fed up that the blacks can play that nasty rap where it's heard all over the neighborhood and the demeaning lyrics about hos and bitches and sexually humiliating white chicks.  Not everybody goes along with inter-racial marriages, double standards that allow the black guys to run around saying the N word, but you aren't supposed to be allowed.
> 
> There are a lot of different racists in different degrees.  You don't have to hate the other races; you might even be married to someone of another race.  But, if you value anything about your culture, then the Dems, most blacks, and all the liberals say you're racist.  So, live with it.
> 
> The problem your dumb ass can't see is that people like Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and the other high rollers don't give a rat's ass about your petty issue.  A lot of what you want won't pass constitutional muster, so politicians don't give a shit.  They get over-ruled in the courts and things don't change.  The only things that change for those who cherish Liberty is that you and those of your ilk support an agenda that is antithetical to the core principles of Liberty.  You simply cannot build a government big enough to save you from yourself and if you take away the ability of your generation or the next to resist tyranny, you are a puppet of the NEW WORLD ORDER / One World Government.  Know this: your demi-god Trump is part and parcel to the type of people who want to* control *you.
> 
> I can't save you from your actions, so when you advocate and work for laws that restrict my Liberty / *unalienable *Rights, I will oppose you.  The only fundamental difference between the crowd you have chosen to stick your nose up their ass and Bernie Sanders is the race issue.
> 
> You can use the standard canard of "_logical fallacy_,"  and all that other puffed up meaningless bullshit, but until you've been IN the fight, you keyboard commando illiteracy is worth what you paid for it.  If you studied instead of posting 50,000 posts on this board, you might have a clue.  Today you don't, son.  You are a useful idiot taking the tools required of a free society and making resistance to tyranny impossible... A*ND YOUR BOYS DON'T HAVE A DAMN THING TO SHOW FOR IT IN OVER 15 YEARS OF THIS MONOTONOUS "ILLEGAL ALIEN" - SECURE THE BORDER BABBOON LEVEL THINKING AND SHIT SPEWING*.
> 
> anyone have a problem with
> 
> Read post  # 44  You might get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. AGAIN, we were discussing rally size, not to point out how popular Trump is, but to show that it is insane of you to give credit to Trump's popularity to a fringe movement that cannot get anything like the rallies that Trump can.
> 
> 
> And it is, insane of you to do that. Also, your insults are the type of shit people do, when they know their arguments are losing.
> 
> 
> 
> 2.I agree that most white people do not identify as racist. However I think most white people have accepted that is it Taboo to even talk about white interests, because they have been told over and over again that it is racist to do so. Indeed, told that by people that play a game of guilt by association very similar to what you do.
> 
> 
> 3. I do care about my culture and my nation. I reject the idea that that is racism, despite the lies of the Left and I will call them on their bullshit about that, as doggedly and as annoyingly as I am calling you on yours.
> 
> 
> 4. I reject your claim that the "white collar types", whoever you think they are, are saying the same things that the white supremacists are saying. White supremacists are a fringe group. No one is saying the same shit they are.
> 
> 
> 5. I understand that "non-whites" are likely to see me as an enemy for denouncing multiculturalism, and that that is a problem for any attempts to find common ground with them. But my points about multiculturalism are true. It has been shown to be a lie. I cannot ignore that. It is tearing this nation apart.
> 
> 
> 6. I agree that many Americans are tired of "seeing their statues torn down", ect, but I will not let the liars call that racism. I will call them on any such bullshit, no matter how they present it. The same way I will not let you do so, with your game of guilt by association.
> 
> 
> 7. I do not claim that Trump "cares about my issues".  I have not commented on his motives for his political platform. HIs platform is what I want and I support it. That you attack me for that, is just you being rude and condescending, very unfairly.
> 
> 
> 8. I acknowledge the problem of the courts. But surrendering on these issues is just national suicide. All we can hope is that Trump will nominate real judges instead of lefty activists.
> 
> 
> 9. This nation is turning into a Third World shithole. Your long term concerns about the size and shape of government is irrelevant, because it is just a little more paper work for the Dems and the Deep State to ignore when they get the control they want.
> 
> 
> 10. I agree that we don't have much to show for it. This is probably too little to late. But the effects of even the limited reduction in illegal immigration flow Trump has done, has already had very impressive results for wages, especially on the lower end. It shows what could have been, or could be. Though the media will not tell the people that obvious fact.
> 
> 11. We have to try. THe alternative that you support, ie surrender, is national suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I do not address posts where you go on and on.  For the benefit of the readers, I will repeat the points made before:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I went "on and on" because I responded to each point you actually made. Indeed, I only gave an one or two word response, very concise. It seems that part of your style is to want to be able to pepper your long rambling posts with points that you want to pass unchallenged.
> 
> 
> Denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dollar for dollar spent, Trump's rallies are rather small.  Second to that rally size is *NOT* a determining factor in results.  If that were the case, then back in the late 1990s through early 2000s, we could have repealed the 16th Amendment, gotten rid of the income tax AND the IRS.  That effort spawned TWO books to make it to the New York Times Bestseller list.  Trump = ZERO on that count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were only talking about rally size to point out how absurd it is, for you to give Credit to the White Supremacists for Trumps rise.
> 
> You keep trying to twist this into something it never was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll pretends to be "_calling me out on something_."  He is delusional, dishonest, and his credibility is so bad he has to stick he chest out and proclaim he's called me out and beat me.... when in *FACT*, *his bullshit strategies have not seen a single, solitary victory in the 15 + years his side has been preaching them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I am certainly calling you out on a lot of stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next, Correll has faith in the government.  I don't.  What he calls surrender is his abject stupidity.  I have been in a civilian militia for 32 years now.  Terminology that has been used to describe people like me is survivalist, prepper, and citizen soldier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no faith in our government. I have hopes that they might do their job(s) someday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll has never manned the border; never participated in a rally or march (except MAYBE as an onlooker.)  He's never been in a stand-off, never been in a physical altercation with those on the extreme left.  He's never debated top name activists on tv and radio.  He's never had his ass on the line in a court action, never had to represent himself in court, and never written a legal brief.  He's never trained with hard core vets nor been a part of a think tank that plans for different kinds of scenarios.  He's never read books on warfare like _The Art of War_  (Hell, I haven't been able to get the guy to read a single court case.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect to your history of political activism, all of that is just you attacking the source, something someone does, when they can't made their case, based on it's actual merits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll has never managed a political campaign, never held public office, and never studied guerrilla warfare.  If I said the classic three-phase Maoist model, he'd have to Google it to see what in the Hell I was talking about.  Yet I've been doing that for 32 years.  The bottom line is, he has NO experience outside of 50,000 plus posts spouting bullshit to the minions of the Supreme Pretender of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More irrelevant garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, I am the last person who will *EVER* be talking surrender.  You have to exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress.  Then you have to leave the doors open for nonviolent solutions.  You have to go through a process* without *surrendering.  Correll has already surrendered because he thinks crowd sizes at a Trump rally are going to magically transform into a Hispanic free America.  They aren't.  Furthermore, Correll's strategy is to surrender your *unalienable* Rights on the false belief that government will save you and you won't have to fight.  Some day if you intend on being free, you* WILL* have to fight.  Therefore, you *do not shut down *the avenues that allow you to resist tyranny.  You do not forfeit your Rights for the promise of Safety... which Correll advocates.  If you believe in his drivel, you WILL wind up in prison, jail, Hell, or become a snitch bitch for an alphabet agency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want to leave the border open, and let the illegals in. That is surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar, an idiot and a deceiver.  You have your nose stuck so far up Trumps ass, the only time you get a breath of fresh air is if Trump farts.
> 
> No, I do not want a militarized border that costs more in terms of Liberty than it pays in return.  If your worthless, lazy white ass were working a job or at least using some of your time to help others, Americans would take the jobs and they wouldn't be available for the foreigners.
> 
> If you got out of your mother's basement, quit sucking dope and snorting shit up your nose while you get off on* pretending to be something your ARE NOT and doing things YOU CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY HAVEN'T DONE*, you might be able to set an example so that we can reclaim our Rights and Liberties.  That and that alone will insure that you don't have an "_illegal_" problem.  A wall ups the ante, it don't stop people from coming.
> 
> Your dumb ass can't fathom that there is no such thing as an illegal (sic) problem.  There is too much government; there are too many worthless pieces of shit like you running around complaining about not having a job while you're too fucking lazy to look for one... and if you weren't on drugs, the drug cartels wouldn't exist.
> 
> Without drug cartels, the people from south of the border would learn how to grow food and get into industry.  They don't stop coming over a wall and any idiot who thinks so is out of touch with reality.  You are a danger to Freedom and Liberty.
> 
> Accusing me of being for some kind of surrender is pure bullshit - the kind of stuff you hear from Keyboard Commandos who have never been IN the real fight.  You talk shit because you're a coward and you've proven it.  If you think I'm about surrender, you might want to explain why it is *YOU* with your nose up the government's ass, looking for a solution when it's people like* YOU* that created the problem and only when you walk the walk will you ever be able to have earned the Right to criticize me.  The reason you don't know me is because you have never been *IN *the fight.  You aren't going to get there taunting me and cowering behind your keyboard like the scared piece of shit you really are.  You get in the mix of things and see how involved I am, then preach your false doctrine to the lazy fucks like you.  Until then you are so full of yourself you lost your last ounce of credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF militarizing the border worked, would you support that?
Click to expand...

sure, if we had an express wall building and immigration clause.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not address posts where you go on and on.  For the benefit of the readers, I will repeat the points made before:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went "on and on" because I responded to each point you actually made. Indeed, I only gave an one or two word response, very concise. It seems that part of your style is to want to be able to pepper your long rambling posts with points that you want to pass unchallenged.
> 
> 
> Denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dollar for dollar spent, Trump's rallies are rather small.  Second to that rally size is *NOT* a determining factor in results.  If that were the case, then back in the late 1990s through early 2000s, we could have repealed the 16th Amendment, gotten rid of the income tax AND the IRS.  That effort spawned TWO books to make it to the New York Times Bestseller list.  Trump = ZERO on that count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were only talking about rally size to point out how absurd it is, for you to give Credit to the White Supremacists for Trumps rise.
> 
> You keep trying to twist this into something it never was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll pretends to be "_calling me out on something_."  He is delusional, dishonest, and his credibility is so bad he has to stick he chest out and proclaim he's called me out and beat me.... when in *FACT*, *his bullshit strategies have not seen a single, solitary victory in the 15 + years his side has been preaching them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I am certainly calling you out on a lot of stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next, Correll has faith in the government.  I don't.  What he calls surrender is his abject stupidity.  I have been in a civilian militia for 32 years now.  Terminology that has been used to describe people like me is survivalist, prepper, and citizen soldier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no faith in our government. I have hopes that they might do their job(s) someday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll has never manned the border; never participated in a rally or march (except MAYBE as an onlooker.)  He's never been in a stand-off, never been in a physical altercation with those on the extreme left.  He's never debated top name activists on tv and radio.  He's never had his ass on the line in a court action, never had to represent himself in court, and never written a legal brief.  He's never trained with hard core vets nor been a part of a think tank that plans for different kinds of scenarios.  He's never read books on warfare like _The Art of War_  (Hell, I haven't been able to get the guy to read a single court case.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect to your history of political activism, all of that is just you attacking the source, something someone does, when they can't made their case, based on it's actual merits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll has never managed a political campaign, never held public office, and never studied guerrilla warfare.  If I said the classic three-phase Maoist model, he'd have to Google it to see what in the Hell I was talking about.  Yet I've been doing that for 32 years.  The bottom line is, he has NO experience outside of 50,000 plus posts spouting bullshit to the minions of the Supreme Pretender of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More irrelevant garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, I am the last person who will *EVER* be talking surrender.  You have to exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress.  Then you have to leave the doors open for nonviolent solutions.  You have to go through a process* without *surrendering.  Correll has already surrendered because he thinks crowd sizes at a Trump rally are going to magically transform into a Hispanic free America.  They aren't.  Furthermore, Correll's strategy is to surrender your *unalienable* Rights on the false belief that government will save you and you won't have to fight.  Some day if you intend on being free, you* WILL* have to fight.  Therefore, you *do not shut down *the avenues that allow you to resist tyranny.  You do not forfeit your Rights for the promise of Safety... which Correll advocates.  If you believe in his drivel, you WILL wind up in prison, jail, Hell, or become a snitch bitch for an alphabet agency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want to leave the border open, and let the illegals in. That is surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar, an idiot and a deceiver.  You have your nose stuck so far up Trumps ass, the only time you get a breath of fresh air is if Trump farts.
> 
> No, I do not want a militarized border that costs more in terms of Liberty than it pays in return.  If your worthless, lazy white ass were working a job or at least using some of your time to help others, Americans would take the jobs and they wouldn't be available for the foreigners.
> 
> If you got out of your mother's basement, quit sucking dope and snorting shit up your nose while you get off on* pretending to be something your ARE NOT and doing things YOU CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY HAVEN'T DONE*, you might be able to set an example so that we can reclaim our Rights and Liberties.  That and that alone will insure that you don't have an "_illegal_" problem.  A wall ups the ante, it don't stop people from coming.
> 
> Your dumb ass can't fathom that there is no such thing as an illegal (sic) problem.  There is too much government; there are too many worthless pieces of shit like you running around complaining about not having a job while you're too fucking lazy to look for one... and if you weren't on drugs, the drug cartels wouldn't exist.
> 
> Without drug cartels, the people from south of the border would learn how to grow food and get into industry.  They don't stop coming over a wall and any idiot who thinks so is out of touch with reality.  You are a danger to Freedom and Liberty.
> 
> Accusing me of being for some kind of surrender is pure bullshit - the kind of stuff you hear from Keyboard Commandos who have never been IN the real fight.  You talk shit because you're a coward and you've proven it.  If you think I'm about surrender, you might want to explain why it is *YOU* with your nose up the government's ass, looking for a solution when it's people like* YOU* that created the problem and only when you walk the walk will you ever be able to have earned the Right to criticize me.  The reason you don't know me is because you have never been *IN *the fight.  You aren't going to get there taunting me and cowering behind your keyboard like the scared piece of shit you really are.  You get in the mix of things and see how involved I am, then preach your false doctrine to the lazy fucks like you.  Until then you are so full of yourself you lost your last ounce of credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF militarizing the border worked, would you support that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, I do not support a militarized border and you can lie all the Hell you want, but the trade-off in terms of Freedoms and Liberties makes that trade one that our forefathers found to be reprehensible.
> 
> "_He who would give up Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserves neither Liberty NOR safety_"  Benjamin Franklin
> 
> You want a popularity contest?  Let me tell you a *FACT*, son.  Ever since the people voted to worship the Golden calf when Moses went up to Mount Sinai, it has been shown that the masses are proven wrong.  So, in the time of Moses it was a Golden Calf and today it is a fat ass white boy that inherited a lot of his daddy's money.  You're still wrong.
> 
> Until you curb Americans insatiable appetite for drugs (our country represents the world's most prolific amount of drug users) a militarized border simply will not work.  It will corrupt the government even further and give a lot of U.S. servicemen and women a reason to commit criminal acts.  That is not counting the number of Liberties lost in the peripheral legislation that will be enforced making us a POLICE STATE.  *SO HELL NO BECAUSE NO WALL OR MILITARIZED BORDER CAN SAVE YOU FROM YOURSELF!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF???
> 
> protecting the borders/country is the main job of the military
Click to expand...


If an invasion occurs, it IS the responsibility of the federal government to act.  *HOWEVER*, you do not use the military to enforce domestic policies.  Over and over and over again, the wallists keep harping on "_illegal immigration_."  Did ANY of you dumb asses take basic civics in high school?  It is *unconstitutional *to use the military to enforce domestic laws.  When you call the foreigners "_illegals_" any other related language, you negate the possibility of using the military to achieve your objective.  How come that is so hard for you people to understand?

Additionally, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that state and local governments cannot be compelled to enforce federal statutory law.  BTW, this was done at the behest and hard work of people on *your side of this issue!!!  
*
On domestic policies (i.e. dealing with people you insist on calling "_illegal_") the federal government has NO JURISDICTION.  If the governor of a state rejects federal intervention, it's because they are protected by the Tenth Amendment.  

What kind of dumb assery keeps the wallists from understanding the constitutional roles of state and federal government, separation of powers, and 14th Amendment rights??????

If you have a *military *problem with people from south of the border, then quit calling people _"illegal" _and  get the LEOs out of the damn picture.  You're like a rodent on a treadmill and I'm stuck trying to give you people a high school lesson in civics.  That doesn't even factor in how your side screwed themselves on this border protection bullshit.  You can thank your own kind for that as well - as if we don't have hundreds of paragraphs on this thread discussing that aspect.

The *BEST* solution is to restore the Freedoms and Liberties back to the people, deal with the drug issue, put Americans back to work, and your problem will dissipate to the point that a group of Cub Scouts can man the border and protect it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. AGAIN, we were discussing rally size, not to point out how popular Trump is, but to show that it is insane of you to give credit to Trump's popularity to a fringe movement that cannot get anything like the rallies that Trump can.
> 
> 
> And it is, insane of you to do that. Also, your insults are the type of shit people do, when they know their arguments are losing.
> 
> 
> 
> 2.I agree that most white people do not identify as racist. However I think most white people have accepted that is it Taboo to even talk about white interests, because they have been told over and over again that it is racist to do so. Indeed, told that by people that play a game of guilt by association very similar to what you do.
> 
> 
> 3. I do care about my culture and my nation. I reject the idea that that is racism, despite the lies of the Left and I will call them on their bullshit about that, as doggedly and as annoyingly as I am calling you on yours.
> 
> 
> 4. I reject your claim that the "white collar types", whoever you think they are, are saying the same things that the white supremacists are saying. White supremacists are a fringe group. No one is saying the same shit they are.
> 
> 
> 5. I understand that "non-whites" are likely to see me as an enemy for denouncing multiculturalism, and that that is a problem for any attempts to find common ground with them. But my points about multiculturalism are true. It has been shown to be a lie. I cannot ignore that. It is tearing this nation apart.
> 
> 
> 6. I agree that many Americans are tired of "seeing their statues torn down", ect, but I will not let the liars call that racism. I will call them on any such bullshit, no matter how they present it. The same way I will not let you do so, with your game of guilt by association.
> 
> 
> 7. I do not claim that Trump "cares about my issues".  I have not commented on his motives for his political platform. HIs platform is what I want and I support it. That you attack me for that, is just you being rude and condescending, very unfairly.
> 
> 
> 8. I acknowledge the problem of the courts. But surrendering on these issues is just national suicide. All we can hope is that Trump will nominate real judges instead of lefty activists.
> 
> 
> 9. This nation is turning into a Third World shithole. Your long term concerns about the size and shape of government is irrelevant, because it is just a little more paper work for the Dems and the Deep State to ignore when they get the control they want.
> 
> 
> 10. I agree that we don't have much to show for it. This is probably too little to late. But the effects of even the limited reduction in illegal immigration flow Trump has done, has already had very impressive results for wages, especially on the lower end. It shows what could have been, or could be. Though the media will not tell the people that obvious fact.
> 
> 11. We have to try. THe alternative that you support, ie surrender, is national suicide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not address posts where you go on and on.  For the benefit of the readers, I will repeat the points made before:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I went "on and on" because I responded to each point you actually made. Indeed, I only gave an one or two word response, very concise. It seems that part of your style is to want to be able to pepper your long rambling posts with points that you want to pass unchallenged.
> 
> 
> Denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dollar for dollar spent, Trump's rallies are rather small.  Second to that rally size is *NOT* a determining factor in results.  If that were the case, then back in the late 1990s through early 2000s, we could have repealed the 16th Amendment, gotten rid of the income tax AND the IRS.  That effort spawned TWO books to make it to the New York Times Bestseller list.  Trump = ZERO on that count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were only talking about rally size to point out how absurd it is, for you to give Credit to the White Supremacists for Trumps rise.
> 
> You keep trying to twist this into something it never was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll pretends to be "_calling me out on something_."  He is delusional, dishonest, and his credibility is so bad he has to stick he chest out and proclaim he's called me out and beat me.... when in *FACT*, *his bullshit strategies have not seen a single, solitary victory in the 15 + years his side has been preaching them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I am certainly calling you out on a lot of stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next, Correll has faith in the government.  I don't.  What he calls surrender is his abject stupidity.  I have been in a civilian militia for 32 years now.  Terminology that has been used to describe people like me is survivalist, prepper, and citizen soldier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no faith in our government. I have hopes that they might do their job(s) someday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll has never manned the border; never participated in a rally or march (except MAYBE as an onlooker.)  He's never been in a stand-off, never been in a physical altercation with those on the extreme left.  He's never debated top name activists on tv and radio.  He's never had his ass on the line in a court action, never had to represent himself in court, and never written a legal brief.  He's never trained with hard core vets nor been a part of a think tank that plans for different kinds of scenarios.  He's never read books on warfare like _The Art of War_  (Hell, I haven't been able to get the guy to read a single court case.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect to your history of political activism, all of that is just you attacking the source, something someone does, when they can't made their case, based on it's actual merits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll has never managed a political campaign, never held public office, and never studied guerrilla warfare.  If I said the classic three-phase Maoist model, he'd have to Google it to see what in the Hell I was talking about.  Yet I've been doing that for 32 years.  The bottom line is, he has NO experience outside of 50,000 plus posts spouting bullshit to the minions of the Supreme Pretender of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More irrelevant garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, I am the last person who will *EVER* be talking surrender.  You have to exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress.  Then you have to leave the doors open for nonviolent solutions.  You have to go through a process* without *surrendering.  Correll has already surrendered because he thinks crowd sizes at a Trump rally are going to magically transform into a Hispanic free America.  They aren't.  Furthermore, Correll's strategy is to surrender your *unalienable* Rights on the false belief that government will save you and you won't have to fight.  Some day if you intend on being free, you* WILL* have to fight.  Therefore, you *do not shut down *the avenues that allow you to resist tyranny.  You do not forfeit your Rights for the promise of Safety... which Correll advocates.  If you believe in his drivel, you WILL wind up in prison, jail, Hell, or become a snitch bitch for an alphabet agency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want to leave the border open, and let the illegals in. That is surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar, an idiot and a deceiver.  You have your nose stuck so far up Trumps ass, the only time you get a breath of fresh air is if Trump farts.
> 
> No, I do not want a militarized border that costs more in terms of Liberty than it pays in return.  If your worthless, lazy white ass were working a job or at least using some of your time to help others, Americans would take the jobs and they wouldn't be available for the foreigners.
> 
> If you got out of your mother's basement, quit sucking dope and snorting shit up your nose while you get off on* pretending to be something your ARE NOT and doing things YOU CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY HAVEN'T DONE*, you might be able to set an example so that we can reclaim our Rights and Liberties.  That and that alone will insure that you don't have an "_illegal_" problem.  A wall ups the ante, it don't stop people from coming.
> 
> Your dumb ass can't fathom that there is no such thing as an illegal (sic) problem.  There is too much government; there are too many worthless pieces of shit like you running around complaining about not having a job while you're too fucking lazy to look for one... and if you weren't on drugs, the drug cartels wouldn't exist.
> 
> Without drug cartels, the people from south of the border would learn how to grow food and get into industry.  They don't stop coming over a wall and any idiot who thinks so is out of touch with reality.  You are a danger to Freedom and Liberty.
> 
> Accusing me of being for some kind of surrender is pure bullshit - the kind of stuff you hear from Keyboard Commandos who have never been IN the real fight.  You talk shit because you're a coward and you've proven it.  If you think I'm about surrender, you might want to explain why it is *YOU* with your nose up the government's ass, looking for a solution when it's people like* YOU* that created the problem and only when you walk the walk will you ever be able to have earned the Right to criticize me.  The reason you don't know me is because you have never been *IN *the fight.  You aren't going to get there taunting me and cowering behind your keyboard like the scared piece of shit you really are.  You get in the mix of things and see how involved I am, then preach your false doctrine to the lazy fucks like you.  Until then you are so full of yourself you lost your last ounce of credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF militarizing the border worked, would you support that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sure, if we had an express wall building and immigration clause.
Click to expand...


I am embarrassed for the right wing.  I don't vote for Democrats.  Yet the wallists here have to hear you repeat the same thing over and over.  WTF?  Are they *really *that stupid?

The minute the wallists made this an issue of domestic legality (i.e. calling people "_illegal aliens_") it took the issue from being a military concern to a domestic legal issue where the feds have *NO* jurisdiction.  What in the Hell do they not understand about the Rule of Law, separation of powers, the unconstitutionality of using the military to enforce domestic policies, and the Tenth Amendment???


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went "on and on" because I responded to each point you actually made. Indeed, I only gave an one or two word response, very concise. It seems that part of your style is to want to be able to pepper your long rambling posts with points that you want to pass unchallenged.
> 
> 
> Denied.
> 
> We were only talking about rally size to point out how absurd it is, for you to give Credit to the White Supremacists for Trumps rise.
> 
> You keep trying to twist this into something it never was.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I am certainly calling you out on a lot of stuff.
> 
> 
> I have no faith in our government. I have hopes that they might do their job(s) someday.
> 
> 
> With all due respect to your history of political activism, all of that is just you attacking the source, something someone does, when they can't made their case, based on it's actual merits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More irrelevant garbage.
> 
> 
> You want to leave the border open, and let the illegals in. That is surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar, an idiot and a deceiver.  You have your nose stuck so far up Trumps ass, the only time you get a breath of fresh air is if Trump farts.
> 
> No, I do not want a militarized border that costs more in terms of Liberty than it pays in return.  If your worthless, lazy white ass were working a job or at least using some of your time to help others, Americans would take the jobs and they wouldn't be available for the foreigners.
> 
> If you got out of your mother's basement, quit sucking dope and snorting shit up your nose while you get off on* pretending to be something your ARE NOT and doing things YOU CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY HAVEN'T DONE*, you might be able to set an example so that we can reclaim our Rights and Liberties.  That and that alone will insure that you don't have an "_illegal_" problem.  A wall ups the ante, it don't stop people from coming.
> 
> Your dumb ass can't fathom that there is no such thing as an illegal (sic) problem.  There is too much government; there are too many worthless pieces of shit like you running around complaining about not having a job while you're too fucking lazy to look for one... and if you weren't on drugs, the drug cartels wouldn't exist.
> 
> Without drug cartels, the people from south of the border would learn how to grow food and get into industry.  They don't stop coming over a wall and any idiot who thinks so is out of touch with reality.  You are a danger to Freedom and Liberty.
> 
> Accusing me of being for some kind of surrender is pure bullshit - the kind of stuff you hear from Keyboard Commandos who have never been IN the real fight.  You talk shit because you're a coward and you've proven it.  If you think I'm about surrender, you might want to explain why it is *YOU* with your nose up the government's ass, looking for a solution when it's people like* YOU* that created the problem and only when you walk the walk will you ever be able to have earned the Right to criticize me.  The reason you don't know me is because you have never been *IN *the fight.  You aren't going to get there taunting me and cowering behind your keyboard like the scared piece of shit you really are.  You get in the mix of things and see how involved I am, then preach your false doctrine to the lazy fucks like you.  Until then you are so full of yourself you lost your last ounce of credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF militarizing the border worked, would you support that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, I do not support a militarized border and you can lie all the Hell you want, but the trade-off in terms of Freedoms and Liberties makes that trade one that our forefathers found to be reprehensible.
> 
> "_He who would give up Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserves neither Liberty NOR safety_"  Benjamin Franklin
> 
> You want a popularity contest?  Let me tell you a *FACT*, son.  Ever since the people voted to worship the Golden calf when Moses went up to Mount Sinai, it has been shown that the masses are proven wrong.  So, in the time of Moses it was a Golden Calf and today it is a fat ass white boy that inherited a lot of his daddy's money.  You're still wrong.
> 
> Until you curb Americans insatiable appetite for drugs (our country represents the world's most prolific amount of drug users) a militarized border simply will not work.  It will corrupt the government even further and give a lot of U.S. servicemen and women a reason to commit criminal acts.  That is not counting the number of Liberties lost in the peripheral legislation that will be enforced making us a POLICE STATE.  *SO HELL NO BECAUSE NO WALL OR MILITARIZED BORDER CAN SAVE YOU FROM YOURSELF!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF???
> 
> protecting the borders/country is the main job of the military
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If an invasion occurs, it IS the responsibility of the federal government to act.  *HOWEVER*, you do not use the military to enforce domestic policies.  Over and over and over again, the wallists keep harping on "_illegal immigration_."  Did ANY of you dumb asses take basic civics in high school?  It is *unconstitutional *to use the military to enforce domestic laws.  When you call the foreigners "_illegals_" any other related language, you negate the possibility of using the military to achieve your objective.  How come that is so hard for you people to understand?
> 
> Additionally, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that state and local governments cannot be compelled to enforce federal statutory law.  BTW, this was done at the behest and hard work of people on *your side of this issue!!!
> *
> On domestic policies (i.e. dealing with people you insist on calling "_illegal_") the federal government has NO JURISDICTION.  If the governor of a state rejects federal intervention, it's because they are protected by the Tenth Amendment.
> 
> What kind of dumb assery keeps the wallists from understanding the constitutional roles of state and federal government, separation of powers, and 14th Amendment rights??????
> 
> If you have a *military *problem with people from south of the border, then quit calling people _"illegal" _and  get the LEOs out of the damn picture.  You're like a rodent on a treadmill and I'm stuck trying to give you people a high school lesson in civics.  That doesn't even factor in how your side screwed themselves on this border protection bullshit.  You can thank your own kind for that as well - as if we don't have hundreds of paragraphs on this thread discussing that aspect.
> 
> The *BEST* solution is to restore the Freedoms and Liberties back to the people, deal with the drug issue, put Americans back to work, and your problem will dissipate to the point that a group of Cub Scouts can man the border and protect it.
Click to expand...



border security isnt domestic policy,,,its national security, which is the soul purpose of the military


----------



## Porter Rockwell

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar, an idiot and a deceiver.  You have your nose stuck so far up Trumps ass, the only time you get a breath of fresh air is if Trump farts.
> 
> No, I do not want a militarized border that costs more in terms of Liberty than it pays in return.  If your worthless, lazy white ass were working a job or at least using some of your time to help others, Americans would take the jobs and they wouldn't be available for the foreigners.
> 
> If you got out of your mother's basement, quit sucking dope and snorting shit up your nose while you get off on* pretending to be something your ARE NOT and doing things YOU CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY HAVEN'T DONE*, you might be able to set an example so that we can reclaim our Rights and Liberties.  That and that alone will insure that you don't have an "_illegal_" problem.  A wall ups the ante, it don't stop people from coming.
> 
> Your dumb ass can't fathom that there is no such thing as an illegal (sic) problem.  There is too much government; there are too many worthless pieces of shit like you running around complaining about not having a job while you're too fucking lazy to look for one... and if you weren't on drugs, the drug cartels wouldn't exist.
> 
> Without drug cartels, the people from south of the border would learn how to grow food and get into industry.  They don't stop coming over a wall and any idiot who thinks so is out of touch with reality.  You are a danger to Freedom and Liberty.
> 
> Accusing me of being for some kind of surrender is pure bullshit - the kind of stuff you hear from Keyboard Commandos who have never been IN the real fight.  You talk shit because you're a coward and you've proven it.  If you think I'm about surrender, you might want to explain why it is *YOU* with your nose up the government's ass, looking for a solution when it's people like* YOU* that created the problem and only when you walk the walk will you ever be able to have earned the Right to criticize me.  The reason you don't know me is because you have never been *IN *the fight.  You aren't going to get there taunting me and cowering behind your keyboard like the scared piece of shit you really are.  You get in the mix of things and see how involved I am, then preach your false doctrine to the lazy fucks like you.  Until then you are so full of yourself you lost your last ounce of credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF militarizing the border worked, would you support that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, I do not support a militarized border and you can lie all the Hell you want, but the trade-off in terms of Freedoms and Liberties makes that trade one that our forefathers found to be reprehensible.
> 
> "_He who would give up Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserves neither Liberty NOR safety_"  Benjamin Franklin
> 
> You want a popularity contest?  Let me tell you a *FACT*, son.  Ever since the people voted to worship the Golden calf when Moses went up to Mount Sinai, it has been shown that the masses are proven wrong.  So, in the time of Moses it was a Golden Calf and today it is a fat ass white boy that inherited a lot of his daddy's money.  You're still wrong.
> 
> Until you curb Americans insatiable appetite for drugs (our country represents the world's most prolific amount of drug users) a militarized border simply will not work.  It will corrupt the government even further and give a lot of U.S. servicemen and women a reason to commit criminal acts.  That is not counting the number of Liberties lost in the peripheral legislation that will be enforced making us a POLICE STATE.  *SO HELL NO BECAUSE NO WALL OR MILITARIZED BORDER CAN SAVE YOU FROM YOURSELF!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF???
> 
> protecting the borders/country is the main job of the military
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If an invasion occurs, it IS the responsibility of the federal government to act.  *HOWEVER*, you do not use the military to enforce domestic policies.  Over and over and over again, the wallists keep harping on "_illegal immigration_."  Did ANY of you dumb asses take basic civics in high school?  It is *unconstitutional *to use the military to enforce domestic laws.  When you call the foreigners "_illegals_" any other related language, you negate the possibility of using the military to achieve your objective.  How come that is so hard for you people to understand?
> 
> Additionally, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that state and local governments cannot be compelled to enforce federal statutory law.  BTW, this was done at the behest and hard work of people on *your side of this issue!!!
> *
> On domestic policies (i.e. dealing with people you insist on calling "_illegal_") the federal government has NO JURISDICTION.  If the governor of a state rejects federal intervention, it's because they are protected by the Tenth Amendment.
> 
> What kind of dumb assery keeps the wallists from understanding the constitutional roles of state and federal government, separation of powers, and 14th Amendment rights??????
> 
> If you have a *military *problem with people from south of the border, then quit calling people _"illegal" _and  get the LEOs out of the damn picture.  You're like a rodent on a treadmill and I'm stuck trying to give you people a high school lesson in civics.  That doesn't even factor in how your side screwed themselves on this border protection bullshit.  You can thank your own kind for that as well - as if we don't have hundreds of paragraphs on this thread discussing that aspect.
> 
> The *BEST* solution is to restore the Freedoms and Liberties back to the people, deal with the drug issue, put Americans back to work, and your problem will dissipate to the point that a group of Cub Scouts can man the border and protect it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> border security isnt domestic policy,,,its national security, which is the soul purpose of the military
Click to expand...



Are you really that stupid?  The whole argument of the wallists is that the foreigners are_ "illegal aliens."  _True or false?  Anybody?  So, if it is a legal matter, it is a STATE matter.

Is the current situation a matter of "_National Security_?"  The affected states have governors that say NO.  So, what is the legal recourse, boys and girls?  Anyone?  It works like this:

Go to Congress.  Convince a majority there that the National Emergency exists and declare war and / or have Congress give the president limited powers to act against any perceived "_National Emergency_."  Right now the matter is tied up in court while they haggle over whether or not Trump can take money from earmarked military funds and so forth to enforce his _"National Emergency_."  There it will stay in the courts and maybe up to the election.  

Give up the "illegal" angle and lobby for a Declaration of War.  See how popular your message really resonates.  Hell, you might win for a change - and if you don't, you'll know who is really on your side.


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF militarizing the border worked, would you support that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, I do not support a militarized border and you can lie all the Hell you want, but the trade-off in terms of Freedoms and Liberties makes that trade one that our forefathers found to be reprehensible.
> 
> "_He who would give up Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserves neither Liberty NOR safety_"  Benjamin Franklin
> 
> You want a popularity contest?  Let me tell you a *FACT*, son.  Ever since the people voted to worship the Golden calf when Moses went up to Mount Sinai, it has been shown that the masses are proven wrong.  So, in the time of Moses it was a Golden Calf and today it is a fat ass white boy that inherited a lot of his daddy's money.  You're still wrong.
> 
> Until you curb Americans insatiable appetite for drugs (our country represents the world's most prolific amount of drug users) a militarized border simply will not work.  It will corrupt the government even further and give a lot of U.S. servicemen and women a reason to commit criminal acts.  That is not counting the number of Liberties lost in the peripheral legislation that will be enforced making us a POLICE STATE.  *SO HELL NO BECAUSE NO WALL OR MILITARIZED BORDER CAN SAVE YOU FROM YOURSELF!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF???
> 
> protecting the borders/country is the main job of the military
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If an invasion occurs, it IS the responsibility of the federal government to act.  *HOWEVER*, you do not use the military to enforce domestic policies.  Over and over and over again, the wallists keep harping on "_illegal immigration_."  Did ANY of you dumb asses take basic civics in high school?  It is *unconstitutional *to use the military to enforce domestic laws.  When you call the foreigners "_illegals_" any other related language, you negate the possibility of using the military to achieve your objective.  How come that is so hard for you people to understand?
> 
> Additionally, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that state and local governments cannot be compelled to enforce federal statutory law.  BTW, this was done at the behest and hard work of people on *your side of this issue!!!
> *
> On domestic policies (i.e. dealing with people you insist on calling "_illegal_") the federal government has NO JURISDICTION.  If the governor of a state rejects federal intervention, it's because they are protected by the Tenth Amendment.
> 
> What kind of dumb assery keeps the wallists from understanding the constitutional roles of state and federal government, separation of powers, and 14th Amendment rights??????
> 
> If you have a *military *problem with people from south of the border, then quit calling people _"illegal" _and  get the LEOs out of the damn picture.  You're like a rodent on a treadmill and I'm stuck trying to give you people a high school lesson in civics.  That doesn't even factor in how your side screwed themselves on this border protection bullshit.  You can thank your own kind for that as well - as if we don't have hundreds of paragraphs on this thread discussing that aspect.
> 
> The *BEST* solution is to restore the Freedoms and Liberties back to the people, deal with the drug issue, put Americans back to work, and your problem will dissipate to the point that a group of Cub Scouts can man the border and protect it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> border security isnt domestic policy,,,its national security, which is the soul purpose of the military
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid?  The whole argument of the wallists is that the foreigners are_ "illegal aliens."  _True or false?  Anybody?  So, if it is a legal matter, it is a STATE matter.
> 
> Is the current situation a matter of "_National Security_?"  The affected states have governors that say NO.  So, what is the legal recourse, boys and girls?  Anyone?  It works like this:
> 
> Go to Congress.  Convince a majority there that the National Emergency exists and declare war and / or have Congress give the president limited powers to act against any perceived "_National Emergency_."  Right now the matter is tied up in court while they haggle over whether or not Trump can take money from earmarked military funds and so forth to enforce his _"National Emergency_."  There it will stay in the courts and maybe up to the election.
> 
> Give up the "illegal" angle and lobby for a Declaration of War.  See how popular your message really resonates.  Hell, you might win for a change - and if you don't, you'll know who is really on your side.
Click to expand...



when they are carrying foreign flags and have been sent by people with hostile intentions to overload our system its a national security issue 

the borders are a federal issue not a state one


----------



## Porter Rockwell

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO, I do not support a militarized border and you can lie all the Hell you want, but the trade-off in terms of Freedoms and Liberties makes that trade one that our forefathers found to be reprehensible.
> 
> "_He who would give up Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserves neither Liberty NOR safety_"  Benjamin Franklin
> 
> You want a popularity contest?  Let me tell you a *FACT*, son.  Ever since the people voted to worship the Golden calf when Moses went up to Mount Sinai, it has been shown that the masses are proven wrong.  So, in the time of Moses it was a Golden Calf and today it is a fat ass white boy that inherited a lot of his daddy's money.  You're still wrong.
> 
> Until you curb Americans insatiable appetite for drugs (our country represents the world's most prolific amount of drug users) a militarized border simply will not work.  It will corrupt the government even further and give a lot of U.S. servicemen and women a reason to commit criminal acts.  That is not counting the number of Liberties lost in the peripheral legislation that will be enforced making us a POLICE STATE.  *SO HELL NO BECAUSE NO WALL OR MILITARIZED BORDER CAN SAVE YOU FROM YOURSELF!*
> 
> 
> 
> WTF???
> 
> protecting the borders/country is the main job of the military
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If an invasion occurs, it IS the responsibility of the federal government to act.  *HOWEVER*, you do not use the military to enforce domestic policies.  Over and over and over again, the wallists keep harping on "_illegal immigration_."  Did ANY of you dumb asses take basic civics in high school?  It is *unconstitutional *to use the military to enforce domestic laws.  When you call the foreigners "_illegals_" any other related language, you negate the possibility of using the military to achieve your objective.  How come that is so hard for you people to understand?
> 
> Additionally, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that state and local governments cannot be compelled to enforce federal statutory law.  BTW, this was done at the behest and hard work of people on *your side of this issue!!!
> *
> On domestic policies (i.e. dealing with people you insist on calling "_illegal_") the federal government has NO JURISDICTION.  If the governor of a state rejects federal intervention, it's because they are protected by the Tenth Amendment.
> 
> What kind of dumb assery keeps the wallists from understanding the constitutional roles of state and federal government, separation of powers, and 14th Amendment rights??????
> 
> If you have a *military *problem with people from south of the border, then quit calling people _"illegal" _and  get the LEOs out of the damn picture.  You're like a rodent on a treadmill and I'm stuck trying to give you people a high school lesson in civics.  That doesn't even factor in how your side screwed themselves on this border protection bullshit.  You can thank your own kind for that as well - as if we don't have hundreds of paragraphs on this thread discussing that aspect.
> 
> The *BEST* solution is to restore the Freedoms and Liberties back to the people, deal with the drug issue, put Americans back to work, and your problem will dissipate to the point that a group of Cub Scouts can man the border and protect it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> border security isnt domestic policy,,,its national security, which is the soul purpose of the military
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid?  The whole argument of the wallists is that the foreigners are_ "illegal aliens."  _True or false?  Anybody?  So, if it is a legal matter, it is a STATE matter.
> 
> Is the current situation a matter of "_National Security_?"  The affected states have governors that say NO.  So, what is the legal recourse, boys and girls?  Anyone?  It works like this:
> 
> Go to Congress.  Convince a majority there that the National Emergency exists and declare war and / or have Congress give the president limited powers to act against any perceived "_National Emergency_."  Right now the matter is tied up in court while they haggle over whether or not Trump can take money from earmarked military funds and so forth to enforce his _"National Emergency_."  There it will stay in the courts and maybe up to the election.
> 
> Give up the "illegal" angle and lobby for a Declaration of War.  See how popular your message really resonates.  Hell, you might win for a change - and if you don't, you'll know who is really on your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> when they are carrying foreign flags and have been sent by people with hostile intentions to overload our system its a national security issue
> 
> the borders are a federal issue not a state one
Click to expand...


You keep trying to have it both ways and I'm sorry to tell you, but it don't work that way.  Your side has done this song and dance since 2003.  Do you know what the definition of an idiot is? 

They keep doing the same thing over and over the same way, hoping for a different result.  Get your head out of your ass.

America leads the way in drug users.  Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply.  For every one drug addict in a mental health facility, more than 10 are in prison.  More than HALF of the federal prison inmates are in on drug charges and America has more people in prison than any nation on this planet!  Children are prescribed drugs like Ritalin at a ration of 3 to 1 compared to places like the UK.  Half of the American people are dependent on the government for their paychecks.  Bottom line, their sorry asses aren't working.

Somebody's picking up the slack.  And what you're bitching about is the free market in action.  Quit doing the drugs and go to work. The foreigners will leave.  Walls, a National Emergency and 15 more years of dumb asses blaming the foreigners is *NOT* going to change your culture and YOU make it an attractive nuisance for those from south of the border by making it profitable for drug cartels and entry level laborers.

In what freaking language does this have to be explained to your dumb ass?  What you're accusing foreigners of is utter bullshit.  You know it; I know it; and so does the majority of the citizenry... with those numbers climbing every day.  If you don't change strategies and quit this nonsensical horseshit that has consistently failed for over a decade and a half, you will lose this country within the next two election cycles.

While the borders are a federal issue, if there is no emergency, there is no emergency.  Trump is not God dumbass.  He's a man.  Whoop dee fucking doo.  He declared an emergency he has no money to back it up with.  I doubt he'll get it from Congress without a *MAJOR* concession.  Nobody agrees with the lie that a National Emergency exists.   So, which of *YOUR* Rights will you trade for a silly wall that comes down when the next Democrat becomes president?  So, really, do you have an "_illegal alien_" problem or a National Security issue?  If you were a doctor and a guy comes in saying he needs surgery on his foot, would you give him an operation for hemorrhoids?  *THAT* is an analogy of your silliness. 

You want the illusion of a win; I'll settle for nothing less than a permanent solution no matter what party is in charge.  You can't get that done with that half ass nonsensical crap you spew continually.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. AGAIN, we were discussing rally size, not to point out how popular Trump is, but to show that it is insane of you to give credit to Trump's popularity to a fringe movement that cannot get anything like the rallies that Trump can.
> 
> 
> And it is, insane of you to do that. Also, your insults are the type of shit people do, when they know their arguments are losing.
> 
> 
> 
> 2.I agree that most white people do not identify as racist. However I think most white people have accepted that is it Taboo to even talk about white interests, because they have been told over and over again that it is racist to do so. Indeed, told that by people that play a game of guilt by association very similar to what you do.
> 
> 
> 3. I do care about my culture and my nation. I reject the idea that that is racism, despite the lies of the Left and I will call them on their bullshit about that, as doggedly and as annoyingly as I am calling you on yours.
> 
> 
> 4. I reject your claim that the "white collar types", whoever you think they are, are saying the same things that the white supremacists are saying. White supremacists are a fringe group. No one is saying the same shit they are.
> 
> 
> 5. I understand that "non-whites" are likely to see me as an enemy for denouncing multiculturalism, and that that is a problem for any attempts to find common ground with them. But my points about multiculturalism are true. It has been shown to be a lie. I cannot ignore that. It is tearing this nation apart.
> 
> 
> 6. I agree that many Americans are tired of "seeing their statues torn down", ect, but I will not let the liars call that racism. I will call them on any such bullshit, no matter how they present it. The same way I will not let you do so, with your game of guilt by association.
> 
> 
> 7. I do not claim that Trump "cares about my issues".  I have not commented on his motives for his political platform. HIs platform is what I want and I support it. That you attack me for that, is just you being rude and condescending, very unfairly.
> 
> 
> 8. I acknowledge the problem of the courts. But surrendering on these issues is just national suicide. All we can hope is that Trump will nominate real judges instead of lefty activists.
> 
> 
> 9. This nation is turning into a Third World shithole. Your long term concerns about the size and shape of government is irrelevant, because it is just a little more paper work for the Dems and the Deep State to ignore when they get the control they want.
> 
> 
> 10. I agree that we don't have much to show for it. This is probably too little to late. But the effects of even the limited reduction in illegal immigration flow Trump has done, has already had very impressive results for wages, especially on the lower end. It shows what could have been, or could be. Though the media will not tell the people that obvious fact.
> 
> 11. We have to try. THe alternative that you support, ie surrender, is national suicide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not address posts where you go on and on.  For the benefit of the readers, I will repeat the points made before:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I went "on and on" because I responded to each point you actually made. Indeed, I only gave an one or two word response, very concise. It seems that part of your style is to want to be able to pepper your long rambling posts with points that you want to pass unchallenged.
> 
> 
> Denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dollar for dollar spent, Trump's rallies are rather small.  Second to that rally size is *NOT* a determining factor in results.  If that were the case, then back in the late 1990s through early 2000s, we could have repealed the 16th Amendment, gotten rid of the income tax AND the IRS.  That effort spawned TWO books to make it to the New York Times Bestseller list.  Trump = ZERO on that count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were only talking about rally size to point out how absurd it is, for you to give Credit to the White Supremacists for Trumps rise.
> 
> You keep trying to twist this into something it never was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll pretends to be "_calling me out on something_."  He is delusional, dishonest, and his credibility is so bad he has to stick he chest out and proclaim he's called me out and beat me.... when in *FACT*, *his bullshit strategies have not seen a single, solitary victory in the 15 + years his side has been preaching them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I am certainly calling you out on a lot of stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next, Correll has faith in the government.  I don't.  What he calls surrender is his abject stupidity.  I have been in a civilian militia for 32 years now.  Terminology that has been used to describe people like me is survivalist, prepper, and citizen soldier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no faith in our government. I have hopes that they might do their job(s) someday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll has never manned the border; never participated in a rally or march (except MAYBE as an onlooker.)  He's never been in a stand-off, never been in a physical altercation with those on the extreme left.  He's never debated top name activists on tv and radio.  He's never had his ass on the line in a court action, never had to represent himself in court, and never written a legal brief.  He's never trained with hard core vets nor been a part of a think tank that plans for different kinds of scenarios.  He's never read books on warfare like _The Art of War_  (Hell, I haven't been able to get the guy to read a single court case.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect to your history of political activism, all of that is just you attacking the source, something someone does, when they can't made their case, based on it's actual merits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll has never managed a political campaign, never held public office, and never studied guerrilla warfare.  If I said the classic three-phase Maoist model, he'd have to Google it to see what in the Hell I was talking about.  Yet I've been doing that for 32 years.  The bottom line is, he has NO experience outside of 50,000 plus posts spouting bullshit to the minions of the Supreme Pretender of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More irrelevant garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, I am the last person who will *EVER* be talking surrender.  You have to exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress.  Then you have to leave the doors open for nonviolent solutions.  You have to go through a process* without *surrendering.  Correll has already surrendered because he thinks crowd sizes at a Trump rally are going to magically transform into a Hispanic free America.  They aren't.  Furthermore, Correll's strategy is to surrender your *unalienable* Rights on the false belief that government will save you and you won't have to fight.  Some day if you intend on being free, you* WILL* have to fight.  Therefore, you *do not shut down *the avenues that allow you to resist tyranny.  You do not forfeit your Rights for the promise of Safety... which Correll advocates.  If you believe in his drivel, you WILL wind up in prison, jail, Hell, or become a snitch bitch for an alphabet agency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want to leave the border open, and let the illegals in. That is surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar, an idiot and a deceiver.  You have your nose stuck so far up Trumps ass, the only time you get a breath of fresh air is if Trump farts.
> 
> No, I do not want a militarized border that costs more in terms of Liberty than it pays in return.  If your worthless, lazy white ass were working a job or at least using some of your time to help others, Americans would take the jobs and they wouldn't be available for the foreigners.
> 
> If you got out of your mother's basement, quit sucking dope and snorting shit up your nose while you get off on* pretending to be something your ARE NOT and doing things YOU CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY HAVEN'T DONE*, you might be able to set an example so that we can reclaim our Rights and Liberties.  That and that alone will insure that you don't have an "_illegal_" problem.  A wall ups the ante, it don't stop people from coming.
> 
> Your dumb ass can't fathom that there is no such thing as an illegal (sic) problem.  There is too much government; there are too many worthless pieces of shit like you running around complaining about not having a job while you're too fucking lazy to look for one... and if you weren't on drugs, the drug cartels wouldn't exist.
> 
> Without drug cartels, the people from south of the border would learn how to grow food and get into industry.  They don't stop coming over a wall and any idiot who thinks so is out of touch with reality.  You are a danger to Freedom and Liberty.
> 
> Accusing me of being for some kind of surrender is pure bullshit - the kind of stuff you hear from Keyboard Commandos who have never been IN the real fight.  You talk shit because you're a coward and you've proven it.  If you think I'm about surrender, you might want to explain why it is *YOU* with your nose up the government's ass, looking for a solution when it's people like* YOU* that created the problem and only when you walk the walk will you ever be able to have earned the Right to criticize me.  The reason you don't know me is because you have never been *IN *the fight.  You aren't going to get there taunting me and cowering behind your keyboard like the scared piece of shit you really are.  You get in the mix of things and see how involved I am, then preach your false doctrine to the lazy fucks like you.  Until then you are so full of yourself you lost your last ounce of credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF militarizing the border worked, would you support that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, I do not support a militarized border and you can lie all the Hell you want, but the trade-off in terms of Freedoms and Liberties makes that trade one that our forefathers found to be reprehensible.
> 
> "_He who would give up Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserves neither Liberty NOR safety_"  Benjamin Franklin
> 
> You want a popularity contest?  Let me tell you a *FACT*, son.  Ever since the people voted to worship the Golden calf when Moses went up to Mount Sinai, it has been shown that the masses are proven wrong.  So, in the time of Moses it was a Golden Calf and today it is a fat ass white boy that inherited a lot of his daddy's money.  You're still wrong.
> 
> Until you curb Americans insatiable appetite for drugs (our country represents the world's most prolific amount of drug users) a militarized border simply will not work.  It will corrupt the government even further and give a lot of U.S. servicemen and women a reason to commit criminal acts.  That is not counting the number of Liberties lost in the peripheral legislation that will be enforced making us a POLICE STATE.  *SO HELL NO BECAUSE NO WALL OR MILITARIZED BORDER CAN SAVE YOU FROM YOURSELF!*
Click to expand...




If the Mexicans were given a couple thousand of russian tanks and were planning to invade Texas, would you support allowing US military forces to set up defensive positions on American soil to repeal the attack?


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. AGAIN, we were discussing rally size, not to point out how popular Trump is, but to show that it is insane of you to give credit to Trump's popularity to a fringe movement that cannot get anything like the rallies that Trump can.
> 
> 
> And it is, insane of you to do that. Also, your insults are the type of shit people do, when they know their arguments are losing.
> 
> 
> 
> 2.I agree that most white people do not identify as racist. However I think most white people have accepted that is it Taboo to even talk about white interests, because they have been told over and over again that it is racist to do so. Indeed, told that by people that play a game of guilt by association very similar to what you do.
> 
> 
> 3. I do care about my culture and my nation. I reject the idea that that is racism, despite the lies of the Left and I will call them on their bullshit about that, as doggedly and as annoyingly as I am calling you on yours.
> 
> 
> 4. I reject your claim that the "white collar types", whoever you think they are, are saying the same things that the white supremacists are saying. White supremacists are a fringe group. No one is saying the same shit they are.
> 
> 
> 5. I understand that "non-whites" are likely to see me as an enemy for denouncing multiculturalism, and that that is a problem for any attempts to find common ground with them. But my points about multiculturalism are true. It has been shown to be a lie. I cannot ignore that. It is tearing this nation apart.
> 
> 
> 6. I agree that many Americans are tired of "seeing their statues torn down", ect, but I will not let the liars call that racism. I will call them on any such bullshit, no matter how they present it. The same way I will not let you do so, with your game of guilt by association.
> 
> 
> 7. I do not claim that Trump "cares about my issues".  I have not commented on his motives for his political platform. HIs platform is what I want and I support it. That you attack me for that, is just you being rude and condescending, very unfairly.
> 
> 
> 8. I acknowledge the problem of the courts. But surrendering on these issues is just national suicide. All we can hope is that Trump will nominate real judges instead of lefty activists.
> 
> 
> 9. This nation is turning into a Third World shithole. Your long term concerns about the size and shape of government is irrelevant, because it is just a little more paper work for the Dems and the Deep State to ignore when they get the control they want.
> 
> 
> 10. I agree that we don't have much to show for it. This is probably too little to late. But the effects of even the limited reduction in illegal immigration flow Trump has done, has already had very impressive results for wages, especially on the lower end. It shows what could have been, or could be. Though the media will not tell the people that obvious fact.
> 
> 11. We have to try. THe alternative that you support, ie surrender, is national suicide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not address posts where you go on and on.  For the benefit of the readers, I will repeat the points made before:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I went "on and on" because I responded to each point you actually made. Indeed, I only gave an one or two word response, very concise. It seems that part of your style is to want to be able to pepper your long rambling posts with points that you want to pass unchallenged.
> 
> 
> Denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dollar for dollar spent, Trump's rallies are rather small.  Second to that rally size is *NOT* a determining factor in results.  If that were the case, then back in the late 1990s through early 2000s, we could have repealed the 16th Amendment, gotten rid of the income tax AND the IRS.  That effort spawned TWO books to make it to the New York Times Bestseller list.  Trump = ZERO on that count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were only talking about rally size to point out how absurd it is, for you to give Credit to the White Supremacists for Trumps rise.
> 
> You keep trying to twist this into something it never was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll pretends to be "_calling me out on something_."  He is delusional, dishonest, and his credibility is so bad he has to stick he chest out and proclaim he's called me out and beat me.... when in *FACT*, *his bullshit strategies have not seen a single, solitary victory in the 15 + years his side has been preaching them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I am certainly calling you out on a lot of stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next, Correll has faith in the government.  I don't.  What he calls surrender is his abject stupidity.  I have been in a civilian militia for 32 years now.  Terminology that has been used to describe people like me is survivalist, prepper, and citizen soldier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no faith in our government. I have hopes that they might do their job(s) someday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll has never manned the border; never participated in a rally or march (except MAYBE as an onlooker.)  He's never been in a stand-off, never been in a physical altercation with those on the extreme left.  He's never debated top name activists on tv and radio.  He's never had his ass on the line in a court action, never had to represent himself in court, and never written a legal brief.  He's never trained with hard core vets nor been a part of a think tank that plans for different kinds of scenarios.  He's never read books on warfare like _The Art of War_  (Hell, I haven't been able to get the guy to read a single court case.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect to your history of political activism, all of that is just you attacking the source, something someone does, when they can't made their case, based on it's actual merits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll has never managed a political campaign, never held public office, and never studied guerrilla warfare.  If I said the classic three-phase Maoist model, he'd have to Google it to see what in the Hell I was talking about.  Yet I've been doing that for 32 years.  The bottom line is, he has NO experience outside of 50,000 plus posts spouting bullshit to the minions of the Supreme Pretender of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More irrelevant garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, I am the last person who will *EVER* be talking surrender.  You have to exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress.  Then you have to leave the doors open for nonviolent solutions.  You have to go through a process* without *surrendering.  Correll has already surrendered because he thinks crowd sizes at a Trump rally are going to magically transform into a Hispanic free America.  They aren't.  Furthermore, Correll's strategy is to surrender your *unalienable* Rights on the false belief that government will save you and you won't have to fight.  Some day if you intend on being free, you* WILL* have to fight.  Therefore, you *do not shut down *the avenues that allow you to resist tyranny.  You do not forfeit your Rights for the promise of Safety... which Correll advocates.  If you believe in his drivel, you WILL wind up in prison, jail, Hell, or become a snitch bitch for an alphabet agency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want to leave the border open, and let the illegals in. That is surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar, an idiot and a deceiver.  You have your nose stuck so far up Trumps ass, the only time you get a breath of fresh air is if Trump farts.
> 
> No, I do not want a militarized border that costs more in terms of Liberty than it pays in return.  If your worthless, lazy white ass were working a job or at least using some of your time to help others, Americans would take the jobs and they wouldn't be available for the foreigners.
> 
> If you got out of your mother's basement, quit sucking dope and snorting shit up your nose while you get off on* pretending to be something your ARE NOT and doing things YOU CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY HAVEN'T DONE*, you might be able to set an example so that we can reclaim our Rights and Liberties.  That and that alone will insure that you don't have an "_illegal_" problem.  A wall ups the ante, it don't stop people from coming.
> 
> Your dumb ass can't fathom that there is no such thing as an illegal (sic) problem.  There is too much government; there are too many worthless pieces of shit like you running around complaining about not having a job while you're too fucking lazy to look for one... and if you weren't on drugs, the drug cartels wouldn't exist.
> 
> Without drug cartels, the people from south of the border would learn how to grow food and get into industry.  They don't stop coming over a wall and any idiot who thinks so is out of touch with reality.  You are a danger to Freedom and Liberty.
> 
> Accusing me of being for some kind of surrender is pure bullshit - the kind of stuff you hear from Keyboard Commandos who have never been IN the real fight.  You talk shit because you're a coward and you've proven it.  If you think I'm about surrender, you might want to explain why it is *YOU* with your nose up the government's ass, looking for a solution when it's people like* YOU* that created the problem and only when you walk the walk will you ever be able to have earned the Right to criticize me.  The reason you don't know me is because you have never been *IN *the fight.  You aren't going to get there taunting me and cowering behind your keyboard like the scared piece of shit you really are.  You get in the mix of things and see how involved I am, then preach your false doctrine to the lazy fucks like you.  Until then you are so full of yourself you lost your last ounce of credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF militarizing the border worked, would you support that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sure, if we had an express wall building and immigration clause.
Click to expand...


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF???
> 
> protecting the borders/country is the main job of the military
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If an invasion occurs, it IS the responsibility of the federal government to act.  *HOWEVER*, you do not use the military to enforce domestic policies.  Over and over and over again, the wallists keep harping on "_illegal immigration_."  Did ANY of you dumb asses take basic civics in high school?  It is *unconstitutional *to use the military to enforce domestic laws.  When you call the foreigners "_illegals_" any other related language, you negate the possibility of using the military to achieve your objective.  How come that is so hard for you people to understand?
> 
> Additionally, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that state and local governments cannot be compelled to enforce federal statutory law.  BTW, this was done at the behest and hard work of people on *your side of this issue!!!
> *
> On domestic policies (i.e. dealing with people you insist on calling "_illegal_") the federal government has NO JURISDICTION.  If the governor of a state rejects federal intervention, it's because they are protected by the Tenth Amendment.
> 
> What kind of dumb assery keeps the wallists from understanding the constitutional roles of state and federal government, separation of powers, and 14th Amendment rights??????
> 
> If you have a *military *problem with people from south of the border, then quit calling people _"illegal" _and  get the LEOs out of the damn picture.  You're like a rodent on a treadmill and I'm stuck trying to give you people a high school lesson in civics.  That doesn't even factor in how your side screwed themselves on this border protection bullshit.  You can thank your own kind for that as well - as if we don't have hundreds of paragraphs on this thread discussing that aspect.
> 
> The *BEST* solution is to restore the Freedoms and Liberties back to the people, deal with the drug issue, put Americans back to work, and your problem will dissipate to the point that a group of Cub Scouts can man the border and protect it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> border security isnt domestic policy,,,its national security, which is the soul purpose of the military
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid?  The whole argument of the wallists is that the foreigners are_ "illegal aliens."  _True or false?  Anybody?  So, if it is a legal matter, it is a STATE matter.
> 
> Is the current situation a matter of "_National Security_?"  The affected states have governors that say NO.  So, what is the legal recourse, boys and girls?  Anyone?  It works like this:
> 
> Go to Congress.  Convince a majority there that the National Emergency exists and declare war and / or have Congress give the president limited powers to act against any perceived "_National Emergency_."  Right now the matter is tied up in court while they haggle over whether or not Trump can take money from earmarked military funds and so forth to enforce his _"National Emergency_."  There it will stay in the courts and maybe up to the election.
> 
> Give up the "illegal" angle and lobby for a Declaration of War.  See how popular your message really resonates.  Hell, you might win for a change - and if you don't, you'll know who is really on your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> when they are carrying foreign flags and have been sent by people with hostile intentions to overload our system its a national security issue
> 
> the borders are a federal issue not a state one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep trying to have it both ways and I'm sorry to tell you, but it don't work that way.  Your side has done this song and dance since 2003.  Do you know what the definition of an idiot is?
> 
> They keep doing the same thing over and over the same way, hoping for a different result.  Get your head out of your ass.
> 
> America leads the way in drug users.  Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply.  For every one drug addict in a mental health facility, more than 10 are in prison.  More than HALF of the federal prison inmates are in on drug charges and America has more people in prison than any nation on this planet!  Children are prescribed drugs like Ritalin at a ration of 3 to 1 compared to places like the UK.  Half of the American people are dependent on the government for their paychecks.  Bottom line, their sorry asses aren't working.
> 
> Somebody's picking up the slack.  And what you're bitching about is the free market in action.  Quit doing the drugs and go to work. The foreigners will leave.  Walls, a National Emergency and 15 more years of dumb asses blaming the foreigners is *NOT* going to change your culture and YOU make it an attractive nuisance for those from south of the border by making it profitable for drug cartels and entry level laborers.
> 
> In what freaking language does this have to be explained to your dumb ass?  What you're accusing foreigners of is utter bullshit.  You know it; I know it; and so does the majority of the citizenry... with those numbers climbing every day.  If you don't change strategies and quit this nonsensical horseshit that has consistently failed for over a decade and a half, you will lose this country within the next two election cycles.
> 
> While the borders are a federal issue, if there is no emergency, there is no emergency.  Trump is not God dumbass.  He's a man.  Whoop dee fucking doo.  He declared an emergency he has no money to back it up with.  I doubt he'll get it from Congress without a *MAJOR* concession.  Nobody agrees with the lie that a National Emergency exists.   So, which of *YOUR* Rights will you trade for a silly wall that comes down when the next Democrat becomes president?  So, really, do you have an "_illegal alien_" problem or a National Security issue?  If you were a doctor and a guy comes in saying he needs surgery on his foot, would you give him an operation for hemorrhoids?  *THAT* is an analogy of your silliness.
> 
> You want the illusion of a win; I'll settle for nothing less than a permanent solution no matter what party is in charge.  You can't get that done with that half ass nonsensical crap you spew continually.
Click to expand...

I quit reading after you said my side,,,I dont have a side other than the rule of law and the constitution


its you baby killing thieving backstabbing fucking democrats and republicans that have sides

and until we get rid of you guys the world is fucked,,,


----------



## danielpalos

Porter Rockwell said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not address posts where you go on and on.  For the benefit of the readers, I will repeat the points made before:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went "on and on" because I responded to each point you actually made. Indeed, I only gave an one or two word response, very concise. It seems that part of your style is to want to be able to pepper your long rambling posts with points that you want to pass unchallenged.
> 
> 
> Denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dollar for dollar spent, Trump's rallies are rather small.  Second to that rally size is *NOT* a determining factor in results.  If that were the case, then back in the late 1990s through early 2000s, we could have repealed the 16th Amendment, gotten rid of the income tax AND the IRS.  That effort spawned TWO books to make it to the New York Times Bestseller list.  Trump = ZERO on that count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were only talking about rally size to point out how absurd it is, for you to give Credit to the White Supremacists for Trumps rise.
> 
> You keep trying to twist this into something it never was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll pretends to be "_calling me out on something_."  He is delusional, dishonest, and his credibility is so bad he has to stick he chest out and proclaim he's called me out and beat me.... when in *FACT*, *his bullshit strategies have not seen a single, solitary victory in the 15 + years his side has been preaching them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I am certainly calling you out on a lot of stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next, Correll has faith in the government.  I don't.  What he calls surrender is his abject stupidity.  I have been in a civilian militia for 32 years now.  Terminology that has been used to describe people like me is survivalist, prepper, and citizen soldier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no faith in our government. I have hopes that they might do their job(s) someday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll has never manned the border; never participated in a rally or march (except MAYBE as an onlooker.)  He's never been in a stand-off, never been in a physical altercation with those on the extreme left.  He's never debated top name activists on tv and radio.  He's never had his ass on the line in a court action, never had to represent himself in court, and never written a legal brief.  He's never trained with hard core vets nor been a part of a think tank that plans for different kinds of scenarios.  He's never read books on warfare like _The Art of War_  (Hell, I haven't been able to get the guy to read a single court case.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect to your history of political activism, all of that is just you attacking the source, something someone does, when they can't made their case, based on it's actual merits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll has never managed a political campaign, never held public office, and never studied guerrilla warfare.  If I said the classic three-phase Maoist model, he'd have to Google it to see what in the Hell I was talking about.  Yet I've been doing that for 32 years.  The bottom line is, he has NO experience outside of 50,000 plus posts spouting bullshit to the minions of the Supreme Pretender of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More irrelevant garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, I am the last person who will *EVER* be talking surrender.  You have to exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress.  Then you have to leave the doors open for nonviolent solutions.  You have to go through a process* without *surrendering.  Correll has already surrendered because he thinks crowd sizes at a Trump rally are going to magically transform into a Hispanic free America.  They aren't.  Furthermore, Correll's strategy is to surrender your *unalienable* Rights on the false belief that government will save you and you won't have to fight.  Some day if you intend on being free, you* WILL* have to fight.  Therefore, you *do not shut down *the avenues that allow you to resist tyranny.  You do not forfeit your Rights for the promise of Safety... which Correll advocates.  If you believe in his drivel, you WILL wind up in prison, jail, Hell, or become a snitch bitch for an alphabet agency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want to leave the border open, and let the illegals in. That is surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar, an idiot and a deceiver.  You have your nose stuck so far up Trumps ass, the only time you get a breath of fresh air is if Trump farts.
> 
> No, I do not want a militarized border that costs more in terms of Liberty than it pays in return.  If your worthless, lazy white ass were working a job or at least using some of your time to help others, Americans would take the jobs and they wouldn't be available for the foreigners.
> 
> If you got out of your mother's basement, quit sucking dope and snorting shit up your nose while you get off on* pretending to be something your ARE NOT and doing things YOU CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY HAVEN'T DONE*, you might be able to set an example so that we can reclaim our Rights and Liberties.  That and that alone will insure that you don't have an "_illegal_" problem.  A wall ups the ante, it don't stop people from coming.
> 
> Your dumb ass can't fathom that there is no such thing as an illegal (sic) problem.  There is too much government; there are too many worthless pieces of shit like you running around complaining about not having a job while you're too fucking lazy to look for one... and if you weren't on drugs, the drug cartels wouldn't exist.
> 
> Without drug cartels, the people from south of the border would learn how to grow food and get into industry.  They don't stop coming over a wall and any idiot who thinks so is out of touch with reality.  You are a danger to Freedom and Liberty.
> 
> Accusing me of being for some kind of surrender is pure bullshit - the kind of stuff you hear from Keyboard Commandos who have never been IN the real fight.  You talk shit because you're a coward and you've proven it.  If you think I'm about surrender, you might want to explain why it is *YOU* with your nose up the government's ass, looking for a solution when it's people like* YOU* that created the problem and only when you walk the walk will you ever be able to have earned the Right to criticize me.  The reason you don't know me is because you have never been *IN *the fight.  You aren't going to get there taunting me and cowering behind your keyboard like the scared piece of shit you really are.  You get in the mix of things and see how involved I am, then preach your false doctrine to the lazy fucks like you.  Until then you are so full of yourself you lost your last ounce of credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF militarizing the border worked, would you support that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sure, if we had an express wall building and immigration clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am embarrassed for the right wing.  I don't vote for Democrats.  Yet the wallists here have to hear you repeat the same thing over and over.  WTF?  Are they *really *that stupid?
> 
> The minute the wallists made this an issue of domestic legality (i.e. calling people "_illegal aliens_") it took the issue from being a military concern to a domestic legal issue where the feds have *NO* jurisdiction.  What in the Hell do they not understand about the Rule of Law, separation of powers, the unconstitutionality of using the military to enforce domestic policies, and the Tenth Amendment???
Click to expand...

they have nothing but fallacy not any valid rebuttals; what do you think.


----------



## danielpalos

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar, an idiot and a deceiver.  You have your nose stuck so far up Trumps ass, the only time you get a breath of fresh air is if Trump farts.
> 
> No, I do not want a militarized border that costs more in terms of Liberty than it pays in return.  If your worthless, lazy white ass were working a job or at least using some of your time to help others, Americans would take the jobs and they wouldn't be available for the foreigners.
> 
> If you got out of your mother's basement, quit sucking dope and snorting shit up your nose while you get off on* pretending to be something your ARE NOT and doing things YOU CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY HAVEN'T DONE*, you might be able to set an example so that we can reclaim our Rights and Liberties.  That and that alone will insure that you don't have an "_illegal_" problem.  A wall ups the ante, it don't stop people from coming.
> 
> Your dumb ass can't fathom that there is no such thing as an illegal (sic) problem.  There is too much government; there are too many worthless pieces of shit like you running around complaining about not having a job while you're too fucking lazy to look for one... and if you weren't on drugs, the drug cartels wouldn't exist.
> 
> Without drug cartels, the people from south of the border would learn how to grow food and get into industry.  They don't stop coming over a wall and any idiot who thinks so is out of touch with reality.  You are a danger to Freedom and Liberty.
> 
> Accusing me of being for some kind of surrender is pure bullshit - the kind of stuff you hear from Keyboard Commandos who have never been IN the real fight.  You talk shit because you're a coward and you've proven it.  If you think I'm about surrender, you might want to explain why it is *YOU* with your nose up the government's ass, looking for a solution when it's people like* YOU* that created the problem and only when you walk the walk will you ever be able to have earned the Right to criticize me.  The reason you don't know me is because you have never been *IN *the fight.  You aren't going to get there taunting me and cowering behind your keyboard like the scared piece of shit you really are.  You get in the mix of things and see how involved I am, then preach your false doctrine to the lazy fucks like you.  Until then you are so full of yourself you lost your last ounce of credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF militarizing the border worked, would you support that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, I do not support a militarized border and you can lie all the Hell you want, but the trade-off in terms of Freedoms and Liberties makes that trade one that our forefathers found to be reprehensible.
> 
> "_He who would give up Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserves neither Liberty NOR safety_"  Benjamin Franklin
> 
> You want a popularity contest?  Let me tell you a *FACT*, son.  Ever since the people voted to worship the Golden calf when Moses went up to Mount Sinai, it has been shown that the masses are proven wrong.  So, in the time of Moses it was a Golden Calf and today it is a fat ass white boy that inherited a lot of his daddy's money.  You're still wrong.
> 
> Until you curb Americans insatiable appetite for drugs (our country represents the world's most prolific amount of drug users) a militarized border simply will not work.  It will corrupt the government even further and give a lot of U.S. servicemen and women a reason to commit criminal acts.  That is not counting the number of Liberties lost in the peripheral legislation that will be enforced making us a POLICE STATE.  *SO HELL NO BECAUSE NO WALL OR MILITARIZED BORDER CAN SAVE YOU FROM YOURSELF!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF???
> 
> protecting the borders/country is the main job of the military
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If an invasion occurs, it IS the responsibility of the federal government to act.  *HOWEVER*, you do not use the military to enforce domestic policies.  Over and over and over again, the wallists keep harping on "_illegal immigration_."  Did ANY of you dumb asses take basic civics in high school?  It is *unconstitutional *to use the military to enforce domestic laws.  When you call the foreigners "_illegals_" any other related language, you negate the possibility of using the military to achieve your objective.  How come that is so hard for you people to understand?
> 
> Additionally, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that state and local governments cannot be compelled to enforce federal statutory law.  BTW, this was done at the behest and hard work of people on *your side of this issue!!!
> *
> On domestic policies (i.e. dealing with people you insist on calling "_illegal_") the federal government has NO JURISDICTION.  If the governor of a state rejects federal intervention, it's because they are protected by the Tenth Amendment.
> 
> What kind of dumb assery keeps the wallists from understanding the constitutional roles of state and federal government, separation of powers, and 14th Amendment rights??????
> 
> If you have a *military *problem with people from south of the border, then quit calling people _"illegal" _and  get the LEOs out of the damn picture.  You're like a rodent on a treadmill and I'm stuck trying to give you people a high school lesson in civics.  That doesn't even factor in how your side screwed themselves on this border protection bullshit.  You can thank your own kind for that as well - as if we don't have hundreds of paragraphs on this thread discussing that aspect.
> 
> The *BEST* solution is to restore the Freedoms and Liberties back to the people, deal with the drug issue, put Americans back to work, and your problem will dissipate to the point that a group of Cub Scouts can man the border and protect it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> border security isnt domestic policy,,,its national security, which is the soul purpose of the military
Click to expand...

we have a humanitarian issue on the border not a military issue.


----------



## danielpalos

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO, I do not support a militarized border and you can lie all the Hell you want, but the trade-off in terms of Freedoms and Liberties makes that trade one that our forefathers found to be reprehensible.
> 
> "_He who would give up Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserves neither Liberty NOR safety_"  Benjamin Franklin
> 
> You want a popularity contest?  Let me tell you a *FACT*, son.  Ever since the people voted to worship the Golden calf when Moses went up to Mount Sinai, it has been shown that the masses are proven wrong.  So, in the time of Moses it was a Golden Calf and today it is a fat ass white boy that inherited a lot of his daddy's money.  You're still wrong.
> 
> Until you curb Americans insatiable appetite for drugs (our country represents the world's most prolific amount of drug users) a militarized border simply will not work.  It will corrupt the government even further and give a lot of U.S. servicemen and women a reason to commit criminal acts.  That is not counting the number of Liberties lost in the peripheral legislation that will be enforced making us a POLICE STATE.  *SO HELL NO BECAUSE NO WALL OR MILITARIZED BORDER CAN SAVE YOU FROM YOURSELF!*
> 
> 
> 
> WTF???
> 
> protecting the borders/country is the main job of the military
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If an invasion occurs, it IS the responsibility of the federal government to act.  *HOWEVER*, you do not use the military to enforce domestic policies.  Over and over and over again, the wallists keep harping on "_illegal immigration_."  Did ANY of you dumb asses take basic civics in high school?  It is *unconstitutional *to use the military to enforce domestic laws.  When you call the foreigners "_illegals_" any other related language, you negate the possibility of using the military to achieve your objective.  How come that is so hard for you people to understand?
> 
> Additionally, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that state and local governments cannot be compelled to enforce federal statutory law.  BTW, this was done at the behest and hard work of people on *your side of this issue!!!
> *
> On domestic policies (i.e. dealing with people you insist on calling "_illegal_") the federal government has NO JURISDICTION.  If the governor of a state rejects federal intervention, it's because they are protected by the Tenth Amendment.
> 
> What kind of dumb assery keeps the wallists from understanding the constitutional roles of state and federal government, separation of powers, and 14th Amendment rights??????
> 
> If you have a *military *problem with people from south of the border, then quit calling people _"illegal" _and  get the LEOs out of the damn picture.  You're like a rodent on a treadmill and I'm stuck trying to give you people a high school lesson in civics.  That doesn't even factor in how your side screwed themselves on this border protection bullshit.  You can thank your own kind for that as well - as if we don't have hundreds of paragraphs on this thread discussing that aspect.
> 
> The *BEST* solution is to restore the Freedoms and Liberties back to the people, deal with the drug issue, put Americans back to work, and your problem will dissipate to the point that a group of Cub Scouts can man the border and protect it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> border security isnt domestic policy,,,its national security, which is the soul purpose of the military
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid?  The whole argument of the wallists is that the foreigners are_ "illegal aliens."  _True or false?  Anybody?  So, if it is a legal matter, it is a STATE matter.
> 
> Is the current situation a matter of "_National Security_?"  The affected states have governors that say NO.  So, what is the legal recourse, boys and girls?  Anyone?  It works like this:
> 
> Go to Congress.  Convince a majority there that the National Emergency exists and declare war and / or have Congress give the president limited powers to act against any perceived "_National Emergency_."  Right now the matter is tied up in court while they haggle over whether or not Trump can take money from earmarked military funds and so forth to enforce his _"National Emergency_."  There it will stay in the courts and maybe up to the election.
> 
> Give up the "illegal" angle and lobby for a Declaration of War.  See how popular your message really resonates.  Hell, you might win for a change - and if you don't, you'll know who is really on your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> when they are carrying foreign flags and have been sent by people with hostile intentions to overload our system its a national security issue
> 
> the borders are a federal issue not a state one
Click to expand...

we have a naturalization clause not an immigration clause.  We should not have this problem on our border; we should have upgraded Ellis Island by now, but for right wing bigotry.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not address posts where you go on and on.  For the benefit of the readers, I will repeat the points made before:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went "on and on" because I responded to each point you actually made. Indeed, I only gave an one or two word response, very concise. It seems that part of your style is to want to be able to pepper your long rambling posts with points that you want to pass unchallenged.
> 
> 
> Denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dollar for dollar spent, Trump's rallies are rather small.  Second to that rally size is *NOT* a determining factor in results.  If that were the case, then back in the late 1990s through early 2000s, we could have repealed the 16th Amendment, gotten rid of the income tax AND the IRS.  That effort spawned TWO books to make it to the New York Times Bestseller list.  Trump = ZERO on that count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were only talking about rally size to point out how absurd it is, for you to give Credit to the White Supremacists for Trumps rise.
> 
> You keep trying to twist this into something it never was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll pretends to be "_calling me out on something_."  He is delusional, dishonest, and his credibility is so bad he has to stick he chest out and proclaim he's called me out and beat me.... when in *FACT*, *his bullshit strategies have not seen a single, solitary victory in the 15 + years his side has been preaching them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I am certainly calling you out on a lot of stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next, Correll has faith in the government.  I don't.  What he calls surrender is his abject stupidity.  I have been in a civilian militia for 32 years now.  Terminology that has been used to describe people like me is survivalist, prepper, and citizen soldier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no faith in our government. I have hopes that they might do their job(s) someday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll has never manned the border; never participated in a rally or march (except MAYBE as an onlooker.)  He's never been in a stand-off, never been in a physical altercation with those on the extreme left.  He's never debated top name activists on tv and radio.  He's never had his ass on the line in a court action, never had to represent himself in court, and never written a legal brief.  He's never trained with hard core vets nor been a part of a think tank that plans for different kinds of scenarios.  He's never read books on warfare like _The Art of War_  (Hell, I haven't been able to get the guy to read a single court case.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect to your history of political activism, all of that is just you attacking the source, something someone does, when they can't made their case, based on it's actual merits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll has never managed a political campaign, never held public office, and never studied guerrilla warfare.  If I said the classic three-phase Maoist model, he'd have to Google it to see what in the Hell I was talking about.  Yet I've been doing that for 32 years.  The bottom line is, he has NO experience outside of 50,000 plus posts spouting bullshit to the minions of the Supreme Pretender of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More irrelevant garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, I am the last person who will *EVER* be talking surrender.  You have to exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress.  Then you have to leave the doors open for nonviolent solutions.  You have to go through a process* without *surrendering.  Correll has already surrendered because he thinks crowd sizes at a Trump rally are going to magically transform into a Hispanic free America.  They aren't.  Furthermore, Correll's strategy is to surrender your *unalienable* Rights on the false belief that government will save you and you won't have to fight.  Some day if you intend on being free, you* WILL* have to fight.  Therefore, you *do not shut down *the avenues that allow you to resist tyranny.  You do not forfeit your Rights for the promise of Safety... which Correll advocates.  If you believe in his drivel, you WILL wind up in prison, jail, Hell, or become a snitch bitch for an alphabet agency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want to leave the border open, and let the illegals in. That is surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar, an idiot and a deceiver.  You have your nose stuck so far up Trumps ass, the only time you get a breath of fresh air is if Trump farts.
> 
> No, I do not want a militarized border that costs more in terms of Liberty than it pays in return.  If your worthless, lazy white ass were working a job or at least using some of your time to help others, Americans would take the jobs and they wouldn't be available for the foreigners.
> 
> If you got out of your mother's basement, quit sucking dope and snorting shit up your nose while you get off on* pretending to be something your ARE NOT and doing things YOU CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY HAVEN'T DONE*, you might be able to set an example so that we can reclaim our Rights and Liberties.  That and that alone will insure that you don't have an "_illegal_" problem.  A wall ups the ante, it don't stop people from coming.
> 
> Your dumb ass can't fathom that there is no such thing as an illegal (sic) problem.  There is too much government; there are too many worthless pieces of shit like you running around complaining about not having a job while you're too fucking lazy to look for one... and if you weren't on drugs, the drug cartels wouldn't exist.
> 
> Without drug cartels, the people from south of the border would learn how to grow food and get into industry.  They don't stop coming over a wall and any idiot who thinks so is out of touch with reality.  You are a danger to Freedom and Liberty.
> 
> Accusing me of being for some kind of surrender is pure bullshit - the kind of stuff you hear from Keyboard Commandos who have never been IN the real fight.  You talk shit because you're a coward and you've proven it.  If you think I'm about surrender, you might want to explain why it is *YOU* with your nose up the government's ass, looking for a solution when it's people like* YOU* that created the problem and only when you walk the walk will you ever be able to have earned the Right to criticize me.  The reason you don't know me is because you have never been *IN *the fight.  You aren't going to get there taunting me and cowering behind your keyboard like the scared piece of shit you really are.  You get in the mix of things and see how involved I am, then preach your false doctrine to the lazy fucks like you.  Until then you are so full of yourself you lost your last ounce of credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF militarizing the border worked, would you support that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, I do not support a militarized border and you can lie all the Hell you want, but the trade-off in terms of Freedoms and Liberties makes that trade one that our forefathers found to be reprehensible.
> 
> "_He who would give up Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserves neither Liberty NOR safety_"  Benjamin Franklin
> 
> You want a popularity contest?  Let me tell you a *FACT*, son.  Ever since the people voted to worship the Golden calf when Moses went up to Mount Sinai, it has been shown that the masses are proven wrong.  So, in the time of Moses it was a Golden Calf and today it is a fat ass white boy that inherited a lot of his daddy's money.  You're still wrong.
> 
> Until you curb Americans insatiable appetite for drugs (our country represents the world's most prolific amount of drug users) a militarized border simply will not work.  It will corrupt the government even further and give a lot of U.S. servicemen and women a reason to commit criminal acts.  That is not counting the number of Liberties lost in the peripheral legislation that will be enforced making us a POLICE STATE.  *SO HELL NO BECAUSE NO WALL OR MILITARIZED BORDER CAN SAVE YOU FROM YOURSELF!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Mexicans were given a couple thousand of russian tanks and were planning to invade Texas, would you support allowing US military forces to set up defensive positions on American soil to repeal the attack?
Click to expand...


That would be an appropriate use of the military.

Back in the 1980s, when I was relatively new to this, Lt. Col. Gordon "Jack" Mohr, the first American captured during the Korean Conflict (he was beaten, tortured, and sentenced to death only to escape and return to the battle field) became one of my mentors.  He would send me to the border where I was always looking for Cuban troops with Soviet troops looking for ways to penetrate the border.  

After four decades of watching this presupposed scenario play out and never materializing, I have decided that the border was well secured when Iraq had the ultimate opportunity to cross the border in 1991... as did all the supposed troops Cuban troops with Soviet armaments the right said were being trained.  In 1991 virtually every man that could be spared was on his way to Iraq.  The government was even taking former military personnel that  had recent experience - cops, doctors, paramedics, etc.  There I was, trained and read; cocked, locked and ready to rock... and not a single one of those Mexicans with Cuban advisers, Russian tanks, helicopters crossed that border.  

It became perfectly clear to me that the border was secure from any military threat, but I still saw the numbers of foreigners coming here.  Bear in mind, at that time I had your level of knowledge of history, law, economics and our God given *unalienable* Rights. Having manned the border for years, it became more of a way for civilians to take an active role in _"keeping foreigners on their side of the fence_"

In 2003, the side you're on made that effort a criminal act via court precedent.  They did not appeal the case; they did not resist.  That group took away any claim civilians had to man the border.  That left civilians with one last hope:  become part of a civilian militia an hope that a governor would call on them. * That will never come to pass* as the reality is we're doing this to ourselves and willingly participating in our own demise.  So, you're screaming about "_illegal aliens_" while more than half of the American citizenry is doing business with undocumented foreigners.  Your last hope son is to change your own culture and put those who are locked out of the system back to work before you can do anything else.  Your side is too weak to fight and the government is* NEVER* going to help you.  There is no profit in it.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not address posts where you go on and on.  For the benefit of the readers, I will repeat the points made before:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went "on and on" because I responded to each point you actually made. Indeed, I only gave an one or two word response, very concise. It seems that part of your style is to want to be able to pepper your long rambling posts with points that you want to pass unchallenged.
> 
> 
> Denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dollar for dollar spent, Trump's rallies are rather small.  Second to that rally size is *NOT* a determining factor in results.  If that were the case, then back in the late 1990s through early 2000s, we could have repealed the 16th Amendment, gotten rid of the income tax AND the IRS.  That effort spawned TWO books to make it to the New York Times Bestseller list.  Trump = ZERO on that count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were only talking about rally size to point out how absurd it is, for you to give Credit to the White Supremacists for Trumps rise.
> 
> You keep trying to twist this into something it never was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll pretends to be "_calling me out on something_."  He is delusional, dishonest, and his credibility is so bad he has to stick he chest out and proclaim he's called me out and beat me.... when in *FACT*, *his bullshit strategies have not seen a single, solitary victory in the 15 + years his side has been preaching them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I am certainly calling you out on a lot of stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next, Correll has faith in the government.  I don't.  What he calls surrender is his abject stupidity.  I have been in a civilian militia for 32 years now.  Terminology that has been used to describe people like me is survivalist, prepper, and citizen soldier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no faith in our government. I have hopes that they might do their job(s) someday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll has never manned the border; never participated in a rally or march (except MAYBE as an onlooker.)  He's never been in a stand-off, never been in a physical altercation with those on the extreme left.  He's never debated top name activists on tv and radio.  He's never had his ass on the line in a court action, never had to represent himself in court, and never written a legal brief.  He's never trained with hard core vets nor been a part of a think tank that plans for different kinds of scenarios.  He's never read books on warfare like _The Art of War_  (Hell, I haven't been able to get the guy to read a single court case.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect to your history of political activism, all of that is just you attacking the source, something someone does, when they can't made their case, based on it's actual merits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll has never managed a political campaign, never held public office, and never studied guerrilla warfare.  If I said the classic three-phase Maoist model, he'd have to Google it to see what in the Hell I was talking about.  Yet I've been doing that for 32 years.  The bottom line is, he has NO experience outside of 50,000 plus posts spouting bullshit to the minions of the Supreme Pretender of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More irrelevant garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, I am the last person who will *EVER* be talking surrender.  You have to exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress.  Then you have to leave the doors open for nonviolent solutions.  You have to go through a process* without *surrendering.  Correll has already surrendered because he thinks crowd sizes at a Trump rally are going to magically transform into a Hispanic free America.  They aren't.  Furthermore, Correll's strategy is to surrender your *unalienable* Rights on the false belief that government will save you and you won't have to fight.  Some day if you intend on being free, you* WILL* have to fight.  Therefore, you *do not shut down *the avenues that allow you to resist tyranny.  You do not forfeit your Rights for the promise of Safety... which Correll advocates.  If you believe in his drivel, you WILL wind up in prison, jail, Hell, or become a snitch bitch for an alphabet agency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want to leave the border open, and let the illegals in. That is surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar, an idiot and a deceiver.  You have your nose stuck so far up Trumps ass, the only time you get a breath of fresh air is if Trump farts.
> 
> No, I do not want a militarized border that costs more in terms of Liberty than it pays in return.  If your worthless, lazy white ass were working a job or at least using some of your time to help others, Americans would take the jobs and they wouldn't be available for the foreigners.
> 
> If you got out of your mother's basement, quit sucking dope and snorting shit up your nose while you get off on* pretending to be something your ARE NOT and doing things YOU CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY HAVEN'T DONE*, you might be able to set an example so that we can reclaim our Rights and Liberties.  That and that alone will insure that you don't have an "_illegal_" problem.  A wall ups the ante, it don't stop people from coming.
> 
> Your dumb ass can't fathom that there is no such thing as an illegal (sic) problem.  There is too much government; there are too many worthless pieces of shit like you running around complaining about not having a job while you're too fucking lazy to look for one... and if you weren't on drugs, the drug cartels wouldn't exist.
> 
> Without drug cartels, the people from south of the border would learn how to grow food and get into industry.  They don't stop coming over a wall and any idiot who thinks so is out of touch with reality.  You are a danger to Freedom and Liberty.
> 
> Accusing me of being for some kind of surrender is pure bullshit - the kind of stuff you hear from Keyboard Commandos who have never been IN the real fight.  You talk shit because you're a coward and you've proven it.  If you think I'm about surrender, you might want to explain why it is *YOU* with your nose up the government's ass, looking for a solution when it's people like* YOU* that created the problem and only when you walk the walk will you ever be able to have earned the Right to criticize me.  The reason you don't know me is because you have never been *IN *the fight.  You aren't going to get there taunting me and cowering behind your keyboard like the scared piece of shit you really are.  You get in the mix of things and see how involved I am, then preach your false doctrine to the lazy fucks like you.  Until then you are so full of yourself you lost your last ounce of credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF militarizing the border worked, would you support that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, I do not support a militarized border and you can lie all the Hell you want, but the trade-off in terms of Freedoms and Liberties makes that trade one that our forefathers found to be reprehensible.
> 
> "_He who would give up Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserves neither Liberty NOR safety_"  Benjamin Franklin
> 
> You want a popularity contest?  Let me tell you a *FACT*, son.  Ever since the people voted to worship the Golden calf when Moses went up to Mount Sinai, it has been shown that the masses are proven wrong.  So, in the time of Moses it was a Golden Calf and today it is a fat ass white boy that inherited a lot of his daddy's money.  You're still wrong.
> 
> Until you curb Americans insatiable appetite for drugs (our country represents the world's most prolific amount of drug users) a militarized border simply will not work.  It will corrupt the government even further and give a lot of U.S. servicemen and women a reason to commit criminal acts.  That is not counting the number of Liberties lost in the peripheral legislation that will be enforced making us a POLICE STATE.  *SO HELL NO BECAUSE NO WALL OR MILITARIZED BORDER CAN SAVE YOU FROM YOURSELF!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Mexicans were given a couple thousand of russian tanks and were planning to invade Texas, would you support allowing US military forces to set up defensive positions on American soil to repeal the attack?
Click to expand...

Mexico is not our enemy or trying to be.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not address posts where you go on and on.  For the benefit of the readers, I will repeat the points made before:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went "on and on" because I responded to each point you actually made. Indeed, I only gave an one or two word response, very concise. It seems that part of your style is to want to be able to pepper your long rambling posts with points that you want to pass unchallenged.
> 
> 
> Denied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dollar for dollar spent, Trump's rallies are rather small.  Second to that rally size is *NOT* a determining factor in results.  If that were the case, then back in the late 1990s through early 2000s, we could have repealed the 16th Amendment, gotten rid of the income tax AND the IRS.  That effort spawned TWO books to make it to the New York Times Bestseller list.  Trump = ZERO on that count.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were only talking about rally size to point out how absurd it is, for you to give Credit to the White Supremacists for Trumps rise.
> 
> You keep trying to twist this into something it never was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll pretends to be "_calling me out on something_."  He is delusional, dishonest, and his credibility is so bad he has to stick he chest out and proclaim he's called me out and beat me.... when in *FACT*, *his bullshit strategies have not seen a single, solitary victory in the 15 + years his side has been preaching them.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I am certainly calling you out on a lot of stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next, Correll has faith in the government.  I don't.  What he calls surrender is his abject stupidity.  I have been in a civilian militia for 32 years now.  Terminology that has been used to describe people like me is survivalist, prepper, and citizen soldier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no faith in our government. I have hopes that they might do their job(s) someday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll has never manned the border; never participated in a rally or march (except MAYBE as an onlooker.)  He's never been in a stand-off, never been in a physical altercation with those on the extreme left.  He's never debated top name activists on tv and radio.  He's never had his ass on the line in a court action, never had to represent himself in court, and never written a legal brief.  He's never trained with hard core vets nor been a part of a think tank that plans for different kinds of scenarios.  He's never read books on warfare like _The Art of War_  (Hell, I haven't been able to get the guy to read a single court case.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect to your history of political activism, all of that is just you attacking the source, something someone does, when they can't made their case, based on it's actual merits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll has never managed a political campaign, never held public office, and never studied guerrilla warfare.  If I said the classic three-phase Maoist model, he'd have to Google it to see what in the Hell I was talking about.  Yet I've been doing that for 32 years.  The bottom line is, he has NO experience outside of 50,000 plus posts spouting bullshit to the minions of the Supreme Pretender of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More irrelevant garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, I am the last person who will *EVER* be talking surrender.  You have to exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress.  Then you have to leave the doors open for nonviolent solutions.  You have to go through a process* without *surrendering.  Correll has already surrendered because he thinks crowd sizes at a Trump rally are going to magically transform into a Hispanic free America.  They aren't.  Furthermore, Correll's strategy is to surrender your *unalienable* Rights on the false belief that government will save you and you won't have to fight.  Some day if you intend on being free, you* WILL* have to fight.  Therefore, you *do not shut down *the avenues that allow you to resist tyranny.  You do not forfeit your Rights for the promise of Safety... which Correll advocates.  If you believe in his drivel, you WILL wind up in prison, jail, Hell, or become a snitch bitch for an alphabet agency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want to leave the border open, and let the illegals in. That is surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar, an idiot and a deceiver.  You have your nose stuck so far up Trumps ass, the only time you get a breath of fresh air is if Trump farts.
> 
> No, I do not want a militarized border that costs more in terms of Liberty than it pays in return.  If your worthless, lazy white ass were working a job or at least using some of your time to help others, Americans would take the jobs and they wouldn't be available for the foreigners.
> 
> If you got out of your mother's basement, quit sucking dope and snorting shit up your nose while you get off on* pretending to be something your ARE NOT and doing things YOU CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY HAVEN'T DONE*, you might be able to set an example so that we can reclaim our Rights and Liberties.  That and that alone will insure that you don't have an "_illegal_" problem.  A wall ups the ante, it don't stop people from coming.
> 
> Your dumb ass can't fathom that there is no such thing as an illegal (sic) problem.  There is too much government; there are too many worthless pieces of shit like you running around complaining about not having a job while you're too fucking lazy to look for one... and if you weren't on drugs, the drug cartels wouldn't exist.
> 
> Without drug cartels, the people from south of the border would learn how to grow food and get into industry.  They don't stop coming over a wall and any idiot who thinks so is out of touch with reality.  You are a danger to Freedom and Liberty.
> 
> Accusing me of being for some kind of surrender is pure bullshit - the kind of stuff you hear from Keyboard Commandos who have never been IN the real fight.  You talk shit because you're a coward and you've proven it.  If you think I'm about surrender, you might want to explain why it is *YOU* with your nose up the government's ass, looking for a solution when it's people like* YOU* that created the problem and only when you walk the walk will you ever be able to have earned the Right to criticize me.  The reason you don't know me is because you have never been *IN *the fight.  You aren't going to get there taunting me and cowering behind your keyboard like the scared piece of shit you really are.  You get in the mix of things and see how involved I am, then preach your false doctrine to the lazy fucks like you.  Until then you are so full of yourself you lost your last ounce of credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF militarizing the border worked, would you support that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sure, if we had an express wall building and immigration clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

only illegals don't care about the law.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If an invasion occurs, it IS the responsibility of the federal government to act.  *HOWEVER*, you do not use the military to enforce domestic policies.  Over and over and over again, the wallists keep harping on "_illegal immigration_."  Did ANY of you dumb asses take basic civics in high school?  It is *unconstitutional *to use the military to enforce domestic laws.  When you call the foreigners "_illegals_" any other related language, you negate the possibility of using the military to achieve your objective.  How come that is so hard for you people to understand?
> 
> Additionally, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that state and local governments cannot be compelled to enforce federal statutory law.  BTW, this was done at the behest and hard work of people on *your side of this issue!!!
> *
> On domestic policies (i.e. dealing with people you insist on calling "_illegal_") the federal government has NO JURISDICTION.  If the governor of a state rejects federal intervention, it's because they are protected by the Tenth Amendment.
> 
> What kind of dumb assery keeps the wallists from understanding the constitutional roles of state and federal government, separation of powers, and 14th Amendment rights??????
> 
> If you have a *military *problem with people from south of the border, then quit calling people _"illegal" _and  get the LEOs out of the damn picture.  You're like a rodent on a treadmill and I'm stuck trying to give you people a high school lesson in civics.  That doesn't even factor in how your side screwed themselves on this border protection bullshit.  You can thank your own kind for that as well - as if we don't have hundreds of paragraphs on this thread discussing that aspect.
> 
> The *BEST* solution is to restore the Freedoms and Liberties back to the people, deal with the drug issue, put Americans back to work, and your problem will dissipate to the point that a group of Cub Scouts can man the border and protect it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> border security isnt domestic policy,,,its national security, which is the soul purpose of the military
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid?  The whole argument of the wallists is that the foreigners are_ "illegal aliens."  _True or false?  Anybody?  So, if it is a legal matter, it is a STATE matter.
> 
> Is the current situation a matter of "_National Security_?"  The affected states have governors that say NO.  So, what is the legal recourse, boys and girls?  Anyone?  It works like this:
> 
> Go to Congress.  Convince a majority there that the National Emergency exists and declare war and / or have Congress give the president limited powers to act against any perceived "_National Emergency_."  Right now the matter is tied up in court while they haggle over whether or not Trump can take money from earmarked military funds and so forth to enforce his _"National Emergency_."  There it will stay in the courts and maybe up to the election.
> 
> Give up the "illegal" angle and lobby for a Declaration of War.  See how popular your message really resonates.  Hell, you might win for a change - and if you don't, you'll know who is really on your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> when they are carrying foreign flags and have been sent by people with hostile intentions to overload our system its a national security issue
> 
> the borders are a federal issue not a state one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep trying to have it both ways and I'm sorry to tell you, but it don't work that way.  Your side has done this song and dance since 2003.  Do you know what the definition of an idiot is?
> 
> They keep doing the same thing over and over the same way, hoping for a different result.  Get your head out of your ass.
> 
> America leads the way in drug users.  Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply.  For every one drug addict in a mental health facility, more than 10 are in prison.  More than HALF of the federal prison inmates are in on drug charges and America has more people in prison than any nation on this planet!  Children are prescribed drugs like Ritalin at a ration of 3 to 1 compared to places like the UK.  Half of the American people are dependent on the government for their paychecks.  Bottom line, their sorry asses aren't working.
> 
> Somebody's picking up the slack.  And what you're bitching about is the free market in action.  Quit doing the drugs and go to work. The foreigners will leave.  Walls, a National Emergency and 15 more years of dumb asses blaming the foreigners is *NOT* going to change your culture and YOU make it an attractive nuisance for those from south of the border by making it profitable for drug cartels and entry level laborers.
> 
> In what freaking language does this have to be explained to your dumb ass?  What you're accusing foreigners of is utter bullshit.  You know it; I know it; and so does the majority of the citizenry... with those numbers climbing every day.  If you don't change strategies and quit this nonsensical horseshit that has consistently failed for over a decade and a half, you will lose this country within the next two election cycles.
> 
> While the borders are a federal issue, if there is no emergency, there is no emergency.  Trump is not God dumbass.  He's a man.  Whoop dee fucking doo.  He declared an emergency he has no money to back it up with.  I doubt he'll get it from Congress without a *MAJOR* concession.  Nobody agrees with the lie that a National Emergency exists.   So, which of *YOUR* Rights will you trade for a silly wall that comes down when the next Democrat becomes president?  So, really, do you have an "_illegal alien_" problem or a National Security issue?  If you were a doctor and a guy comes in saying he needs surgery on his foot, would you give him an operation for hemorrhoids?  *THAT* is an analogy of your silliness.
> 
> You want the illusion of a win; I'll settle for nothing less than a permanent solution no matter what party is in charge.  You can't get that done with that half ass nonsensical crap you spew continually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I quit reading after you said my side,,,I dont have a side other than the rule of law and the constitution
> 
> 
> its you baby killing thieving backstabbing fucking democrats and republicans that have sides
> 
> and until we get rid of you guys the world is fucked,,,
Click to expand...


I support your right to ignore your education.  You are a pathological liar due to your ignorance.

If the Rule of Law is applied, what you're doing is highly highly illegal.  If you aren't going to read it, no point in explaining it to you.  The actions you advocate come from a side and it's not about any Rule of Law.  That is a lie.  

I held public meetings twice a month for decades.  I'm going to tell you something right now:  face to face there was never a swinging soul that would call me a democrat to my face and if I started those meetings again, it would remain that way.  You can bet your ass and the family farm, I'm no democrat; you're NOT following any Rule of Law and the strategy you've chosen has been a clusterphuck for over a decade and a half.


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> border security isnt domestic policy,,,its national security, which is the soul purpose of the military
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid?  The whole argument of the wallists is that the foreigners are_ "illegal aliens."  _True or false?  Anybody?  So, if it is a legal matter, it is a STATE matter.
> 
> Is the current situation a matter of "_National Security_?"  The affected states have governors that say NO.  So, what is the legal recourse, boys and girls?  Anyone?  It works like this:
> 
> Go to Congress.  Convince a majority there that the National Emergency exists and declare war and / or have Congress give the president limited powers to act against any perceived "_National Emergency_."  Right now the matter is tied up in court while they haggle over whether or not Trump can take money from earmarked military funds and so forth to enforce his _"National Emergency_."  There it will stay in the courts and maybe up to the election.
> 
> Give up the "illegal" angle and lobby for a Declaration of War.  See how popular your message really resonates.  Hell, you might win for a change - and if you don't, you'll know who is really on your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> when they are carrying foreign flags and have been sent by people with hostile intentions to overload our system its a national security issue
> 
> the borders are a federal issue not a state one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep trying to have it both ways and I'm sorry to tell you, but it don't work that way.  Your side has done this song and dance since 2003.  Do you know what the definition of an idiot is?
> 
> They keep doing the same thing over and over the same way, hoping for a different result.  Get your head out of your ass.
> 
> America leads the way in drug users.  Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply.  For every one drug addict in a mental health facility, more than 10 are in prison.  More than HALF of the federal prison inmates are in on drug charges and America has more people in prison than any nation on this planet!  Children are prescribed drugs like Ritalin at a ration of 3 to 1 compared to places like the UK.  Half of the American people are dependent on the government for their paychecks.  Bottom line, their sorry asses aren't working.
> 
> Somebody's picking up the slack.  And what you're bitching about is the free market in action.  Quit doing the drugs and go to work. The foreigners will leave.  Walls, a National Emergency and 15 more years of dumb asses blaming the foreigners is *NOT* going to change your culture and YOU make it an attractive nuisance for those from south of the border by making it profitable for drug cartels and entry level laborers.
> 
> In what freaking language does this have to be explained to your dumb ass?  What you're accusing foreigners of is utter bullshit.  You know it; I know it; and so does the majority of the citizenry... with those numbers climbing every day.  If you don't change strategies and quit this nonsensical horseshit that has consistently failed for over a decade and a half, you will lose this country within the next two election cycles.
> 
> While the borders are a federal issue, if there is no emergency, there is no emergency.  Trump is not God dumbass.  He's a man.  Whoop dee fucking doo.  He declared an emergency he has no money to back it up with.  I doubt he'll get it from Congress without a *MAJOR* concession.  Nobody agrees with the lie that a National Emergency exists.   So, which of *YOUR* Rights will you trade for a silly wall that comes down when the next Democrat becomes president?  So, really, do you have an "_illegal alien_" problem or a National Security issue?  If you were a doctor and a guy comes in saying he needs surgery on his foot, would you give him an operation for hemorrhoids?  *THAT* is an analogy of your silliness.
> 
> You want the illusion of a win; I'll settle for nothing less than a permanent solution no matter what party is in charge.  You can't get that done with that half ass nonsensical crap you spew continually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I quit reading after you said my side,,,I dont have a side other than the rule of law and the constitution
> 
> 
> its you baby killing thieving backstabbing fucking democrats and republicans that have sides
> 
> and until we get rid of you guys the world is fucked,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I support your right to ignore your education.  You are a pathological liar due to your ignorance.
> 
> If the Rule of Law is applied, what you're doing is highly highly illegal.  If you aren't going to read it, no point in explaining it to you.  The actions you advocate come from a side and it's not about any Rule of Law.  That is a lie.
> 
> I held public meetings twice a month for decades.  I'm going to tell you something right now:  face to face there was never a swinging soul that would call me a democrat to my face and if I started those meetings again, it would remain that way.  You can bet your ass and the family farm, I'm no democrat; you're NOT following any Rule of Law and the strategy you've chosen has been a clusterphuck for over a decade and a half.
Click to expand...



sorry national security is in the constitution and therfor  the law of the land


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> border security isnt domestic policy,,,its national security, which is the soul purpose of the military
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid?  The whole argument of the wallists is that the foreigners are_ "illegal aliens."  _True or false?  Anybody?  So, if it is a legal matter, it is a STATE matter.
> 
> Is the current situation a matter of "_National Security_?"  The affected states have governors that say NO.  So, what is the legal recourse, boys and girls?  Anyone?  It works like this:
> 
> Go to Congress.  Convince a majority there that the National Emergency exists and declare war and / or have Congress give the president limited powers to act against any perceived "_National Emergency_."  Right now the matter is tied up in court while they haggle over whether or not Trump can take money from earmarked military funds and so forth to enforce his _"National Emergency_."  There it will stay in the courts and maybe up to the election.
> 
> Give up the "illegal" angle and lobby for a Declaration of War.  See how popular your message really resonates.  Hell, you might win for a change - and if you don't, you'll know who is really on your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> when they are carrying foreign flags and have been sent by people with hostile intentions to overload our system its a national security issue
> 
> the borders are a federal issue not a state one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep trying to have it both ways and I'm sorry to tell you, but it don't work that way.  Your side has done this song and dance since 2003.  Do you know what the definition of an idiot is?
> 
> They keep doing the same thing over and over the same way, hoping for a different result.  Get your head out of your ass.
> 
> America leads the way in drug users.  Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply.  For every one drug addict in a mental health facility, more than 10 are in prison.  More than HALF of the federal prison inmates are in on drug charges and America has more people in prison than any nation on this planet!  Children are prescribed drugs like Ritalin at a ration of 3 to 1 compared to places like the UK.  Half of the American people are dependent on the government for their paychecks.  Bottom line, their sorry asses aren't working.
> 
> Somebody's picking up the slack.  And what you're bitching about is the free market in action.  Quit doing the drugs and go to work. The foreigners will leave.  Walls, a National Emergency and 15 more years of dumb asses blaming the foreigners is *NOT* going to change your culture and YOU make it an attractive nuisance for those from south of the border by making it profitable for drug cartels and entry level laborers.
> 
> In what freaking language does this have to be explained to your dumb ass?  What you're accusing foreigners of is utter bullshit.  You know it; I know it; and so does the majority of the citizenry... with those numbers climbing every day.  If you don't change strategies and quit this nonsensical horseshit that has consistently failed for over a decade and a half, you will lose this country within the next two election cycles.
> 
> While the borders are a federal issue, if there is no emergency, there is no emergency.  Trump is not God dumbass.  He's a man.  Whoop dee fucking doo.  He declared an emergency he has no money to back it up with.  I doubt he'll get it from Congress without a *MAJOR* concession.  Nobody agrees with the lie that a National Emergency exists.   So, which of *YOUR* Rights will you trade for a silly wall that comes down when the next Democrat becomes president?  So, really, do you have an "_illegal alien_" problem or a National Security issue?  If you were a doctor and a guy comes in saying he needs surgery on his foot, would you give him an operation for hemorrhoids?  *THAT* is an analogy of your silliness.
> 
> You want the illusion of a win; I'll settle for nothing less than a permanent solution no matter what party is in charge.  You can't get that done with that half ass nonsensical crap you spew continually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I quit reading after you said my side,,,I dont have a side other than the rule of law and the constitution
> 
> 
> its you baby killing thieving backstabbing fucking democrats and republicans that have sides
> 
> and until we get rid of you guys the world is fucked,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I support your right to ignore your education.  You are a pathological liar due to your ignorance.
> 
> If the Rule of Law is applied, what you're doing is highly highly illegal.  If you aren't going to read it, no point in explaining it to you.  The actions you advocate come from a side and it's not about any Rule of Law.  That is a lie.
> 
> I held public meetings twice a month for decades.  I'm going to tell you something right now:  face to face there was never a swinging soul that would call me a democrat to my face and if I started those meetings again, it would remain that way.  You can bet your ass and the family farm, I'm no democrat; you're NOT following any Rule of Law and the strategy you've chosen has been a clusterphuck for over a decade and a half.
Click to expand...



and if youre going to label me a republican because I agree with this one issue then that makes you a democrat for agreeing with them,,,


----------



## Porter Rockwell

danielpalos said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went "on and on" because I responded to each point you actually made. Indeed, I only gave an one or two word response, very concise. It seems that part of your style is to want to be able to pepper your long rambling posts with points that you want to pass unchallenged.
> 
> 
> Denied.
> 
> We were only talking about rally size to point out how absurd it is, for you to give Credit to the White Supremacists for Trumps rise.
> 
> You keep trying to twist this into something it never was.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I am certainly calling you out on a lot of stuff.
> 
> 
> I have no faith in our government. I have hopes that they might do their job(s) someday.
> 
> 
> With all due respect to your history of political activism, all of that is just you attacking the source, something someone does, when they can't made their case, based on it's actual merits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More irrelevant garbage.
> 
> 
> You want to leave the border open, and let the illegals in. That is surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar, an idiot and a deceiver.  You have your nose stuck so far up Trumps ass, the only time you get a breath of fresh air is if Trump farts.
> 
> No, I do not want a militarized border that costs more in terms of Liberty than it pays in return.  If your worthless, lazy white ass were working a job or at least using some of your time to help others, Americans would take the jobs and they wouldn't be available for the foreigners.
> 
> If you got out of your mother's basement, quit sucking dope and snorting shit up your nose while you get off on* pretending to be something your ARE NOT and doing things YOU CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY HAVEN'T DONE*, you might be able to set an example so that we can reclaim our Rights and Liberties.  That and that alone will insure that you don't have an "_illegal_" problem.  A wall ups the ante, it don't stop people from coming.
> 
> Your dumb ass can't fathom that there is no such thing as an illegal (sic) problem.  There is too much government; there are too many worthless pieces of shit like you running around complaining about not having a job while you're too fucking lazy to look for one... and if you weren't on drugs, the drug cartels wouldn't exist.
> 
> Without drug cartels, the people from south of the border would learn how to grow food and get into industry.  They don't stop coming over a wall and any idiot who thinks so is out of touch with reality.  You are a danger to Freedom and Liberty.
> 
> Accusing me of being for some kind of surrender is pure bullshit - the kind of stuff you hear from Keyboard Commandos who have never been IN the real fight.  You talk shit because you're a coward and you've proven it.  If you think I'm about surrender, you might want to explain why it is *YOU* with your nose up the government's ass, looking for a solution when it's people like* YOU* that created the problem and only when you walk the walk will you ever be able to have earned the Right to criticize me.  The reason you don't know me is because you have never been *IN *the fight.  You aren't going to get there taunting me and cowering behind your keyboard like the scared piece of shit you really are.  You get in the mix of things and see how involved I am, then preach your false doctrine to the lazy fucks like you.  Until then you are so full of yourself you lost your last ounce of credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF militarizing the border worked, would you support that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sure, if we had an express wall building and immigration clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am embarrassed for the right wing.  I don't vote for Democrats.  Yet the wallists here have to hear you repeat the same thing over and over.  WTF?  Are they *really *that stupid?
> 
> The minute the wallists made this an issue of domestic legality (i.e. calling people "_illegal aliens_") it took the issue from being a military concern to a domestic legal issue where the feds have *NO* jurisdiction.  What in the Hell do they not understand about the Rule of Law, separation of powers, the unconstitutionality of using the military to enforce domestic policies, and the Tenth Amendment???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they have nothing but fallacy not any valid rebuttals; what do you think.
Click to expand...


I cannot stress it enough that their strategies have failed them now for over a decade and a half.  But, they've decided that if I choose not to be a victim of a political event that ends like the Titanic, something is wrong with me.

The real left is laughing at these clowns because they are caving in to One World Government on the installment plan.  We've done thousands of posts on this and there is a glaring fallacy Correll makes:

He continues to say that I'm like the left, doing the guilt by association thing.  *That would be a fallacy* - and that's all he's got.  Guilt by association would be to call a man a Ku Kluxer because he knows and does business with Kluxers.  It is not until that man adopts their talking points and strategies that he becomes one them ... REGARDLESS of whether he puts on a robe or not.  Correll and his ilk have adopted the rhetoric, talking points for debate, and strategies of the National Socialists.


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar, an idiot and a deceiver.  You have your nose stuck so far up Trumps ass, the only time you get a breath of fresh air is if Trump farts.
> 
> No, I do not want a militarized border that costs more in terms of Liberty than it pays in return.  If your worthless, lazy white ass were working a job or at least using some of your time to help others, Americans would take the jobs and they wouldn't be available for the foreigners.
> 
> If you got out of your mother's basement, quit sucking dope and snorting shit up your nose while you get off on* pretending to be something your ARE NOT and doing things YOU CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY HAVEN'T DONE*, you might be able to set an example so that we can reclaim our Rights and Liberties.  That and that alone will insure that you don't have an "_illegal_" problem.  A wall ups the ante, it don't stop people from coming.
> 
> Your dumb ass can't fathom that there is no such thing as an illegal (sic) problem.  There is too much government; there are too many worthless pieces of shit like you running around complaining about not having a job while you're too fucking lazy to look for one... and if you weren't on drugs, the drug cartels wouldn't exist.
> 
> Without drug cartels, the people from south of the border would learn how to grow food and get into industry.  They don't stop coming over a wall and any idiot who thinks so is out of touch with reality.  You are a danger to Freedom and Liberty.
> 
> Accusing me of being for some kind of surrender is pure bullshit - the kind of stuff you hear from Keyboard Commandos who have never been IN the real fight.  You talk shit because you're a coward and you've proven it.  If you think I'm about surrender, you might want to explain why it is *YOU* with your nose up the government's ass, looking for a solution when it's people like* YOU* that created the problem and only when you walk the walk will you ever be able to have earned the Right to criticize me.  The reason you don't know me is because you have never been *IN *the fight.  You aren't going to get there taunting me and cowering behind your keyboard like the scared piece of shit you really are.  You get in the mix of things and see how involved I am, then preach your false doctrine to the lazy fucks like you.  Until then you are so full of yourself you lost your last ounce of credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF militarizing the border worked, would you support that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sure, if we had an express wall building and immigration clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am embarrassed for the right wing.  I don't vote for Democrats.  Yet the wallists here have to hear you repeat the same thing over and over.  WTF?  Are they *really *that stupid?
> 
> The minute the wallists made this an issue of domestic legality (i.e. calling people "_illegal aliens_") it took the issue from being a military concern to a domestic legal issue where the feds have *NO* jurisdiction.  What in the Hell do they not understand about the Rule of Law, separation of powers, the unconstitutionality of using the military to enforce domestic policies, and the Tenth Amendment???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they have nothing but fallacy not any valid rebuttals; what do you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cannot stress it enough that their strategies have failed them now for over a decade and a half.  But, they've decided that if I choose not to be a victim of a political event that ends like the Titanic, something is wrong with me.
> 
> The real left is laughing at these clowns because they are caving in to One World Government on the installment plan.  We've one thousands of posts on this and there is a glaring fallacy Correll makes:
> 
> He continues to say that I'm like the left, doing the guilt by association thing.  *That would be a fallacy* - and that's all he's got.  Guilt by association would be to call a man a Ku Kluxer because he knows and does business with Kluxers.  It is not until that man adopts their talking points and strategies that he becomes one them ... REGARDLESS of whether he puts on a robe or not.  Correll and his ilk have adopted the rhetoric, talking points for debate, and strategies of the National Socialists.
Click to expand...



so you cant refute his claim so go with a personal attack,,,

GOT IT,,,


----------



## Porter Rockwell

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid?  The whole argument of the wallists is that the foreigners are_ "illegal aliens."  _True or false?  Anybody?  So, if it is a legal matter, it is a STATE matter.
> 
> Is the current situation a matter of "_National Security_?"  The affected states have governors that say NO.  So, what is the legal recourse, boys and girls?  Anyone?  It works like this:
> 
> Go to Congress.  Convince a majority there that the National Emergency exists and declare war and / or have Congress give the president limited powers to act against any perceived "_National Emergency_."  Right now the matter is tied up in court while they haggle over whether or not Trump can take money from earmarked military funds and so forth to enforce his _"National Emergency_."  There it will stay in the courts and maybe up to the election.
> 
> Give up the "illegal" angle and lobby for a Declaration of War.  See how popular your message really resonates.  Hell, you might win for a change - and if you don't, you'll know who is really on your side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when they are carrying foreign flags and have been sent by people with hostile intentions to overload our system its a national security issue
> 
> the borders are a federal issue not a state one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep trying to have it both ways and I'm sorry to tell you, but it don't work that way.  Your side has done this song and dance since 2003.  Do you know what the definition of an idiot is?
> 
> They keep doing the same thing over and over the same way, hoping for a different result.  Get your head out of your ass.
> 
> America leads the way in drug users.  Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply.  For every one drug addict in a mental health facility, more than 10 are in prison.  More than HALF of the federal prison inmates are in on drug charges and America has more people in prison than any nation on this planet!  Children are prescribed drugs like Ritalin at a ration of 3 to 1 compared to places like the UK.  Half of the American people are dependent on the government for their paychecks.  Bottom line, their sorry asses aren't working.
> 
> Somebody's picking up the slack.  And what you're bitching about is the free market in action.  Quit doing the drugs and go to work. The foreigners will leave.  Walls, a National Emergency and 15 more years of dumb asses blaming the foreigners is *NOT* going to change your culture and YOU make it an attractive nuisance for those from south of the border by making it profitable for drug cartels and entry level laborers.
> 
> In what freaking language does this have to be explained to your dumb ass?  What you're accusing foreigners of is utter bullshit.  You know it; I know it; and so does the majority of the citizenry... with those numbers climbing every day.  If you don't change strategies and quit this nonsensical horseshit that has consistently failed for over a decade and a half, you will lose this country within the next two election cycles.
> 
> While the borders are a federal issue, if there is no emergency, there is no emergency.  Trump is not God dumbass.  He's a man.  Whoop dee fucking doo.  He declared an emergency he has no money to back it up with.  I doubt he'll get it from Congress without a *MAJOR* concession.  Nobody agrees with the lie that a National Emergency exists.   So, which of *YOUR* Rights will you trade for a silly wall that comes down when the next Democrat becomes president?  So, really, do you have an "_illegal alien_" problem or a National Security issue?  If you were a doctor and a guy comes in saying he needs surgery on his foot, would you give him an operation for hemorrhoids?  *THAT* is an analogy of your silliness.
> 
> You want the illusion of a win; I'll settle for nothing less than a permanent solution no matter what party is in charge.  You can't get that done with that half ass nonsensical crap you spew continually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I quit reading after you said my side,,,I dont have a side other than the rule of law and the constitution
> 
> 
> its you baby killing thieving backstabbing fucking democrats and republicans that have sides
> 
> and until we get rid of you guys the world is fucked,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I support your right to ignore your education.  You are a pathological liar due to your ignorance.
> 
> If the Rule of Law is applied, what you're doing is highly highly illegal.  If you aren't going to read it, no point in explaining it to you.  The actions you advocate come from a side and it's not about any Rule of Law.  That is a lie.
> 
> I held public meetings twice a month for decades.  I'm going to tell you something right now:  face to face there was never a swinging soul that would call me a democrat to my face and if I started those meetings again, it would remain that way.  You can bet your ass and the family farm, I'm no democrat; you're NOT following any Rule of Law and the strategy you've chosen has been a clusterphuck for over a decade and a half.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> sorry national security is in the constitution and therfor  the law of the land
Click to expand...



When you invoked a war on so - called _"illegal aliens_,"  you negated your own argument over National Security.  You're either addressing a legal problem *OR* a military concern.  You have not cited any specific section of the Constitution.

The Constitution cannot be used as a tool to deny Americans the equal protection of the laws.


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> when they are carrying foreign flags and have been sent by people with hostile intentions to overload our system its a national security issue
> 
> the borders are a federal issue not a state one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep trying to have it both ways and I'm sorry to tell you, but it don't work that way.  Your side has done this song and dance since 2003.  Do you know what the definition of an idiot is?
> 
> They keep doing the same thing over and over the same way, hoping for a different result.  Get your head out of your ass.
> 
> America leads the way in drug users.  Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply.  For every one drug addict in a mental health facility, more than 10 are in prison.  More than HALF of the federal prison inmates are in on drug charges and America has more people in prison than any nation on this planet!  Children are prescribed drugs like Ritalin at a ration of 3 to 1 compared to places like the UK.  Half of the American people are dependent on the government for their paychecks.  Bottom line, their sorry asses aren't working.
> 
> Somebody's picking up the slack.  And what you're bitching about is the free market in action.  Quit doing the drugs and go to work. The foreigners will leave.  Walls, a National Emergency and 15 more years of dumb asses blaming the foreigners is *NOT* going to change your culture and YOU make it an attractive nuisance for those from south of the border by making it profitable for drug cartels and entry level laborers.
> 
> In what freaking language does this have to be explained to your dumb ass?  What you're accusing foreigners of is utter bullshit.  You know it; I know it; and so does the majority of the citizenry... with those numbers climbing every day.  If you don't change strategies and quit this nonsensical horseshit that has consistently failed for over a decade and a half, you will lose this country within the next two election cycles.
> 
> While the borders are a federal issue, if there is no emergency, there is no emergency.  Trump is not God dumbass.  He's a man.  Whoop dee fucking doo.  He declared an emergency he has no money to back it up with.  I doubt he'll get it from Congress without a *MAJOR* concession.  Nobody agrees with the lie that a National Emergency exists.   So, which of *YOUR* Rights will you trade for a silly wall that comes down when the next Democrat becomes president?  So, really, do you have an "_illegal alien_" problem or a National Security issue?  If you were a doctor and a guy comes in saying he needs surgery on his foot, would you give him an operation for hemorrhoids?  *THAT* is an analogy of your silliness.
> 
> You want the illusion of a win; I'll settle for nothing less than a permanent solution no matter what party is in charge.  You can't get that done with that half ass nonsensical crap you spew continually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I quit reading after you said my side,,,I dont have a side other than the rule of law and the constitution
> 
> 
> its you baby killing thieving backstabbing fucking democrats and republicans that have sides
> 
> and until we get rid of you guys the world is fucked,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I support your right to ignore your education.  You are a pathological liar due to your ignorance.
> 
> If the Rule of Law is applied, what you're doing is highly highly illegal.  If you aren't going to read it, no point in explaining it to you.  The actions you advocate come from a side and it's not about any Rule of Law.  That is a lie.
> 
> I held public meetings twice a month for decades.  I'm going to tell you something right now:  face to face there was never a swinging soul that would call me a democrat to my face and if I started those meetings again, it would remain that way.  You can bet your ass and the family farm, I'm no democrat; you're NOT following any Rule of Law and the strategy you've chosen has been a clusterphuck for over a decade and a half.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> sorry national security is in the constitution and therfor  the law of the land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When you invoked a war on so - called _"illegal aliens_,"  you negated your own argument over National Security.  You're either addressing a legal problem *OR* a military concern.  You have not cited any specific section of the Constitution.
> 
> The Constitution cannot be used as a tool to deny Americans the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...



what americans are denied equal protection???


----------



## Porter Rockwell

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid?  The whole argument of the wallists is that the foreigners are_ "illegal aliens."  _True or false?  Anybody?  So, if it is a legal matter, it is a STATE matter.
> 
> Is the current situation a matter of "_National Security_?"  The affected states have governors that say NO.  So, what is the legal recourse, boys and girls?  Anyone?  It works like this:
> 
> Go to Congress.  Convince a majority there that the National Emergency exists and declare war and / or have Congress give the president limited powers to act against any perceived "_National Emergency_."  Right now the matter is tied up in court while they haggle over whether or not Trump can take money from earmarked military funds and so forth to enforce his _"National Emergency_."  There it will stay in the courts and maybe up to the election.
> 
> Give up the "illegal" angle and lobby for a Declaration of War.  See how popular your message really resonates.  Hell, you might win for a change - and if you don't, you'll know who is really on your side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when they are carrying foreign flags and have been sent by people with hostile intentions to overload our system its a national security issue
> 
> the borders are a federal issue not a state one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep trying to have it both ways and I'm sorry to tell you, but it don't work that way.  Your side has done this song and dance since 2003.  Do you know what the definition of an idiot is?
> 
> They keep doing the same thing over and over the same way, hoping for a different result.  Get your head out of your ass.
> 
> America leads the way in drug users.  Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply.  For every one drug addict in a mental health facility, more than 10 are in prison.  More than HALF of the federal prison inmates are in on drug charges and America has more people in prison than any nation on this planet!  Children are prescribed drugs like Ritalin at a ration of 3 to 1 compared to places like the UK.  Half of the American people are dependent on the government for their paychecks.  Bottom line, their sorry asses aren't working.
> 
> Somebody's picking up the slack.  And what you're bitching about is the free market in action.  Quit doing the drugs and go to work. The foreigners will leave.  Walls, a National Emergency and 15 more years of dumb asses blaming the foreigners is *NOT* going to change your culture and YOU make it an attractive nuisance for those from south of the border by making it profitable for drug cartels and entry level laborers.
> 
> In what freaking language does this have to be explained to your dumb ass?  What you're accusing foreigners of is utter bullshit.  You know it; I know it; and so does the majority of the citizenry... with those numbers climbing every day.  If you don't change strategies and quit this nonsensical horseshit that has consistently failed for over a decade and a half, you will lose this country within the next two election cycles.
> 
> While the borders are a federal issue, if there is no emergency, there is no emergency.  Trump is not God dumbass.  He's a man.  Whoop dee fucking doo.  He declared an emergency he has no money to back it up with.  I doubt he'll get it from Congress without a *MAJOR* concession.  Nobody agrees with the lie that a National Emergency exists.   So, which of *YOUR* Rights will you trade for a silly wall that comes down when the next Democrat becomes president?  So, really, do you have an "_illegal alien_" problem or a National Security issue?  If you were a doctor and a guy comes in saying he needs surgery on his foot, would you give him an operation for hemorrhoids?  *THAT* is an analogy of your silliness.
> 
> You want the illusion of a win; I'll settle for nothing less than a permanent solution no matter what party is in charge.  You can't get that done with that half ass nonsensical crap you spew continually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I quit reading after you said my side,,,I dont have a side other than the rule of law and the constitution
> 
> 
> its you baby killing thieving backstabbing fucking democrats and republicans that have sides
> 
> and until we get rid of you guys the world is fucked,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I support your right to ignore your education.  You are a pathological liar due to your ignorance.
> 
> If the Rule of Law is applied, what you're doing is highly highly illegal.  If you aren't going to read it, no point in explaining it to you.  The actions you advocate come from a side and it's not about any Rule of Law.  That is a lie.
> 
> I held public meetings twice a month for decades.  I'm going to tell you something right now:  face to face there was never a swinging soul that would call me a democrat to my face and if I started those meetings again, it would remain that way.  You can bet your ass and the family farm, I'm no democrat; you're NOT following any Rule of Law and the strategy you've chosen has been a clusterphuck for over a decade and a half.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and if youre going to label me a republican because I agree with this one issue then that makes you a democrat for agreeing with them,,,
Click to expand...


I am calling all those who try to sell us the National Socialist arguments what they are.  No Rule of Law protects your position; the Constitution does not protect your position; most of what people like you advocate violates the Constitution both in spirit AND intent.


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> when they are carrying foreign flags and have been sent by people with hostile intentions to overload our system its a national security issue
> 
> the borders are a federal issue not a state one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep trying to have it both ways and I'm sorry to tell you, but it don't work that way.  Your side has done this song and dance since 2003.  Do you know what the definition of an idiot is?
> 
> They keep doing the same thing over and over the same way, hoping for a different result.  Get your head out of your ass.
> 
> America leads the way in drug users.  Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply.  For every one drug addict in a mental health facility, more than 10 are in prison.  More than HALF of the federal prison inmates are in on drug charges and America has more people in prison than any nation on this planet!  Children are prescribed drugs like Ritalin at a ration of 3 to 1 compared to places like the UK.  Half of the American people are dependent on the government for their paychecks.  Bottom line, their sorry asses aren't working.
> 
> Somebody's picking up the slack.  And what you're bitching about is the free market in action.  Quit doing the drugs and go to work. The foreigners will leave.  Walls, a National Emergency and 15 more years of dumb asses blaming the foreigners is *NOT* going to change your culture and YOU make it an attractive nuisance for those from south of the border by making it profitable for drug cartels and entry level laborers.
> 
> In what freaking language does this have to be explained to your dumb ass?  What you're accusing foreigners of is utter bullshit.  You know it; I know it; and so does the majority of the citizenry... with those numbers climbing every day.  If you don't change strategies and quit this nonsensical horseshit that has consistently failed for over a decade and a half, you will lose this country within the next two election cycles.
> 
> While the borders are a federal issue, if there is no emergency, there is no emergency.  Trump is not God dumbass.  He's a man.  Whoop dee fucking doo.  He declared an emergency he has no money to back it up with.  I doubt he'll get it from Congress without a *MAJOR* concession.  Nobody agrees with the lie that a National Emergency exists.   So, which of *YOUR* Rights will you trade for a silly wall that comes down when the next Democrat becomes president?  So, really, do you have an "_illegal alien_" problem or a National Security issue?  If you were a doctor and a guy comes in saying he needs surgery on his foot, would you give him an operation for hemorrhoids?  *THAT* is an analogy of your silliness.
> 
> You want the illusion of a win; I'll settle for nothing less than a permanent solution no matter what party is in charge.  You can't get that done with that half ass nonsensical crap you spew continually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I quit reading after you said my side,,,I dont have a side other than the rule of law and the constitution
> 
> 
> its you baby killing thieving backstabbing fucking democrats and republicans that have sides
> 
> and until we get rid of you guys the world is fucked,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I support your right to ignore your education.  You are a pathological liar due to your ignorance.
> 
> If the Rule of Law is applied, what you're doing is highly highly illegal.  If you aren't going to read it, no point in explaining it to you.  The actions you advocate come from a side and it's not about any Rule of Law.  That is a lie.
> 
> I held public meetings twice a month for decades.  I'm going to tell you something right now:  face to face there was never a swinging soul that would call me a democrat to my face and if I started those meetings again, it would remain that way.  You can bet your ass and the family farm, I'm no democrat; you're NOT following any Rule of Law and the strategy you've chosen has been a clusterphuck for over a decade and a half.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> sorry national security is in the constitution and therfor  the law of the land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When you invoked a war on so - called _"illegal aliens_,"  you negated your own argument over National Security.  You're either addressing a legal problem *OR* a military concern.  You have not cited any specific section of the Constitution.
> 
> The Constitution cannot be used as a tool to deny Americans the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...



Guides: National Security Law Research Guide: Constitutional Provisions


----------



## Porter Rockwell

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF militarizing the border worked, would you support that?
> 
> 
> 
> sure, if we had an express wall building and immigration clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am embarrassed for the right wing.  I don't vote for Democrats.  Yet the wallists here have to hear you repeat the same thing over and over.  WTF?  Are they *really *that stupid?
> 
> The minute the wallists made this an issue of domestic legality (i.e. calling people "_illegal aliens_") it took the issue from being a military concern to a domestic legal issue where the feds have *NO* jurisdiction.  What in the Hell do they not understand about the Rule of Law, separation of powers, the unconstitutionality of using the military to enforce domestic policies, and the Tenth Amendment???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they have nothing but fallacy not any valid rebuttals; what do you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cannot stress it enough that their strategies have failed them now for over a decade and a half.  But, they've decided that if I choose not to be a victim of a political event that ends like the Titanic, something is wrong with me.
> 
> The real left is laughing at these clowns because they are caving in to One World Government on the installment plan.  We've one thousands of posts on this and there is a glaring fallacy Correll makes:
> 
> He continues to say that I'm like the left, doing the guilt by association thing.  *That would be a fallacy* - and that's all he's got.  Guilt by association would be to call a man a Ku Kluxer because he knows and does business with Kluxers.  It is not until that man adopts their talking points and strategies that he becomes one them ... REGARDLESS of whether he puts on a robe or not.  Correll and his ilk have adopted the rhetoric, talking points for debate, and strategies of the National Socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so you cant refute his claim so go with a personal attack,,,
> 
> GOT IT,,,
Click to expand...


In the last three threads that Correll and I have engaged in, I have *FACTUALLY refuted your bullshit *more than 25 times.  As you stated, you _"quit reading after..."_


----------



## danielpalos

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really that stupid?  The whole argument of the wallists is that the foreigners are_ "illegal aliens."  _True or false?  Anybody?  So, if it is a legal matter, it is a STATE matter.
> 
> Is the current situation a matter of "_National Security_?"  The affected states have governors that say NO.  So, what is the legal recourse, boys and girls?  Anyone?  It works like this:
> 
> Go to Congress.  Convince a majority there that the National Emergency exists and declare war and / or have Congress give the president limited powers to act against any perceived "_National Emergency_."  Right now the matter is tied up in court while they haggle over whether or not Trump can take money from earmarked military funds and so forth to enforce his _"National Emergency_."  There it will stay in the courts and maybe up to the election.
> 
> Give up the "illegal" angle and lobby for a Declaration of War.  See how popular your message really resonates.  Hell, you might win for a change - and if you don't, you'll know who is really on your side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when they are carrying foreign flags and have been sent by people with hostile intentions to overload our system its a national security issue
> 
> the borders are a federal issue not a state one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep trying to have it both ways and I'm sorry to tell you, but it don't work that way.  Your side has done this song and dance since 2003.  Do you know what the definition of an idiot is?
> 
> They keep doing the same thing over and over the same way, hoping for a different result.  Get your head out of your ass.
> 
> America leads the way in drug users.  Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply.  For every one drug addict in a mental health facility, more than 10 are in prison.  More than HALF of the federal prison inmates are in on drug charges and America has more people in prison than any nation on this planet!  Children are prescribed drugs like Ritalin at a ration of 3 to 1 compared to places like the UK.  Half of the American people are dependent on the government for their paychecks.  Bottom line, their sorry asses aren't working.
> 
> Somebody's picking up the slack.  And what you're bitching about is the free market in action.  Quit doing the drugs and go to work. The foreigners will leave.  Walls, a National Emergency and 15 more years of dumb asses blaming the foreigners is *NOT* going to change your culture and YOU make it an attractive nuisance for those from south of the border by making it profitable for drug cartels and entry level laborers.
> 
> In what freaking language does this have to be explained to your dumb ass?  What you're accusing foreigners of is utter bullshit.  You know it; I know it; and so does the majority of the citizenry... with those numbers climbing every day.  If you don't change strategies and quit this nonsensical horseshit that has consistently failed for over a decade and a half, you will lose this country within the next two election cycles.
> 
> While the borders are a federal issue, if there is no emergency, there is no emergency.  Trump is not God dumbass.  He's a man.  Whoop dee fucking doo.  He declared an emergency he has no money to back it up with.  I doubt he'll get it from Congress without a *MAJOR* concession.  Nobody agrees with the lie that a National Emergency exists.   So, which of *YOUR* Rights will you trade for a silly wall that comes down when the next Democrat becomes president?  So, really, do you have an "_illegal alien_" problem or a National Security issue?  If you were a doctor and a guy comes in saying he needs surgery on his foot, would you give him an operation for hemorrhoids?  *THAT* is an analogy of your silliness.
> 
> You want the illusion of a win; I'll settle for nothing less than a permanent solution no matter what party is in charge.  You can't get that done with that half ass nonsensical crap you spew continually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I quit reading after you said my side,,,I dont have a side other than the rule of law and the constitution
> 
> 
> its you baby killing thieving backstabbing fucking democrats and republicans that have sides
> 
> and until we get rid of you guys the world is fucked,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I support your right to ignore your education.  You are a pathological liar due to your ignorance.
> 
> If the Rule of Law is applied, what you're doing is highly highly illegal.  If you aren't going to read it, no point in explaining it to you.  The actions you advocate come from a side and it's not about any Rule of Law.  That is a lie.
> 
> I held public meetings twice a month for decades.  I'm going to tell you something right now:  face to face there was never a swinging soul that would call me a democrat to my face and if I started those meetings again, it would remain that way.  You can bet your ass and the family farm, I'm no democrat; you're NOT following any Rule of Law and the strategy you've chosen has been a clusterphuck for over a decade and a half.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> sorry national security is in the constitution and therfor  the law of the land
Click to expand...

we have a Common Defense clause not a General Defense clause.


----------



## danielpalos

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep trying to have it both ways and I'm sorry to tell you, but it don't work that way.  Your side has done this song and dance since 2003.  Do you know what the definition of an idiot is?
> 
> They keep doing the same thing over and over the same way, hoping for a different result.  Get your head out of your ass.
> 
> America leads the way in drug users.  Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply.  For every one drug addict in a mental health facility, more than 10 are in prison.  More than HALF of the federal prison inmates are in on drug charges and America has more people in prison than any nation on this planet!  Children are prescribed drugs like Ritalin at a ration of 3 to 1 compared to places like the UK.  Half of the American people are dependent on the government for their paychecks.  Bottom line, their sorry asses aren't working.
> 
> Somebody's picking up the slack.  And what you're bitching about is the free market in action.  Quit doing the drugs and go to work. The foreigners will leave.  Walls, a National Emergency and 15 more years of dumb asses blaming the foreigners is *NOT* going to change your culture and YOU make it an attractive nuisance for those from south of the border by making it profitable for drug cartels and entry level laborers.
> 
> In what freaking language does this have to be explained to your dumb ass?  What you're accusing foreigners of is utter bullshit.  You know it; I know it; and so does the majority of the citizenry... with those numbers climbing every day.  If you don't change strategies and quit this nonsensical horseshit that has consistently failed for over a decade and a half, you will lose this country within the next two election cycles.
> 
> While the borders are a federal issue, if there is no emergency, there is no emergency.  Trump is not God dumbass.  He's a man.  Whoop dee fucking doo.  He declared an emergency he has no money to back it up with.  I doubt he'll get it from Congress without a *MAJOR* concession.  Nobody agrees with the lie that a National Emergency exists.   So, which of *YOUR* Rights will you trade for a silly wall that comes down when the next Democrat becomes president?  So, really, do you have an "_illegal alien_" problem or a National Security issue?  If you were a doctor and a guy comes in saying he needs surgery on his foot, would you give him an operation for hemorrhoids?  *THAT* is an analogy of your silliness.
> 
> You want the illusion of a win; I'll settle for nothing less than a permanent solution no matter what party is in charge.  You can't get that done with that half ass nonsensical crap you spew continually.
> 
> 
> 
> I quit reading after you said my side,,,I dont have a side other than the rule of law and the constitution
> 
> 
> its you baby killing thieving backstabbing fucking democrats and republicans that have sides
> 
> and until we get rid of you guys the world is fucked,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I support your right to ignore your education.  You are a pathological liar due to your ignorance.
> 
> If the Rule of Law is applied, what you're doing is highly highly illegal.  If you aren't going to read it, no point in explaining it to you.  The actions you advocate come from a side and it's not about any Rule of Law.  That is a lie.
> 
> I held public meetings twice a month for decades.  I'm going to tell you something right now:  face to face there was never a swinging soul that would call me a democrat to my face and if I started those meetings again, it would remain that way.  You can bet your ass and the family farm, I'm no democrat; you're NOT following any Rule of Law and the strategy you've chosen has been a clusterphuck for over a decade and a half.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> sorry national security is in the constitution and therfor  the law of the land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When you invoked a war on so - called _"illegal aliens_,"  you negated your own argument over National Security.  You're either addressing a legal problem *OR* a military concern.  You have not cited any specific section of the Constitution.
> 
> The Constitution cannot be used as a tool to deny Americans the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Guides: National Security Law Research Guide: Constitutional Provisions
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment is express not implied under the common law for the common defense.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep trying to have it both ways and I'm sorry to tell you, but it don't work that way.  Your side has done this song and dance since 2003.  Do you know what the definition of an idiot is?
> 
> They keep doing the same thing over and over the same way, hoping for a different result.  Get your head out of your ass.
> 
> America leads the way in drug users.  Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply.  For every one drug addict in a mental health facility, more than 10 are in prison.  More than HALF of the federal prison inmates are in on drug charges and America has more people in prison than any nation on this planet!  Children are prescribed drugs like Ritalin at a ration of 3 to 1 compared to places like the UK.  Half of the American people are dependent on the government for their paychecks.  Bottom line, their sorry asses aren't working.
> 
> Somebody's picking up the slack.  And what you're bitching about is the free market in action.  Quit doing the drugs and go to work. The foreigners will leave.  Walls, a National Emergency and 15 more years of dumb asses blaming the foreigners is *NOT* going to change your culture and YOU make it an attractive nuisance for those from south of the border by making it profitable for drug cartels and entry level laborers.
> 
> In what freaking language does this have to be explained to your dumb ass?  What you're accusing foreigners of is utter bullshit.  You know it; I know it; and so does the majority of the citizenry... with those numbers climbing every day.  If you don't change strategies and quit this nonsensical horseshit that has consistently failed for over a decade and a half, you will lose this country within the next two election cycles.
> 
> While the borders are a federal issue, if there is no emergency, there is no emergency.  Trump is not God dumbass.  He's a man.  Whoop dee fucking doo.  He declared an emergency he has no money to back it up with.  I doubt he'll get it from Congress without a *MAJOR* concession.  Nobody agrees with the lie that a National Emergency exists.   So, which of *YOUR* Rights will you trade for a silly wall that comes down when the next Democrat becomes president?  So, really, do you have an "_illegal alien_" problem or a National Security issue?  If you were a doctor and a guy comes in saying he needs surgery on his foot, would you give him an operation for hemorrhoids?  *THAT* is an analogy of your silliness.
> 
> You want the illusion of a win; I'll settle for nothing less than a permanent solution no matter what party is in charge.  You can't get that done with that half ass nonsensical crap you spew continually.
> 
> 
> 
> I quit reading after you said my side,,,I dont have a side other than the rule of law and the constitution
> 
> 
> its you baby killing thieving backstabbing fucking democrats and republicans that have sides
> 
> and until we get rid of you guys the world is fucked,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I support your right to ignore your education.  You are a pathological liar due to your ignorance.
> 
> If the Rule of Law is applied, what you're doing is highly highly illegal.  If you aren't going to read it, no point in explaining it to you.  The actions you advocate come from a side and it's not about any Rule of Law.  That is a lie.
> 
> I held public meetings twice a month for decades.  I'm going to tell you something right now:  face to face there was never a swinging soul that would call me a democrat to my face and if I started those meetings again, it would remain that way.  You can bet your ass and the family farm, I'm no democrat; you're NOT following any Rule of Law and the strategy you've chosen has been a clusterphuck for over a decade and a half.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> sorry national security is in the constitution and therfor  the law of the land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When you invoked a war on so - called _"illegal aliens_,"  you negated your own argument over National Security.  You're either addressing a legal problem *OR* a military concern.  You have not cited any specific section of the Constitution.
> 
> The Constitution cannot be used as a tool to deny Americans the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what americans are denied equal protection???
Click to expand...



Let us presuppose that this doesn't go over your head.

In America, the employer owns the job he / she creates.  Private property ownership is a defining hallmark of our constitutional Republic.

So some employers are able to hire foreigners to do jobs while others are not.  One employer has access to low cost, foreign labor and others are tossed into jail and / or fined.  Now, personally, I know that the 14th Amendment was unconstitutionally ratified, but it is the law.

The 14th Amendment guarantees to* EVERY PERSON *(as differentiated from citizens) the "_equal protection of the laws_."  Neither the employer or the employer is protected when some foreigners can work a job while others can't.  And it is the wallists who want the "_law enforced_."  - a law passed by DEMOCRATS!!!!!!!!

When the blacks thought they were entitled to the jobs, I got my first fifteen minutes of fame as a teen when the cameras and reporters honed in on me for protesting affirmative action, racial quotas, preferential hiring schemes, etc.  I said then that the employer owns the job; the employer is best suited to know who is the best candidate for that job.  Back then they called me a nazi, racist, bigot, hate monger, etc., etc.  The irony is my views have not changed since that happened back in about 1974.

There is a big difference between you and I.  I realize that if we chunked the bullshit laws the wallists got passed, did not give employers access to old and irrelevant records of individuals; if we *rehabilitated* those individuals who got locked out of society; if employers could hire who they wanted to hire then companies would spring up and hire everyone *EXCEPT* the third world.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep trying to have it both ways and I'm sorry to tell you, but it don't work that way.  Your side has done this song and dance since 2003.  Do you know what the definition of an idiot is?
> 
> They keep doing the same thing over and over the same way, hoping for a different result.  Get your head out of your ass.
> 
> America leads the way in drug users.  Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply.  For every one drug addict in a mental health facility, more than 10 are in prison.  More than HALF of the federal prison inmates are in on drug charges and America has more people in prison than any nation on this planet!  Children are prescribed drugs like Ritalin at a ration of 3 to 1 compared to places like the UK.  Half of the American people are dependent on the government for their paychecks.  Bottom line, their sorry asses aren't working.
> 
> Somebody's picking up the slack.  And what you're bitching about is the free market in action.  Quit doing the drugs and go to work. The foreigners will leave.  Walls, a National Emergency and 15 more years of dumb asses blaming the foreigners is *NOT* going to change your culture and YOU make it an attractive nuisance for those from south of the border by making it profitable for drug cartels and entry level laborers.
> 
> In what freaking language does this have to be explained to your dumb ass?  What you're accusing foreigners of is utter bullshit.  You know it; I know it; and so does the majority of the citizenry... with those numbers climbing every day.  If you don't change strategies and quit this nonsensical horseshit that has consistently failed for over a decade and a half, you will lose this country within the next two election cycles.
> 
> While the borders are a federal issue, if there is no emergency, there is no emergency.  Trump is not God dumbass.  He's a man.  Whoop dee fucking doo.  He declared an emergency he has no money to back it up with.  I doubt he'll get it from Congress without a *MAJOR* concession.  Nobody agrees with the lie that a National Emergency exists.   So, which of *YOUR* Rights will you trade for a silly wall that comes down when the next Democrat becomes president?  So, really, do you have an "_illegal alien_" problem or a National Security issue?  If you were a doctor and a guy comes in saying he needs surgery on his foot, would you give him an operation for hemorrhoids?  *THAT* is an analogy of your silliness.
> 
> You want the illusion of a win; I'll settle for nothing less than a permanent solution no matter what party is in charge.  You can't get that done with that half ass nonsensical crap you spew continually.
> 
> 
> 
> I quit reading after you said my side,,,I dont have a side other than the rule of law and the constitution
> 
> 
> its you baby killing thieving backstabbing fucking democrats and republicans that have sides
> 
> and until we get rid of you guys the world is fucked,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I support your right to ignore your education.  You are a pathological liar due to your ignorance.
> 
> If the Rule of Law is applied, what you're doing is highly highly illegal.  If you aren't going to read it, no point in explaining it to you.  The actions you advocate come from a side and it's not about any Rule of Law.  That is a lie.
> 
> I held public meetings twice a month for decades.  I'm going to tell you something right now:  face to face there was never a swinging soul that would call me a democrat to my face and if I started those meetings again, it would remain that way.  You can bet your ass and the family farm, I'm no democrat; you're NOT following any Rule of Law and the strategy you've chosen has been a clusterphuck for over a decade and a half.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> sorry national security is in the constitution and therfor  the law of the land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When you invoked a war on so - called _"illegal aliens_,"  you negated your own argument over National Security.  You're either addressing a legal problem *OR* a military concern.  You have not cited any specific section of the Constitution.
> 
> The Constitution cannot be used as a tool to deny Americans the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Guides: National Security Law Research Guide: Constitutional Provisions
Click to expand...


That is all irrelevant.  If you go to court or to your legislators and tell them I am a thief and you want me picked up for stealing, the system cannot pursue me for sabotage.  Tell me son, are you fucking with me or are you REALLY that dense?


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went "on and on" because I responded to each point you actually made. Indeed, I only gave an one or two word response, very concise. It seems that part of your style is to want to be able to pepper your long rambling posts with points that you want to pass unchallenged.
> 
> 
> Denied.
> 
> We were only talking about rally size to point out how absurd it is, for you to give Credit to the White Supremacists for Trumps rise.
> 
> You keep trying to twist this into something it never was.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I am certainly calling you out on a lot of stuff.
> 
> 
> I have no faith in our government. I have hopes that they might do their job(s) someday.
> 
> 
> With all due respect to your history of political activism, all of that is just you attacking the source, something someone does, when they can't made their case, based on it's actual merits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More irrelevant garbage.
> 
> 
> You want to leave the border open, and let the illegals in. That is surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar, an idiot and a deceiver.  You have your nose stuck so far up Trumps ass, the only time you get a breath of fresh air is if Trump farts.
> 
> No, I do not want a militarized border that costs more in terms of Liberty than it pays in return.  If your worthless, lazy white ass were working a job or at least using some of your time to help others, Americans would take the jobs and they wouldn't be available for the foreigners.
> 
> If you got out of your mother's basement, quit sucking dope and snorting shit up your nose while you get off on* pretending to be something your ARE NOT and doing things YOU CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY HAVEN'T DONE*, you might be able to set an example so that we can reclaim our Rights and Liberties.  That and that alone will insure that you don't have an "_illegal_" problem.  A wall ups the ante, it don't stop people from coming.
> 
> Your dumb ass can't fathom that there is no such thing as an illegal (sic) problem.  There is too much government; there are too many worthless pieces of shit like you running around complaining about not having a job while you're too fucking lazy to look for one... and if you weren't on drugs, the drug cartels wouldn't exist.
> 
> Without drug cartels, the people from south of the border would learn how to grow food and get into industry.  They don't stop coming over a wall and any idiot who thinks so is out of touch with reality.  You are a danger to Freedom and Liberty.
> 
> Accusing me of being for some kind of surrender is pure bullshit - the kind of stuff you hear from Keyboard Commandos who have never been IN the real fight.  You talk shit because you're a coward and you've proven it.  If you think I'm about surrender, you might want to explain why it is *YOU* with your nose up the government's ass, looking for a solution when it's people like* YOU* that created the problem and only when you walk the walk will you ever be able to have earned the Right to criticize me.  The reason you don't know me is because you have never been *IN *the fight.  You aren't going to get there taunting me and cowering behind your keyboard like the scared piece of shit you really are.  You get in the mix of things and see how involved I am, then preach your false doctrine to the lazy fucks like you.  Until then you are so full of yourself you lost your last ounce of credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF militarizing the border worked, would you support that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, I do not support a militarized border and you can lie all the Hell you want, but the trade-off in terms of Freedoms and Liberties makes that trade one that our forefathers found to be reprehensible.
> 
> "_He who would give up Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserves neither Liberty NOR safety_"  Benjamin Franklin
> 
> You want a popularity contest?  Let me tell you a *FACT*, son.  Ever since the people voted to worship the Golden calf when Moses went up to Mount Sinai, it has been shown that the masses are proven wrong.  So, in the time of Moses it was a Golden Calf and today it is a fat ass white boy that inherited a lot of his daddy's money.  You're still wrong.
> 
> Until you curb Americans insatiable appetite for drugs (our country represents the world's most prolific amount of drug users) a militarized border simply will not work.  It will corrupt the government even further and give a lot of U.S. servicemen and women a reason to commit criminal acts.  That is not counting the number of Liberties lost in the peripheral legislation that will be enforced making us a POLICE STATE.  *SO HELL NO BECAUSE NO WALL OR MILITARIZED BORDER CAN SAVE YOU FROM YOURSELF!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Mexicans were given a couple thousand of russian tanks and were planning to invade Texas, would you support allowing US military forces to set up defensive positions on American soil to repeal the attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be an appropriate use of the military.
> .....
Click to expand...




So, the idea of using the military to protect the border is ok, if the threat is real. 


But millions and millions oof invaders, even without tanks, is a real national security threat.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure, if we had an express wall building and immigration clause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am embarrassed for the right wing.  I don't vote for Democrats.  Yet the wallists here have to hear you repeat the same thing over and over.  WTF?  Are they *really *that stupid?
> 
> The minute the wallists made this an issue of domestic legality (i.e. calling people "_illegal aliens_") it took the issue from being a military concern to a domestic legal issue where the feds have *NO* jurisdiction.  What in the Hell do they not understand about the Rule of Law, separation of powers, the unconstitutionality of using the military to enforce domestic policies, and the Tenth Amendment???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they have nothing but fallacy not any valid rebuttals; what do you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cannot stress it enough that their strategies have failed them now for over a decade and a half.  But, they've decided that if I choose not to be a victim of a political event that ends like the Titanic, something is wrong with me.
> 
> The real left is laughing at these clowns because they are caving in to One World Government on the installment plan.  We've one thousands of posts on this and there is a glaring fallacy Correll makes:
> 
> He continues to say that I'm like the left, doing the guilt by association thing.  *That would be a fallacy* - and that's all he's got.  Guilt by association would be to call a man a Ku Kluxer because he knows and does business with Kluxers.  It is not until that man adopts their talking points and strategies that he becomes one them ... REGARDLESS of whether he puts on a robe or not.  Correll and his ilk have adopted the rhetoric, talking points for debate, and strategies of the National Socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so you cant refute his claim so go with a personal attack,,,
> 
> GOT IT,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the last three threads that Correll and I have engaged in, I have *FACTUALLY refuted your bullshit *more than 25 times.  As you stated, you _"quit reading after..."_
Click to expand...




Not reading the mostly irrelevant walls of text you like, is completely reasonable.


And I note, you did quite well in that post, making a point in under 500 words.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar, an idiot and a deceiver.  You have your nose stuck so far up Trumps ass, the only time you get a breath of fresh air is if Trump farts.
> 
> No, I do not want a militarized border that costs more in terms of Liberty than it pays in return.  If your worthless, lazy white ass were working a job or at least using some of your time to help others, Americans would take the jobs and they wouldn't be available for the foreigners.
> 
> If you got out of your mother's basement, quit sucking dope and snorting shit up your nose while you get off on* pretending to be something your ARE NOT and doing things YOU CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY HAVEN'T DONE*, you might be able to set an example so that we can reclaim our Rights and Liberties.  That and that alone will insure that you don't have an "_illegal_" problem.  A wall ups the ante, it don't stop people from coming.
> 
> Your dumb ass can't fathom that there is no such thing as an illegal (sic) problem.  There is too much government; there are too many worthless pieces of shit like you running around complaining about not having a job while you're too fucking lazy to look for one... and if you weren't on drugs, the drug cartels wouldn't exist.
> 
> Without drug cartels, the people from south of the border would learn how to grow food and get into industry.  They don't stop coming over a wall and any idiot who thinks so is out of touch with reality.  You are a danger to Freedom and Liberty.
> 
> Accusing me of being for some kind of surrender is pure bullshit - the kind of stuff you hear from Keyboard Commandos who have never been IN the real fight.  You talk shit because you're a coward and you've proven it.  If you think I'm about surrender, you might want to explain why it is *YOU* with your nose up the government's ass, looking for a solution when it's people like* YOU* that created the problem and only when you walk the walk will you ever be able to have earned the Right to criticize me.  The reason you don't know me is because you have never been *IN *the fight.  You aren't going to get there taunting me and cowering behind your keyboard like the scared piece of shit you really are.  You get in the mix of things and see how involved I am, then preach your false doctrine to the lazy fucks like you.  Until then you are so full of yourself you lost your last ounce of credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF militarizing the border worked, would you support that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, I do not support a militarized border and you can lie all the Hell you want, but the trade-off in terms of Freedoms and Liberties makes that trade one that our forefathers found to be reprehensible.
> 
> "_He who would give up Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserves neither Liberty NOR safety_"  Benjamin Franklin
> 
> You want a popularity contest?  Let me tell you a *FACT*, son.  Ever since the people voted to worship the Golden calf when Moses went up to Mount Sinai, it has been shown that the masses are proven wrong.  So, in the time of Moses it was a Golden Calf and today it is a fat ass white boy that inherited a lot of his daddy's money.  You're still wrong.
> 
> Until you curb Americans insatiable appetite for drugs (our country represents the world's most prolific amount of drug users) a militarized border simply will not work.  It will corrupt the government even further and give a lot of U.S. servicemen and women a reason to commit criminal acts.  That is not counting the number of Liberties lost in the peripheral legislation that will be enforced making us a POLICE STATE.  *SO HELL NO BECAUSE NO WALL OR MILITARIZED BORDER CAN SAVE YOU FROM YOURSELF!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Mexicans were given a couple thousand of russian tanks and were planning to invade Texas, would you support allowing US military forces to set up defensive positions on American soil to repeal the attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be an appropriate use of the military.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the idea of using the military to protect the border is ok, if the threat is real.
> 
> 
> But millions and millions oof invaders, even without tanks, is a real national security threat.
Click to expand...

The common defense would be civil defense in this case and upgrading Ellis Island to ameliorate this humanitarian issue.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF militarizing the border worked, would you support that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, I do not support a militarized border and you can lie all the Hell you want, but the trade-off in terms of Freedoms and Liberties makes that trade one that our forefathers found to be reprehensible.
> 
> "_He who would give up Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserves neither Liberty NOR safety_"  Benjamin Franklin
> 
> You want a popularity contest?  Let me tell you a *FACT*, son.  Ever since the people voted to worship the Golden calf when Moses went up to Mount Sinai, it has been shown that the masses are proven wrong.  So, in the time of Moses it was a Golden Calf and today it is a fat ass white boy that inherited a lot of his daddy's money.  You're still wrong.
> 
> Until you curb Americans insatiable appetite for drugs (our country represents the world's most prolific amount of drug users) a militarized border simply will not work.  It will corrupt the government even further and give a lot of U.S. servicemen and women a reason to commit criminal acts.  That is not counting the number of Liberties lost in the peripheral legislation that will be enforced making us a POLICE STATE.  *SO HELL NO BECAUSE NO WALL OR MILITARIZED BORDER CAN SAVE YOU FROM YOURSELF!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Mexicans were given a couple thousand of russian tanks and were planning to invade Texas, would you support allowing US military forces to set up defensive positions on American soil to repeal the attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be an appropriate use of the military.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the idea of using the military to protect the border is ok, if the threat is real.
> 
> 
> But millions and millions oof invaders, even without tanks, is a real national security threat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The common defense would be civil defense in this case and upgrading Ellis Island to ameliorate this humanitarian issue.
Click to expand...



Build a nice wall, to deter people from walking into the desert with small children. 


That is the humanitarian answer. 


But that is not really your concern. You want to turn America into a Third World Shithole, like  your home.


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I quit reading after you said my side,,,I dont have a side other than the rule of law and the constitution
> 
> 
> its you baby killing thieving backstabbing fucking democrats and republicans that have sides
> 
> and until we get rid of you guys the world is fucked,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I support your right to ignore your education.  You are a pathological liar due to your ignorance.
> 
> If the Rule of Law is applied, what you're doing is highly highly illegal.  If you aren't going to read it, no point in explaining it to you.  The actions you advocate come from a side and it's not about any Rule of Law.  That is a lie.
> 
> I held public meetings twice a month for decades.  I'm going to tell you something right now:  face to face there was never a swinging soul that would call me a democrat to my face and if I started those meetings again, it would remain that way.  You can bet your ass and the family farm, I'm no democrat; you're NOT following any Rule of Law and the strategy you've chosen has been a clusterphuck for over a decade and a half.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> sorry national security is in the constitution and therfor  the law of the land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When you invoked a war on so - called _"illegal aliens_,"  you negated your own argument over National Security.  You're either addressing a legal problem *OR* a military concern.  You have not cited any specific section of the Constitution.
> 
> The Constitution cannot be used as a tool to deny Americans the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Guides: National Security Law Research Guide: Constitutional Provisions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is all irrelevant.  If you go to court or to your legislators and tell them I am a thief and you want me picked up for stealing, the system cannot pursue me for sabotage.  Tell me son, are you fucking with me or are you REALLY that dense?
Click to expand...



why would they chase you for sabotage if I accused you of stealing???

that makes no sense,,,

and neither the courts or the legislator does that anyway,,,


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar, an idiot and a deceiver.  You have your nose stuck so far up Trumps ass, the only time you get a breath of fresh air is if Trump farts.
> 
> No, I do not want a militarized border that costs more in terms of Liberty than it pays in return.  If your worthless, lazy white ass were working a job or at least using some of your time to help others, Americans would take the jobs and they wouldn't be available for the foreigners.
> 
> If you got out of your mother's basement, quit sucking dope and snorting shit up your nose while you get off on* pretending to be something your ARE NOT and doing things YOU CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY HAVEN'T DONE*, you might be able to set an example so that we can reclaim our Rights and Liberties.  That and that alone will insure that you don't have an "_illegal_" problem.  A wall ups the ante, it don't stop people from coming.
> 
> Your dumb ass can't fathom that there is no such thing as an illegal (sic) problem.  There is too much government; there are too many worthless pieces of shit like you running around complaining about not having a job while you're too fucking lazy to look for one... and if you weren't on drugs, the drug cartels wouldn't exist.
> 
> Without drug cartels, the people from south of the border would learn how to grow food and get into industry.  They don't stop coming over a wall and any idiot who thinks so is out of touch with reality.  You are a danger to Freedom and Liberty.
> 
> Accusing me of being for some kind of surrender is pure bullshit - the kind of stuff you hear from Keyboard Commandos who have never been IN the real fight.  You talk shit because you're a coward and you've proven it.  If you think I'm about surrender, you might want to explain why it is *YOU* with your nose up the government's ass, looking for a solution when it's people like* YOU* that created the problem and only when you walk the walk will you ever be able to have earned the Right to criticize me.  The reason you don't know me is because you have never been *IN *the fight.  You aren't going to get there taunting me and cowering behind your keyboard like the scared piece of shit you really are.  You get in the mix of things and see how involved I am, then preach your false doctrine to the lazy fucks like you.  Until then you are so full of yourself you lost your last ounce of credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF militarizing the border worked, would you support that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, I do not support a militarized border and you can lie all the Hell you want, but the trade-off in terms of Freedoms and Liberties makes that trade one that our forefathers found to be reprehensible.
> 
> "_He who would give up Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserves neither Liberty NOR safety_"  Benjamin Franklin
> 
> You want a popularity contest?  Let me tell you a *FACT*, son.  Ever since the people voted to worship the Golden calf when Moses went up to Mount Sinai, it has been shown that the masses are proven wrong.  So, in the time of Moses it was a Golden Calf and today it is a fat ass white boy that inherited a lot of his daddy's money.  You're still wrong.
> 
> Until you curb Americans insatiable appetite for drugs (our country represents the world's most prolific amount of drug users) a militarized border simply will not work.  It will corrupt the government even further and give a lot of U.S. servicemen and women a reason to commit criminal acts.  That is not counting the number of Liberties lost in the peripheral legislation that will be enforced making us a POLICE STATE.  *SO HELL NO BECAUSE NO WALL OR MILITARIZED BORDER CAN SAVE YOU FROM YOURSELF!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Mexicans were given a couple thousand of russian tanks and were planning to invade Texas, would you support allowing US military forces to set up defensive positions on American soil to repeal the attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be an appropriate use of the military.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the idea of using the military to protect the border is ok, if the threat is real.
> 
> 
> But millions and millions oof invaders, even without tanks, is a real national security threat.
Click to expand...


You should back up and try again.  No tanks have rolled up on the borders despite numerous opportunities to so without any real opposition.  Do you have a point or is this another of your fishing expeditions?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am embarrassed for the right wing.  I don't vote for Democrats.  Yet the wallists here have to hear you repeat the same thing over and over.  WTF?  Are they *really *that stupid?
> 
> The minute the wallists made this an issue of domestic legality (i.e. calling people "_illegal aliens_") it took the issue from being a military concern to a domestic legal issue where the feds have *NO* jurisdiction.  What in the Hell do they not understand about the Rule of Law, separation of powers, the unconstitutionality of using the military to enforce domestic policies, and the Tenth Amendment???
> 
> 
> 
> they have nothing but fallacy not any valid rebuttals; what do you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cannot stress it enough that their strategies have failed them now for over a decade and a half.  But, they've decided that if I choose not to be a victim of a political event that ends like the Titanic, something is wrong with me.
> 
> The real left is laughing at these clowns because they are caving in to One World Government on the installment plan.  We've one thousands of posts on this and there is a glaring fallacy Correll makes:
> 
> He continues to say that I'm like the left, doing the guilt by association thing.  *That would be a fallacy* - and that's all he's got.  Guilt by association would be to call a man a Ku Kluxer because he knows and does business with Kluxers.  It is not until that man adopts their talking points and strategies that he becomes one them ... REGARDLESS of whether he puts on a robe or not.  Correll and his ilk have adopted the rhetoric, talking points for debate, and strategies of the National Socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so you cant refute his claim so go with a personal attack,,,
> 
> GOT IT,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the last three threads that Correll and I have engaged in, I have *FACTUALLY refuted your bullshit *more than 25 times.  As you stated, you _"quit reading after..."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not reading the mostly irrelevant walls of text you like, is completely reasonable.
> 
> 
> And I note, you did quite well in that post, making a point in under 500 words.
Click to expand...


That is your problem.  A couple of hundred words challenge your pea brain... which caused you to drop out of high school and be unable to read and respond to a few paragraphs that you think constitute a wall of text.  Your brains (if you had any) would pop out if you had to read a book.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO, I do not support a militarized border and you can lie all the Hell you want, but the trade-off in terms of Freedoms and Liberties makes that trade one that our forefathers found to be reprehensible.
> 
> "_He who would give up Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserves neither Liberty NOR safety_"  Benjamin Franklin
> 
> You want a popularity contest?  Let me tell you a *FACT*, son.  Ever since the people voted to worship the Golden calf when Moses went up to Mount Sinai, it has been shown that the masses are proven wrong.  So, in the time of Moses it was a Golden Calf and today it is a fat ass white boy that inherited a lot of his daddy's money.  You're still wrong.
> 
> Until you curb Americans insatiable appetite for drugs (our country represents the world's most prolific amount of drug users) a militarized border simply will not work.  It will corrupt the government even further and give a lot of U.S. servicemen and women a reason to commit criminal acts.  That is not counting the number of Liberties lost in the peripheral legislation that will be enforced making us a POLICE STATE.  *SO HELL NO BECAUSE NO WALL OR MILITARIZED BORDER CAN SAVE YOU FROM YOURSELF!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Mexicans were given a couple thousand of russian tanks and were planning to invade Texas, would you support allowing US military forces to set up defensive positions on American soil to repeal the attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be an appropriate use of the military.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the idea of using the military to protect the border is ok, if the threat is real.
> 
> 
> But millions and millions oof invaders, even without tanks, is a real national security threat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The common defense would be civil defense in this case and upgrading Ellis Island to ameliorate this humanitarian issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Build a nice wall, to deter people from walking into the desert with small children.
> 
> 
> That is the humanitarian answer.
> 
> 
> But that is not really your concern. You want to turn America into a Third World Shithole, like  your home.
Click to expand...


A wall will not deter anyone.  You're being played by politicians and your efforts to destroy American citizens ability to resist tyranny is worse that danielpalos trying to look for additional Democrat voters.

IF we enforce it, we have a Republic - as Franklin said, "i_f you can keep it._"  You keep advocating we forfeit those avenues of redress, those tools of Liberty (private property, the Right to Privacy, and the Right of free men to rebel against tyrannical laws.)  Get off the drugs - that will be the humanitarian answer for you.


----------



## Andylusion

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwing fear, hate, and bigotry.
Click to expand...


Rightwing, upholding the law, in face of left-wing fear, hate and bigotry.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I support your right to ignore your education.  You are a pathological liar due to your ignorance.
> 
> If the Rule of Law is applied, what you're doing is highly highly illegal.  If you aren't going to read it, no point in explaining it to you.  The actions you advocate come from a side and it's not about any Rule of Law.  That is a lie.
> 
> I held public meetings twice a month for decades.  I'm going to tell you something right now:  face to face there was never a swinging soul that would call me a democrat to my face and if I started those meetings again, it would remain that way.  You can bet your ass and the family farm, I'm no democrat; you're NOT following any Rule of Law and the strategy you've chosen has been a clusterphuck for over a decade and a half.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry national security is in the constitution and therfor  the law of the land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When you invoked a war on so - called _"illegal aliens_,"  you negated your own argument over National Security.  You're either addressing a legal problem *OR* a military concern.  You have not cited any specific section of the Constitution.
> 
> The Constitution cannot be used as a tool to deny Americans the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Guides: National Security Law Research Guide: Constitutional Provisions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is all irrelevant.  If you go to court or to your legislators and tell them I am a thief and you want me picked up for stealing, the system cannot pursue me for sabotage.  Tell me son, are you fucking with me or are you REALLY that dense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why would they chase you for sabotage if I accused you of stealing???
> 
> that makes no sense,,,
> 
> and neither the courts or the legislator does that anyway,,,
Click to expand...


It don't make sense.  That's the point.  You keep harping on so - called _"illegal aliens_,"  and if you could read more than three sentences, I explained this to you.  How short does this have to be for you to understand it?  You either have an _"illegal"_ problem OR you have a National Security problem.  The military has no jurisdiction in domestic legal policies.


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry national security is in the constitution and therfor  the law of the land
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you invoked a war on so - called _"illegal aliens_,"  you negated your own argument over National Security.  You're either addressing a legal problem *OR* a military concern.  You have not cited any specific section of the Constitution.
> 
> The Constitution cannot be used as a tool to deny Americans the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Guides: National Security Law Research Guide: Constitutional Provisions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is all irrelevant.  If you go to court or to your legislators and tell them I am a thief and you want me picked up for stealing, the system cannot pursue me for sabotage.  Tell me son, are you fucking with me or are you REALLY that dense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why would they chase you for sabotage if I accused you of stealing???
> 
> that makes no sense,,,
> 
> and neither the courts or the legislator does that anyway,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It don't make sense.  That's the point.  You keep harping on so - called _"illegal aliens_,"  and if you could read more than three sentences, I explained this to you.  How short does this have to be for you to understand it?  You either have an _"illegal"_ problem OR you have a National Security problem.  The military has no jurisdiction in domestic legal policies.
Click to expand...

I've never said illegal aliens,,,our borders are being over run by invaders waving foreign flags, and that is a national security issue


----------



## Porter Rockwell

*QUESTION:*  Why are danielpalos posts so short?

*ANSWER*:  By their own admission, the wallists are limited to Tweet sized posts.  Paragraphs become walls of text for the mental midgets.


----------



## Andylusion

OldLady said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
Click to expand...


The boarder is simply too large to station people everywhere.  That's the whole point of having a wall.     Few months back some of our patrol agents were stopped by Mexican military.     Because they did not know where the boarder was.    Put up a wall, and that problem is fixed.

Walls are very effective.    Then you won't need vigilantes doing the work that worthless democraps in congress are preventing.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF militarizing the border worked, would you support that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, I do not support a militarized border and you can lie all the Hell you want, but the trade-off in terms of Freedoms and Liberties makes that trade one that our forefathers found to be reprehensible.
> 
> "_He who would give up Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserves neither Liberty NOR safety_"  Benjamin Franklin
> 
> You want a popularity contest?  Let me tell you a *FACT*, son.  Ever since the people voted to worship the Golden calf when Moses went up to Mount Sinai, it has been shown that the masses are proven wrong.  So, in the time of Moses it was a Golden Calf and today it is a fat ass white boy that inherited a lot of his daddy's money.  You're still wrong.
> 
> Until you curb Americans insatiable appetite for drugs (our country represents the world's most prolific amount of drug users) a militarized border simply will not work.  It will corrupt the government even further and give a lot of U.S. servicemen and women a reason to commit criminal acts.  That is not counting the number of Liberties lost in the peripheral legislation that will be enforced making us a POLICE STATE.  *SO HELL NO BECAUSE NO WALL OR MILITARIZED BORDER CAN SAVE YOU FROM YOURSELF!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Mexicans were given a couple thousand of russian tanks and were planning to invade Texas, would you support allowing US military forces to set up defensive positions on American soil to repeal the attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be an appropriate use of the military.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the idea of using the military to protect the border is ok, if the threat is real.
> 
> 
> But millions and millions oof invaders, even without tanks, is a real national security threat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should back up and try again.  No tanks have rolled up on the borders despite numerous opportunities to so without any real opposition.  Do you have a point or is this another of your fishing expeditions?
Click to expand...



Just examining the limits of your opposition to the use of the military.


Would you support military action on the MEXICAN side of the border to control the flow of unwanted invaders?


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> they have nothing but fallacy not any valid rebuttals; what do you think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot stress it enough that their strategies have failed them now for over a decade and a half.  But, they've decided that if I choose not to be a victim of a political event that ends like the Titanic, something is wrong with me.
> 
> The real left is laughing at these clowns because they are caving in to One World Government on the installment plan.  We've one thousands of posts on this and there is a glaring fallacy Correll makes:
> 
> He continues to say that I'm like the left, doing the guilt by association thing.  *That would be a fallacy* - and that's all he's got.  Guilt by association would be to call a man a Ku Kluxer because he knows and does business with Kluxers.  It is not until that man adopts their talking points and strategies that he becomes one them ... REGARDLESS of whether he puts on a robe or not.  Correll and his ilk have adopted the rhetoric, talking points for debate, and strategies of the National Socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so you cant refute his claim so go with a personal attack,,,
> 
> GOT IT,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the last three threads that Correll and I have engaged in, I have *FACTUALLY refuted your bullshit *more than 25 times.  As you stated, you _"quit reading after..."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not reading the mostly irrelevant walls of text you like, is completely reasonable.
> 
> 
> And I note, you did quite well in that post, making a point in under 500 words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is your problem.  A couple of hundred words challenge your pea brain... which caused you to drop out of high school and be unable to read and respond to a few paragraphs that you think constitute a wall of text.  Your brains (if you had any) would pop out if you had to read a book.
Click to expand...



And you did it again. You made your point and insulted me several times, all with three sentences.  Why not do that?


Wading though meaningless and irrelevant filler is not a "problem" for me, it is just a waste of time.


And, it is wrong of you to use such filler to put in weak points, and claims, under the hope of them being ignored, and thus given a hint of validity though not being challenged.


I don't let people do that, so when you put out a bunch of bs, I call you on it, and the thread bogs down into meaningless semantics and bs.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you invoked a war on so - called _"illegal aliens_,"  you negated your own argument over National Security.  You're either addressing a legal problem *OR* a military concern.  You have not cited any specific section of the Constitution.
> 
> The Constitution cannot be used as a tool to deny Americans the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guides: National Security Law Research Guide: Constitutional Provisions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is all irrelevant.  If you go to court or to your legislators and tell them I am a thief and you want me picked up for stealing, the system cannot pursue me for sabotage.  Tell me son, are you fucking with me or are you REALLY that dense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why would they chase you for sabotage if I accused you of stealing???
> 
> that makes no sense,,,
> 
> and neither the courts or the legislator does that anyway,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It don't make sense.  That's the point.  You keep harping on so - called _"illegal aliens_,"  and if you could read more than three sentences, I explained this to you.  How short does this have to be for you to understand it?  You either have an _"illegal"_ problem OR you have a National Security problem.  The military has no jurisdiction in domestic legal policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've never said illegal aliens,,,our borders are being over run by invaders waving foreign flags, and that is a national security issue
Click to expand...



Waving flags??? Surely you jest.  Let us look at the *LEGAL* definition that the courts are going to respond to:

"_An encroachment upon the rights of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder_." Webster. See ^Etna Ins. Co. v. Boon, 95 U. S. 129, 24 L. Ed. 395. ?

People waving flags and taking advantage of opportunities willingly offered sure as Hell don't constitute an army trying to deprive you of any "_rights_."  What is happening is a consensual act.  Using the kids is a temporary political maneuver designed to get you to react as you predictably have... see my previous posts explaining it in detail to you.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Mexicans were given a couple thousand of russian tanks and were planning to invade Texas, would you support allowing US military forces to set up defensive positions on American soil to repeal the attack?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be an appropriate use of the military.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the idea of using the military to protect the border is ok, if the threat is real.
> 
> 
> But millions and millions oof invaders, even without tanks, is a real national security threat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The common defense would be civil defense in this case and upgrading Ellis Island to ameliorate this humanitarian issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Build a nice wall, to deter people from walking into the desert with small children.
> 
> 
> That is the humanitarian answer.
> 
> 
> But that is not really your concern. You want to turn America into a Third World Shithole, like  your home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall will not deter anyone.  .....
Click to expand...



Sure it will. 


Some people will not be able to carry a ladder into the desert. Some will try and be seen and catch because they are moving slower.


Ever little bit the flow decreases, the easier it is, for the enforcement personnel and/or military to deal with the ones still coming.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO, I do not support a militarized border and you can lie all the Hell you want, but the trade-off in terms of Freedoms and Liberties makes that trade one that our forefathers found to be reprehensible.
> 
> "_He who would give up Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserves neither Liberty NOR safety_"  Benjamin Franklin
> 
> You want a popularity contest?  Let me tell you a *FACT*, son.  Ever since the people voted to worship the Golden calf when Moses went up to Mount Sinai, it has been shown that the masses are proven wrong.  So, in the time of Moses it was a Golden Calf and today it is a fat ass white boy that inherited a lot of his daddy's money.  You're still wrong.
> 
> Until you curb Americans insatiable appetite for drugs (our country represents the world's most prolific amount of drug users) a militarized border simply will not work.  It will corrupt the government even further and give a lot of U.S. servicemen and women a reason to commit criminal acts.  That is not counting the number of Liberties lost in the peripheral legislation that will be enforced making us a POLICE STATE.  *SO HELL NO BECAUSE NO WALL OR MILITARIZED BORDER CAN SAVE YOU FROM YOURSELF!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Mexicans were given a couple thousand of russian tanks and were planning to invade Texas, would you support allowing US military forces to set up defensive positions on American soil to repeal the attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be an appropriate use of the military.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the idea of using the military to protect the border is ok, if the threat is real.
> 
> 
> But millions and millions oof invaders, even without tanks, is a real national security threat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The common defense would be civil defense in this case and upgrading Ellis Island to ameliorate this humanitarian issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Build a nice wall, to deter people from walking into the desert with small children.
> 
> 
> That is the humanitarian answer.
> 
> 
> But that is not really your concern. You want to turn America into a Third World Shithole, like  your home.
Click to expand...

Upgrading Ellis Island is more humane.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Andylusion said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The boarder is simply too large to station people everywhere.  That's the whole point of having a wall.     Few months back some of our patrol agents were stopped by Mexican military.     Because they did not know where the boarder was.    Put up a wall, and that problem is fixed.
> 
> Walls are very effective.    Then you won't need vigilantes doing the work that worthless democraps in congress are preventing.
Click to expand...



Bullshit.  Walls have never worked.  

Walls Don't Work


----------



## danielpalos

Andylusion said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwing fear, hate, and bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rightwing, upholding the law, in face of left-wing fear, hate and bigotry.
Click to expand...

show us the express immigration clause, right wingers.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be an appropriate use of the military.
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the idea of using the military to protect the border is ok, if the threat is real.
> 
> 
> But millions and millions oof invaders, even without tanks, is a real national security threat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The common defense would be civil defense in this case and upgrading Ellis Island to ameliorate this humanitarian issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Build a nice wall, to deter people from walking into the desert with small children.
> 
> 
> That is the humanitarian answer.
> 
> 
> But that is not really your concern. You want to turn America into a Third World Shithole, like  your home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall will not deter anyone.  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it will.
> 
> 
> Some people will not be able to carry a ladder into the desert. Some will try and be seen and catch because they are moving slower.
> 
> 
> Ever little bit the flow decreases, the easier it is, for the enforcement personnel and/or military to deal with the ones still coming.
Click to expand...


History proves you wrong.  Furthermore, if you don't change your strategy, you will lose this country in the next two election cycles and this argument will be moot.  The majority of Americans disagree with you and I know how much democracy (mob rule and big rallies) impress the Hell out of you.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO, I do not support a militarized border and you can lie all the Hell you want, but the trade-off in terms of Freedoms and Liberties makes that trade one that our forefathers found to be reprehensible.
> 
> "_He who would give up Essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserves neither Liberty NOR safety_"  Benjamin Franklin
> 
> You want a popularity contest?  Let me tell you a *FACT*, son.  Ever since the people voted to worship the Golden calf when Moses went up to Mount Sinai, it has been shown that the masses are proven wrong.  So, in the time of Moses it was a Golden Calf and today it is a fat ass white boy that inherited a lot of his daddy's money.  You're still wrong.
> 
> Until you curb Americans insatiable appetite for drugs (our country represents the world's most prolific amount of drug users) a militarized border simply will not work.  It will corrupt the government even further and give a lot of U.S. servicemen and women a reason to commit criminal acts.  That is not counting the number of Liberties lost in the peripheral legislation that will be enforced making us a POLICE STATE.  *SO HELL NO BECAUSE NO WALL OR MILITARIZED BORDER CAN SAVE YOU FROM YOURSELF!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Mexicans were given a couple thousand of russian tanks and were planning to invade Texas, would you support allowing US military forces to set up defensive positions on American soil to repeal the attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be an appropriate use of the military.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the idea of using the military to protect the border is ok, if the threat is real.
> 
> 
> But millions and millions oof invaders, even without tanks, is a real national security threat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should back up and try again.  No tanks have rolled up on the borders despite numerous opportunities to so without any real opposition.  Do you have a point or is this another of your fishing expeditions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just examining the limits of your opposition to the use of the military.
> 
> 
> Would you support military action on the MEXICAN side of the border to control the flow of unwanted invaders?
Click to expand...

I support the Richest using their Capital to solve our problems.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the idea of using the military to protect the border is ok, if the threat is real.
> 
> 
> But millions and millions oof invaders, even without tanks, is a real national security threat.
> 
> 
> 
> The common defense would be civil defense in this case and upgrading Ellis Island to ameliorate this humanitarian issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Build a nice wall, to deter people from walking into the desert with small children.
> 
> 
> That is the humanitarian answer.
> 
> 
> But that is not really your concern. You want to turn America into a Third World Shithole, like  your home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall will not deter anyone.  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it will.
> 
> 
> Some people will not be able to carry a ladder into the desert. Some will try and be seen and catch because they are moving slower.
> 
> 
> Ever little bit the flow decreases, the easier it is, for the enforcement personnel and/or military to deal with the ones still coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History proves you wrong.  Furthermore, if you don't change your strategy, you will lose this country in the next two election cycles and this argument will be moot.  The majority of Americans disagree with you and I know how much democracy (mob rule and big rallies) impress the Hell out of you.
Click to expand...




What strategy change do you suggest will prevent demographic shift from causing me to "lose this country in the next two election" cycles?


And keep it concise and to the point. I want to see your answer, clearly and not buried in meaningless filler.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be an appropriate use of the military.
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the idea of using the military to protect the border is ok, if the threat is real.
> 
> 
> But millions and millions oof invaders, even without tanks, is a real national security threat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The common defense would be civil defense in this case and upgrading Ellis Island to ameliorate this humanitarian issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Build a nice wall, to deter people from walking into the desert with small children.
> 
> 
> That is the humanitarian answer.
> 
> 
> But that is not really your concern. You want to turn America into a Third World Shithole, like  your home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall will not deter anyone.  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it will.
> 
> 
> Some people will not be able to carry a ladder into the desert. Some will try and be seen and catch because they are moving slower.
> 
> 
> Ever little bit the flow decreases, the easier it is, for the enforcement personnel and/or military to deal with the ones still coming.
Click to expand...

we have a general welfare clause not a general malfare clause.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Mexicans were given a couple thousand of russian tanks and were planning to invade Texas, would you support allowing US military forces to set up defensive positions on American soil to repeal the attack?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be an appropriate use of the military.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the idea of using the military to protect the border is ok, if the threat is real.
> 
> 
> But millions and millions oof invaders, even without tanks, is a real national security threat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should back up and try again.  No tanks have rolled up on the borders despite numerous opportunities to so without any real opposition.  Do you have a point or is this another of your fishing expeditions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just examining the limits of your opposition to the use of the military.
> 
> 
> Would you support military action on the MEXICAN side of the border to control the flow of unwanted invaders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I support the Richest using their Capital to solve our problems.
Click to expand...



I'm sure you do.


I do not. We owe Mexico NOTHING, but ire for their/your shitty behavior.


----------



## Andylusion

Porter Rockwell said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The boarder is simply too large to station people everywhere.  That's the whole point of having a wall.     Few months back some of our patrol agents were stopped by Mexican military.     Because they did not know where the boarder was.    Put up a wall, and that problem is fixed.
> 
> Walls are very effective.    Then you won't need vigilantes doing the work that worthless democraps in congress are preventing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  Walls have never worked.
> 
> Walls Don't Work
Click to expand...


Really.....  funny how that wall in Berlin worked for decades on end, keeping people in.




 

Care to try again?


----------



## Andylusion

Huh.... seems walls work....


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guides: National Security Law Research Guide: Constitutional Provisions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is all irrelevant.  If you go to court or to your legislators and tell them I am a thief and you want me picked up for stealing, the system cannot pursue me for sabotage.  Tell me son, are you fucking with me or are you REALLY that dense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why would they chase you for sabotage if I accused you of stealing???
> 
> that makes no sense,,,
> 
> and neither the courts or the legislator does that anyway,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It don't make sense.  That's the point.  You keep harping on so - called _"illegal aliens_,"  and if you could read more than three sentences, I explained this to you.  How short does this have to be for you to understand it?  You either have an _"illegal"_ problem OR you have a National Security problem.  The military has no jurisdiction in domestic legal policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've never said illegal aliens,,,our borders are being over run by invaders waving foreign flags, and that is a national security issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Waving flags??? Surely you jest.  Let us look at the *LEGAL* definition that the courts are going to respond to:
> 
> "_An encroachment upon the rights of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder_." Webster. See ^Etna Ins. Co. v. Boon, 95 U. S. 129, 24 L. Ed. 395. ?
> 
> People waving flags and taking advantage of opportunities willingly offered sure as Hell don't constitute an army trying to deprive you of any "_rights_."  What is happening is a consensual act.  Using the kids is a temporary political maneuver designed to get you to react as you predictably have... see my previous posts explaining it in detail to you.
Click to expand...




they are encroaching on my rights by taking money that was stolen from me at gun point,,,and I see it says army and not a foreign power,,,with over a million in the last yr that makes it an army,,,and plunder is their intent,,,
your not a very smart person that can even read what you post to avoid being a fucking dumbass,,,


I do find it intersting that you being an anti american using american law to make your point


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be an appropriate use of the military.
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the idea of using the military to protect the border is ok, if the threat is real.
> 
> 
> But millions and millions oof invaders, even without tanks, is a real national security threat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should back up and try again.  No tanks have rolled up on the borders despite numerous opportunities to so without any real opposition.  Do you have a point or is this another of your fishing expeditions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just examining the limits of your opposition to the use of the military.
> 
> 
> Would you support military action on the MEXICAN side of the border to control the flow of unwanted invaders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I support the Richest using their Capital to solve our problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you do.
> 
> 
> I do not. We owe Mexico NOTHING, but ire for their/your shitty behavior.
Click to expand...

Government solves all problems for the right wing.


----------



## danielpalos

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is all irrelevant.  If you go to court or to your legislators and tell them I am a thief and you want me picked up for stealing, the system cannot pursue me for sabotage.  Tell me son, are you fucking with me or are you REALLY that dense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why would they chase you for sabotage if I accused you of stealing???
> 
> that makes no sense,,,
> 
> and neither the courts or the legislator does that anyway,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It don't make sense.  That's the point.  You keep harping on so - called _"illegal aliens_,"  and if you could read more than three sentences, I explained this to you.  How short does this have to be for you to understand it?  You either have an _"illegal"_ problem OR you have a National Security problem.  The military has no jurisdiction in domestic legal policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've never said illegal aliens,,,our borders are being over run by invaders waving foreign flags, and that is a national security issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Waving flags??? Surely you jest.  Let us look at the *LEGAL* definition that the courts are going to respond to:
> 
> "_An encroachment upon the rights of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder_." Webster. See ^Etna Ins. Co. v. Boon, 95 U. S. 129, 24 L. Ed. 395. ?
> 
> People waving flags and taking advantage of opportunities willingly offered sure as Hell don't constitute an army trying to deprive you of any "_rights_."  What is happening is a consensual act.  Using the kids is a temporary political maneuver designed to get you to react as you predictably have... see my previous posts explaining it in detail to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they are encroaching on my rights by taking money that was stolen from me at gun point,,,and I see it says army and not a foreign power,,,with over a million in the last yr that makes it an army,,,and plunder is their intent,,,
> your not a very smart person that can even read what you post to avoid being a fucking dumbass,,,
> 
> 
> I do find it intersting that you being an anti american using american law to make your point
Click to expand...

Pro-bigotry is not pro-American.


----------



## Andylusion

Morocco-Algeria wall has worked well

Cyprus is still slit in half by a wall.   Seems to work for them, since I haven't heard of huge problems there.


----------



## AZGAL

We have had a wall and a fence. Some of the stretches of border have been rebuilt and/ or fortified in the past few years. I saw this near El Paso.


----------



## Andylusion

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the idea of using the military to protect the border is ok, if the threat is real.
> 
> 
> But millions and millions oof invaders, even without tanks, is a real national security threat.
> 
> 
> 
> The common defense would be civil defense in this case and upgrading Ellis Island to ameliorate this humanitarian issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Build a nice wall, to deter people from walking into the desert with small children.
> 
> 
> That is the humanitarian answer.
> 
> 
> But that is not really your concern. You want to turn America into a Third World Shithole, like  your home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall will not deter anyone.  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it will.
> 
> 
> Some people will not be able to carry a ladder into the desert. Some will try and be seen and catch because they are moving slower.
> 
> 
> Ever little bit the flow decreases, the easier it is, for the enforcement personnel and/or military to deal with the ones still coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History proves you wrong.  Furthermore, if you don't change your strategy, you will lose this country in the next two election cycles and this argument will be moot.  The majority of Americans disagree with you and I know how much democracy (mob rule and big rallies) impress the Hell out of you.
Click to expand...


First of all, you don't even believe that.     Seriously, you don't.  Because if you were stupid enough to actually believe everything you just said, then you wouldn't be on here trying to convince people to think differently.

Seriously, I knew the Hillary Clinton was going to lose, that's why prior to the election I supported people running her as the Democrap nominee.  I told left-wingers yeah yeah go vote for Hillary.  

Why would I want them to choose a much better candidate if I knew their Hillary would fail?

So you don't believe that.   If you really believed that if we push for enforcing the American law, and not allowing people to just illegally enter the country, that we would completely get blown out in the election, then you wouldn't be here trying to convince us to change our minds.

You would want us to push for our positions, so that we would be wiped out in the election.   Except.... we did push our positions, and we have the presidency....  so....  Not convinced.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The common defense would be civil defense in this case and upgrading Ellis Island to ameliorate this humanitarian issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Build a nice wall, to deter people from walking into the desert with small children.
> 
> 
> That is the humanitarian answer.
> 
> 
> But that is not really your concern. You want to turn America into a Third World Shithole, like  your home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall will not deter anyone.  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it will.
> 
> 
> Some people will not be able to carry a ladder into the desert. Some will try and be seen and catch because they are moving slower.
> 
> 
> Ever little bit the flow decreases, the easier it is, for the enforcement personnel and/or military to deal with the ones still coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History proves you wrong.  Furthermore, if you don't change your strategy, you will lose this country in the next two election cycles and this argument will be moot.  The majority of Americans disagree with you and I know how much democracy (mob rule and big rallies) impress the Hell out of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What strategy change do you suggest will prevent demographic shift from causing me to "lose this country in the next two election" cycles?
> 
> 
> And keep it concise and to the point. I want to see your answer, clearly and not buried in meaningless filler.
Click to expand...


You want a college education in three words.  A former slave is about to school you.  Heed the words:


Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The common defense would be civil defense in this case and upgrading Ellis Island to ameliorate this humanitarian issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Build a nice wall, to deter people from walking into the desert with small children.
> 
> 
> That is the humanitarian answer.
> 
> 
> But that is not really your concern. You want to turn America into a Third World Shithole, like  your home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall will not deter anyone.  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it will.
> 
> 
> Some people will not be able to carry a ladder into the desert. Some will try and be seen and catch because they are moving slower.
> 
> 
> Ever little bit the flow decreases, the easier it is, for the enforcement personnel and/or military to deal with the ones still coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History proves you wrong.  Furthermore, if you don't change your strategy, you will lose this country in the next two election cycles and this argument will be moot.  The majority of Americans disagree with you and I know how much democracy (mob rule and big rallies) impress the Hell out of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What strategy change do you suggest will prevent demographic shift from causing me to "lose this country in the next two election" cycles?
> 
> 
> And keep it concise and to the point. I want to see your answer, clearly and not buried in meaningless filler.
Click to expand...


You'd like to have a college education by reading a Tweet.  Let a former slave school you:

"_Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters_."   Frederick Douglass

Get back to me if you ever get serious.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Andylusion said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante justice seldom goes well.  What happened to the thousands of National Guard and military personnel Trump ordered to the border?  Was that completely ineffective?  What are those people doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The boarder is simply too large to station people everywhere.  That's the whole point of having a wall.     Few months back some of our patrol agents were stopped by Mexican military.     Because they did not know where the boarder was.    Put up a wall, and that problem is fixed.
> 
> Walls are very effective.    Then you won't need vigilantes doing the work that worthless democraps in congress are preventing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.  Walls have never worked.
> 
> Walls Don't Work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really.....  funny how that wall in Berlin worked for decades on end, keeping people in.
> 
> View attachment 261633
> 
> Care to try again?
Click to expand...


The Berlin Wall did not work and it came tumbling down.  Okay, I'll go again.  Did you check my last link?  Here's another:

Six Historians on Why Trump’s Border Wall Won’t Work – Rolling Stone

There is nothing new here.  We've covered this more than 25 times in about three threads on this board.  It is said that Trump's supporters, on average, have less than a high school education and statistically a lower than average IQ.  We've gone over this repeatedly.  *WHEN* it's proven, the Trumpeteers bitch and say TLDR.   You got another example I'll give you at least half a dozen historians and / or military strategists that will disagree with you.  Bring it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is all irrelevant.  If you go to court or to your legislators and tell them I am a thief and you want me picked up for stealing, the system cannot pursue me for sabotage.  Tell me son, are you fucking with me or are you REALLY that dense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why would they chase you for sabotage if I accused you of stealing???
> 
> that makes no sense,,,
> 
> and neither the courts or the legislator does that anyway,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It don't make sense.  That's the point.  You keep harping on so - called _"illegal aliens_,"  and if you could read more than three sentences, I explained this to you.  How short does this have to be for you to understand it?  You either have an _"illegal"_ problem OR you have a National Security problem.  The military has no jurisdiction in domestic legal policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've never said illegal aliens,,,our borders are being over run by invaders waving foreign flags, and that is a national security issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Waving flags??? Surely you jest.  Let us look at the *LEGAL* definition that the courts are going to respond to:
> 
> "_An encroachment upon the rights of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder_." Webster. See ^Etna Ins. Co. v. Boon, 95 U. S. 129, 24 L. Ed. 395. ?
> 
> People waving flags and taking advantage of opportunities willingly offered sure as Hell don't constitute an army trying to deprive you of any "_rights_."  What is happening is a consensual act.  Using the kids is a temporary political maneuver designed to get you to react as you predictably have... see my previous posts explaining it in detail to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they are encroaching on my rights by taking money that was stolen from me at gun point,,,and I see it says army and not a foreign power,,,with over a million in the last yr that makes it an army,,,and plunder is their intent,,,
> your not a very smart person that can even read what you post to avoid being a fucking dumbass,,,
> 
> 
> I do find it intersting that you being an anti american using american law to make your point
Click to expand...


I know some federal prosecutors.  If your claims are true, PM me and I promise you action.  If you don't PM me with details of said claim, we can call bullshit on this and move forward.  I'll keep the posters in the loop.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the idea of using the military to protect the border is ok, if the threat is real.
> 
> 
> But millions and millions oof invaders, even without tanks, is a real national security threat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should back up and try again.  No tanks have rolled up on the borders despite numerous opportunities to so without any real opposition.  Do you have a point or is this another of your fishing expeditions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just examining the limits of your opposition to the use of the military.
> 
> 
> Would you support military action on the MEXICAN side of the border to control the flow of unwanted invaders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I support the Richest using their Capital to solve our problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you do.
> 
> 
> I do not. We owe Mexico NOTHING, but ire for their/your shitty behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government solves all problems for the right wing.
Click to expand...



Yes, the government *IS* solving all the right wing's problems.  They are imposing National ID, 24 / 7 / 365 womb to the tomb surveillance, monitoring all their financial dealings, recording who is in what group and who said what on the Internet.  The government is aiding gun control starting with letting the states outlaw firearms incrementally and making sure that intel on every individual is so complete so as to stop *ANY* potential uprising in the future -  just as the right wing is lobbying for.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Andylusion said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The common defense would be civil defense in this case and upgrading Ellis Island to ameliorate this humanitarian issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Build a nice wall, to deter people from walking into the desert with small children.
> 
> 
> That is the humanitarian answer.
> 
> 
> But that is not really your concern. You want to turn America into a Third World Shithole, like  your home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall will not deter anyone.  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it will.
> 
> 
> Some people will not be able to carry a ladder into the desert. Some will try and be seen and catch because they are moving slower.
> 
> 
> Ever little bit the flow decreases, the easier it is, for the enforcement personnel and/or military to deal with the ones still coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History proves you wrong.  Furthermore, if you don't change your strategy, you will lose this country in the next two election cycles and this argument will be moot.  The majority of Americans disagree with you and I know how much democracy (mob rule and big rallies) impress the Hell out of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, you don't even believe that.     Seriously, you don't.  Because if you were stupid enough to actually believe everything you just said, then you wouldn't be on here trying to convince people to think differently.
> 
> Seriously, I knew the Hillary Clinton was going to lose, that's why prior to the election I supported people running her as the Democrap nominee.  I told left-wingers yeah yeah go vote for Hillary.
> 
> Why would I want them to choose a much better candidate if I knew their Hillary would fail?
> 
> So you don't believe that.   If you really believed that if we push for enforcing the American law, and not allowing people to just illegally enter the country, that we would completely get blown out in the election, then you wouldn't be here trying to convince us to change our minds.
> 
> You would want us to push for our positions, so that we would be wiped out in the election.   Except.... we did push our positions, and we have the presidency....  so....  Not convinced.
Click to expand...


I don't give a fuck whether you change your mind or not.  If you end up in a prison or jail cell or become a snitch bitch is on *YOU*.  Think of me as being one who realizes the real change will not come by way of the masses.  It never has and it never will.  

I always look for that one guy smart enough to *READ AND RESEARCH THE FACTS.  *The advantage I have over you is that I've read your platforms, alleged facts (I worked for the people who developed those talking points probably before you were a gleam in your daddy's eyes) AND I've debated people on tv and radio that *you've only heard about* via the Internet.  I can argue your position better than you can.  

You see, I'm a lot more extreme than even you are.  I am a Christian Israelite.  I believe America to be the New Jerusalem of the Bible and I believe in manifest destiny.  I'm s strict constructionist and *I wouldn't even entertain* the idea of second generation foreigners holding public office or serving in the military at this time regardless of how many background checks they went through or how many papers your corrupt government in Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption gives them.

Even with the presidency, you lost the House of Representatives, allowed states to push for more gun control, more ways to enforce Privacy Rights violations, more ways for government to track, infiltrate and neutralize patriot efforts in the future.  The Republican Party has been destroyed with no leadership to put it back together.  Trump's allies *disagree* with you; Trump cannot keep anyone on his team for any amount of time - except in low level boot licker positions that don't decide policy or strategies.  Yeah... that was big freaking win there homeboy.  When Trump is gone - and he's not going to live forever, you have NO possible way to resist tyranny nor the wrath of the left.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the idea of using the military to protect the border is ok, if the threat is real.
> 
> 
> But millions and millions oof invaders, even without tanks, is a real national security threat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should back up and try again.  No tanks have rolled up on the borders despite numerous opportunities to so without any real opposition.  Do you have a point or is this another of your fishing expeditions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just examining the limits of your opposition to the use of the military.
> 
> 
> Would you support military action on the MEXICAN side of the border to control the flow of unwanted invaders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I support the Richest using their Capital to solve our problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you do.
> 
> 
> I do not. We owe Mexico NOTHING, but ire for their/your shitty behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government solves all problems for the right wing.
Click to expand...



Border security is a government responsibility. 


As you well know, lying Pedro.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Build a nice wall, to deter people from walking into the desert with small children.
> 
> 
> That is the humanitarian answer.
> 
> 
> But that is not really your concern. You want to turn America into a Third World Shithole, like  your home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A wall will not deter anyone.  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it will.
> 
> 
> Some people will not be able to carry a ladder into the desert. Some will try and be seen and catch because they are moving slower.
> 
> 
> Ever little bit the flow decreases, the easier it is, for the enforcement personnel and/or military to deal with the ones still coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History proves you wrong.  Furthermore, if you don't change your strategy, you will lose this country in the next two election cycles and this argument will be moot.  The majority of Americans disagree with you and I know how much democracy (mob rule and big rallies) impress the Hell out of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What strategy change do you suggest will prevent demographic shift from causing me to "lose this country in the next two election" cycles?
> 
> 
> And keep it concise and to the point. I want to see your answer, clearly and not buried in meaningless filler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want a college education in three words.  A former slave is about to school you.  Heed the words:
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Build a nice wall, to deter people from walking into the desert with small children.
> 
> 
> That is the humanitarian answer.
> 
> 
> But that is not really your concern. You want to turn America into a Third World Shithole, like  your home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall will not deter anyone.  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it will.
> 
> 
> Some people will not be able to carry a ladder into the desert. Some will try and be seen and catch because they are moving slower.
> 
> 
> Ever little bit the flow decreases, the easier it is, for the enforcement personnel and/or military to deal with the ones still coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History proves you wrong.  Furthermore, if you don't change your strategy, you will lose this country in the next two election cycles and this argument will be moot.  The majority of Americans disagree with you and I know how much democracy (mob rule and big rallies) impress the Hell out of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What strategy change do you suggest will prevent demographic shift from causing me to "lose this country in the next two election" cycles?
> 
> 
> And keep it concise and to the point. I want to see your answer, clearly and not buried in meaningless filler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd like to have a college education by reading a Tweet.  Let a former slave school you:
> 
> "_Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters_."   Frederick Douglass
> 
> Get back to me if you ever get serious.
Click to expand...




My question was serious. You suggested a change in strategy and I asked you what strategy. 


You gave me "struggle".


That is not a strategy. Try again.


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> why would they chase you for sabotage if I accused you of stealing???
> 
> that makes no sense,,,
> 
> and neither the courts or the legislator does that anyway,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It don't make sense.  That's the point.  You keep harping on so - called _"illegal aliens_,"  and if you could read more than three sentences, I explained this to you.  How short does this have to be for you to understand it?  You either have an _"illegal"_ problem OR you have a National Security problem.  The military has no jurisdiction in domestic legal policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've never said illegal aliens,,,our borders are being over run by invaders waving foreign flags, and that is a national security issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Waving flags??? Surely you jest.  Let us look at the *LEGAL* definition that the courts are going to respond to:
> 
> "_An encroachment upon the rights of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder_." Webster. See ^Etna Ins. Co. v. Boon, 95 U. S. 129, 24 L. Ed. 395. ?
> 
> People waving flags and taking advantage of opportunities willingly offered sure as Hell don't constitute an army trying to deprive you of any "_rights_."  What is happening is a consensual act.  Using the kids is a temporary political maneuver designed to get you to react as you predictably have... see my previous posts explaining it in detail to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they are encroaching on my rights by taking money that was stolen from me at gun point,,,and I see it says army and not a foreign power,,,with over a million in the last yr that makes it an army,,,and plunder is their intent,,,
> your not a very smart person that can even read what you post to avoid being a fucking dumbass,,,
> 
> 
> I do find it intersting that you being an anti american using american law to make your point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know some federal prosecutors.  If your claims are true, PM me and I promise you action.  If you don't PM me with details of said claim, we can call bullshit on this and move forward.  I'll keep the posters in the loop.
Click to expand...

Since they cant work on here say it would be better for me to contact them directly and let me handle it, 

so send me their info and I will contact them today and get this handled

if I dont receive your PM soonest we can call bullshit and continue to out you for what you are,,,

a liar and traitor to your country


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> A wall will not deter anyone.  .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it will.
> 
> 
> Some people will not be able to carry a ladder into the desert. Some will try and be seen and catch because they are moving slower.
> 
> 
> Ever little bit the flow decreases, the easier it is, for the enforcement personnel and/or military to deal with the ones still coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History proves you wrong.  Furthermore, if you don't change your strategy, you will lose this country in the next two election cycles and this argument will be moot.  The majority of Americans disagree with you and I know how much democracy (mob rule and big rallies) impress the Hell out of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What strategy change do you suggest will prevent demographic shift from causing me to "lose this country in the next two election" cycles?
> 
> 
> And keep it concise and to the point. I want to see your answer, clearly and not buried in meaningless filler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want a college education in three words.  A former slave is about to school you.  Heed the words:
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> A wall will not deter anyone.  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it will.
> 
> 
> Some people will not be able to carry a ladder into the desert. Some will try and be seen and catch because they are moving slower.
> 
> 
> Ever little bit the flow decreases, the easier it is, for the enforcement personnel and/or military to deal with the ones still coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History proves you wrong.  Furthermore, if you don't change your strategy, you will lose this country in the next two election cycles and this argument will be moot.  The majority of Americans disagree with you and I know how much democracy (mob rule and big rallies) impress the Hell out of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What strategy change do you suggest will prevent demographic shift from causing me to "lose this country in the next two election" cycles?
> 
> 
> And keep it concise and to the point. I want to see your answer, clearly and not buried in meaningless filler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd like to have a college education by reading a Tweet.  Let a former slave school you:
> 
> "_Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters_."   Frederick Douglass
> 
> Get back to me if you ever get serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My question was serious. You suggested a change in strategy and I asked you what strategy.
> 
> 
> You gave me "struggle".
> 
> 
> That is not a strategy. Try again.
Click to expand...


No, you want a college education in five sentences.  The effective strategies have been posted at least half a dozen times and, by your own admission, you cannot read that much.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It don't make sense.  That's the point.  You keep harping on so - called _"illegal aliens_,"  and if you could read more than three sentences, I explained this to you.  How short does this have to be for you to understand it?  You either have an _"illegal"_ problem OR you have a National Security problem.  The military has no jurisdiction in domestic legal policies.
> 
> 
> 
> I've never said illegal aliens,,,our borders are being over run by invaders waving foreign flags, and that is a national security issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Waving flags??? Surely you jest.  Let us look at the *LEGAL* definition that the courts are going to respond to:
> 
> "_An encroachment upon the rights of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder_." Webster. See ^Etna Ins. Co. v. Boon, 95 U. S. 129, 24 L. Ed. 395. ?
> 
> People waving flags and taking advantage of opportunities willingly offered sure as Hell don't constitute an army trying to deprive you of any "_rights_."  What is happening is a consensual act.  Using the kids is a temporary political maneuver designed to get you to react as you predictably have... see my previous posts explaining it in detail to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they are encroaching on my rights by taking money that was stolen from me at gun point,,,and I see it says army and not a foreign power,,,with over a million in the last yr that makes it an army,,,and plunder is their intent,,,
> your not a very smart person that can even read what you post to avoid being a fucking dumbass,,,
> 
> 
> I do find it intersting that you being an anti american using american law to make your point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know some federal prosecutors.  If your claims are true, PM me and I promise you action.  If you don't PM me with details of said claim, we can call bullshit on this and move forward.  I'll keep the posters in the loop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since they cant work on here say it would be better for me to contact them directly and let me handle it,
> 
> so send me their info and I will contact them today and get this handled
> 
> if I dont receive your PM soonest we can call bullshit and continue to out you for what you are,,,
> 
> a liar and traitor to your country
Click to expand...


Another one bites the dust

I accept your concession of defeat.


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never said illegal aliens,,,our borders are being over run by invaders waving foreign flags, and that is a national security issue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waving flags??? Surely you jest.  Let us look at the *LEGAL* definition that the courts are going to respond to:
> 
> "_An encroachment upon the rights of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder_." Webster. See ^Etna Ins. Co. v. Boon, 95 U. S. 129, 24 L. Ed. 395. ?
> 
> People waving flags and taking advantage of opportunities willingly offered sure as Hell don't constitute an army trying to deprive you of any "_rights_."  What is happening is a consensual act.  Using the kids is a temporary political maneuver designed to get you to react as you predictably have... see my previous posts explaining it in detail to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they are encroaching on my rights by taking money that was stolen from me at gun point,,,and I see it says army and not a foreign power,,,with over a million in the last yr that makes it an army,,,and plunder is their intent,,,
> your not a very smart person that can even read what you post to avoid being a fucking dumbass,,,
> 
> 
> I do find it intersting that you being an anti american using american law to make your point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know some federal prosecutors.  If your claims are true, PM me and I promise you action.  If you don't PM me with details of said claim, we can call bullshit on this and move forward.  I'll keep the posters in the loop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since they cant work on here say it would be better for me to contact them directly and let me handle it,
> 
> so send me their info and I will contact them today and get this handled
> 
> if I dont receive your PM soonest we can call bullshit and continue to out you for what you are,,,
> 
> a liar and traitor to your country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another one bites the dust
Click to expand...



yes you did,,,


have you always been this dumb or is something new youre trying???


----------



## Porter Rockwell

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Waving flags??? Surely you jest.  Let us look at the *LEGAL* definition that the courts are going to respond to:
> 
> "_An encroachment upon the rights of another; the incursion of an army for conquest or plunder_." Webster. See ^Etna Ins. Co. v. Boon, 95 U. S. 129, 24 L. Ed. 395. ?
> 
> People waving flags and taking advantage of opportunities willingly offered sure as Hell don't constitute an army trying to deprive you of any "_rights_."  What is happening is a consensual act.  Using the kids is a temporary political maneuver designed to get you to react as you predictably have... see my previous posts explaining it in detail to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they are encroaching on my rights by taking money that was stolen from me at gun point,,,and I see it says army and not a foreign power,,,with over a million in the last yr that makes it an army,,,and plunder is their intent,,,
> your not a very smart person that can even read what you post to avoid being a fucking dumbass,,,
> 
> 
> I do find it intersting that you being an anti american using american law to make your point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know some federal prosecutors.  If your claims are true, PM me and I promise you action.  If you don't PM me with details of said claim, we can call bullshit on this and move forward.  I'll keep the posters in the loop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since they cant work on here say it would be better for me to contact them directly and let me handle it,
> 
> so send me their info and I will contact them today and get this handled
> 
> if I dont receive your PM soonest we can call bullshit and continue to out you for what you are,,,
> 
> a liar and traitor to your country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another one bites the dust
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes you did,,,
> 
> 
> have you always been this dumb or is something new youre trying???
Click to expand...



It's dumb to accept your concession of defeat?  Yep.  You busted me.  When one strategy is failing I try something  else.  That's unlike your strategy that has failed for over a decade and a half.

I guess you got used to being butt fucked.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it will.
> 
> 
> Some people will not be able to carry a ladder into the desert. Some will try and be seen and catch because they are moving slower.
> 
> 
> Ever little bit the flow decreases, the easier it is, for the enforcement personnel and/or military to deal with the ones still coming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History proves you wrong.  Furthermore, if you don't change your strategy, you will lose this country in the next two election cycles and this argument will be moot.  The majority of Americans disagree with you and I know how much democracy (mob rule and big rallies) impress the Hell out of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What strategy change do you suggest will prevent demographic shift from causing me to "lose this country in the next two election" cycles?
> 
> 
> And keep it concise and to the point. I want to see your answer, clearly and not buried in meaningless filler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want a college education in three words.  A former slave is about to school you.  Heed the words:
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it will.
> 
> 
> Some people will not be able to carry a ladder into the desert. Some will try and be seen and catch because they are moving slower.
> 
> 
> Ever little bit the flow decreases, the easier it is, for the enforcement personnel and/or military to deal with the ones still coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History proves you wrong.  Furthermore, if you don't change your strategy, you will lose this country in the next two election cycles and this argument will be moot.  The majority of Americans disagree with you and I know how much democracy (mob rule and big rallies) impress the Hell out of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What strategy change do you suggest will prevent demographic shift from causing me to "lose this country in the next two election" cycles?
> 
> 
> And keep it concise and to the point. I want to see your answer, clearly and not buried in meaningless filler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd like to have a college education by reading a Tweet.  Let a former slave school you:
> 
> "_Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters_."   Frederick Douglass
> 
> Get back to me if you ever get serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My question was serious. You suggested a change in strategy and I asked you what strategy.
> 
> 
> You gave me "struggle".
> 
> 
> That is not a strategy. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you want a college education in five sentences.  The effective strategies have been posted at least half a dozen times and, by your own admission, you cannot read that much.
Click to expand...




I know why you are hesitant to answer. Because doing so, will reveal your attacks on me to be unfair.


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> they are encroaching on my rights by taking money that was stolen from me at gun point,,,and I see it says army and not a foreign power,,,with over a million in the last yr that makes it an army,,,and plunder is their intent,,,
> your not a very smart person that can even read what you post to avoid being a fucking dumbass,,,
> 
> 
> I do find it intersting that you being an anti american using american law to make your point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know some federal prosecutors.  If your claims are true, PM me and I promise you action.  If you don't PM me with details of said claim, we can call bullshit on this and move forward.  I'll keep the posters in the loop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since they cant work on here say it would be better for me to contact them directly and let me handle it,
> 
> so send me their info and I will contact them today and get this handled
> 
> if I dont receive your PM soonest we can call bullshit and continue to out you for what you are,,,
> 
> a liar and traitor to your country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another one bites the dust
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes you did,,,
> 
> 
> have you always been this dumb or is something new youre trying???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's dumb to accept your concession of defeat?  Yep.  You busted me.  When one strategy is failing I try something  else.  That's unlike your strategy that has failed for over a decade and a half.
> 
> I guess you got used to being butt fucked.
Click to expand...



I havent done a single strategy at all, let alone over a decade and a half,,,


you are so dumb you dont even realize your making yourself look like a moron


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> History proves you wrong.  Furthermore, if you don't change your strategy, you will lose this country in the next two election cycles and this argument will be moot.  The majority of Americans disagree with you and I know how much democracy (mob rule and big rallies) impress the Hell out of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What strategy change do you suggest will prevent demographic shift from causing me to "lose this country in the next two election" cycles?
> 
> 
> And keep it concise and to the point. I want to see your answer, clearly and not buried in meaningless filler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want a college education in three words.  A former slave is about to school you.  Heed the words:
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> History proves you wrong.  Furthermore, if you don't change your strategy, you will lose this country in the next two election cycles and this argument will be moot.  The majority of Americans disagree with you and I know how much democracy (mob rule and big rallies) impress the Hell out of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What strategy change do you suggest will prevent demographic shift from causing me to "lose this country in the next two election" cycles?
> 
> 
> And keep it concise and to the point. I want to see your answer, clearly and not buried in meaningless filler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd like to have a college education by reading a Tweet.  Let a former slave school you:
> 
> "_Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters_."   Frederick Douglass
> 
> Get back to me if you ever get serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My question was serious. You suggested a change in strategy and I asked you what strategy.
> 
> 
> You gave me "struggle".
> 
> 
> That is not a strategy. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you want a college education in five sentences.  The effective strategies have been posted at least half a dozen times and, by your own admission, you cannot read that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know why you are hesitant to answer. Because doing so, will reveal your attacks on me to be unfair.
Click to expand...


I've never attacked you.  I've only responded to you.  You've been answered with the truth and given literally hundreds of links that you could have studied.  

When *YOU *are the one asking for information, not following up on the facts presented, and falling back on the  National Socialist canard, it is *YOU* who is being unfair.

You keep asking the same questions.  You keep getting complete answers, but it goes over five sentences so you say TLDR.  What's the point?  You have a cheering section here of .... what three people?  The left has the advantage and I see it every day.  For example, since Reagan where I live it was all Republican.  In the next election, even the Republicans are switching parties to run as Democrats.  

The stronghold we once had changed as a result of the policies and people *YOU* support.  My generation was on a winning team.  The people you support are losing - county by county and state by state.  I'm just making sure we accurately record who is at fault for the demise of our culture, race, nation, and Constitution.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know some federal prosecutors.  If your claims are true, PM me and I promise you action.  If you don't PM me with details of said claim, we can call bullshit on this and move forward.  I'll keep the posters in the loop.
> 
> 
> 
> Since they cant work on here say it would be better for me to contact them directly and let me handle it,
> 
> so send me their info and I will contact them today and get this handled
> 
> if I dont receive your PM soonest we can call bullshit and continue to out you for what you are,,,
> 
> a liar and traitor to your country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another one bites the dust
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes you did,,,
> 
> 
> have you always been this dumb or is something new youre trying???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's dumb to accept your concession of defeat?  Yep.  You busted me.  When one strategy is failing I try something  else.  That's unlike your strategy that has failed for over a decade and a half.
> 
> I guess you got used to being butt fucked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I havent done a single strategy at all, let alone over a decade and a half,,,
> 
> 
> you are so dumb you dont even realize your making yourself look like a moron
Click to expand...


LMFAO.  Do you ever *READ *what you write?  I've been *IN* the fight, you post as if you want people to believe you have some credible insights only to reveal you are not part of a strategy???

Even Correll cannot outdo you for dumbassery.  You kind of remind me of the kind of guy who didn't even participate in amateur wrestling, climbing into a ring to take on a professional veteran wrestler and losing in seconds.  Then when you wake and regain consciousness, you stick your chest out and proclaim how you kicked that guy's ass.  

America needs comedic relief.  Thank you for the laugh of the week.  What a way to start a Monday!


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since they cant work on here say it would be better for me to contact them directly and let me handle it,
> 
> so send me their info and I will contact them today and get this handled
> 
> if I dont receive your PM soonest we can call bullshit and continue to out you for what you are,,,
> 
> a liar and traitor to your country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another one bites the dust
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes you did,,,
> 
> 
> have you always been this dumb or is something new youre trying???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's dumb to accept your concession of defeat?  Yep.  You busted me.  When one strategy is failing I try something  else.  That's unlike your strategy that has failed for over a decade and a half.
> 
> I guess you got used to being butt fucked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I havent done a single strategy at all, let alone over a decade and a half,,,
> 
> 
> you are so dumb you dont even realize your making yourself look like a moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMFAO.  Do you ever *READ *what you write?  I've been *IN* the fight, you post as if you want people to believe you have some credible insights only to reveal you are not part of a strategy???
> 
> Even Correll cannot outdo you for dumbassery.  You kind of remind me of the kind of guy who didn't even participate in amateur wrestling, climbing into a ring to take on a professional veteran wrestler and losing in seconds.  Then when you wake and regain consciousness, you stick your chest out and proclaim how you kicked that guy's ass.
> 
> America needs comedic relief.  Thank you for the laugh of the week.  What a way to start a Monday!
Click to expand...

its monday???


----------



## Porter Rockwell

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another one bites the dust
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes you did,,,
> 
> 
> have you always been this dumb or is something new youre trying???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's dumb to accept your concession of defeat?  Yep.  You busted me.  When one strategy is failing I try something  else.  That's unlike your strategy that has failed for over a decade and a half.
> 
> I guess you got used to being butt fucked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I havent done a single strategy at all, let alone over a decade and a half,,,
> 
> 
> you are so dumb you dont even realize your making yourself look like a moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMFAO.  Do you ever *READ *what you write?  I've been *IN* the fight, you post as if you want people to believe you have some credible insights only to reveal you are not part of a strategy???
> 
> Even Correll cannot outdo you for dumbassery.  You kind of remind me of the kind of guy who didn't even participate in amateur wrestling, climbing into a ring to take on a professional veteran wrestler and losing in seconds.  Then when you wake and regain consciousness, you stick your chest out and proclaim how you kicked that guy's ass.
> 
> America needs comedic relief.  Thank you for the laugh of the week.  What a way to start a Monday!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> its monday???
Click to expand...


Guess that depends upon where you live.  But I digress.  I can't help but go over something in my own mind.  You see, on these boards, the wallists keep repeating the same points over and over, never seeing the inherent flaws in their arguments.

I'm well aware of the flaws in my proposals, but *NOBODY* on this board has been able to articulate one... then again, *they don't read *the material.  The standard canard of we have to protect the border simply doesn't get it.  Having won many a court battle, if you don't know your enemy; if you don't know his position as well as he does, you'll probably lose the fight.  Even if you deny that publicly and never read a real post that I put on this board, you think about it and let it sink in.


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes you did,,,
> 
> 
> have you always been this dumb or is something new youre trying???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's dumb to accept your concession of defeat?  Yep.  You busted me.  When one strategy is failing I try something  else.  That's unlike your strategy that has failed for over a decade and a half.
> 
> I guess you got used to being butt fucked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I havent done a single strategy at all, let alone over a decade and a half,,,
> 
> 
> you are so dumb you dont even realize your making yourself look like a moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMFAO.  Do you ever *READ *what you write?  I've been *IN* the fight, you post as if you want people to believe you have some credible insights only to reveal you are not part of a strategy???
> 
> Even Correll cannot outdo you for dumbassery.  You kind of remind me of the kind of guy who didn't even participate in amateur wrestling, climbing into a ring to take on a professional veteran wrestler and losing in seconds.  Then when you wake and regain consciousness, you stick your chest out and proclaim how you kicked that guy's ass.
> 
> America needs comedic relief.  Thank you for the laugh of the week.  What a way to start a Monday!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> its monday???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess that depends upon where you live.  But I digress.  I can't help but go over something in my own mind.  You see, on these boards, the wallists keep repeating the same points over and over, never seeing the inherent flaws in their arguments.
> 
> I'm well aware of the flaws in my proposals, but *NOBODY* on this board has been able to articulate one... then again, *they don't read *the material.  The standard canard of we have to protect the border simply doesn't get it.  Having won many a court battle, if you don't know your enemy; if you don't know his position as well as he does, you'll probably lose the fight.  Even if you deny that publicly and never read a real post that I put on this board, you think about it and let it sink in.
Click to expand...



so are you going to send me that contact info on that prosecutor friend of yours???

you offered after all,,,or were you lying again???


----------



## danielpalos

Andylusion said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The common defense would be civil defense in this case and upgrading Ellis Island to ameliorate this humanitarian issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Build a nice wall, to deter people from walking into the desert with small children.
> 
> 
> That is the humanitarian answer.
> 
> 
> But that is not really your concern. You want to turn America into a Third World Shithole, like  your home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A wall will not deter anyone.  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it will.
> 
> 
> Some people will not be able to carry a ladder into the desert. Some will try and be seen and catch because they are moving slower.
> 
> 
> Ever little bit the flow decreases, the easier it is, for the enforcement personnel and/or military to deal with the ones still coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History proves you wrong.  Furthermore, if you don't change your strategy, you will lose this country in the next two election cycles and this argument will be moot.  The majority of Americans disagree with you and I know how much democracy (mob rule and big rallies) impress the Hell out of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, you don't even believe that.     Seriously, you don't.  Because if you were stupid enough to actually believe everything you just said, then you wouldn't be on here trying to convince people to think differently.
> 
> Seriously, I knew the Hillary Clinton was going to lose, that's why prior to the election I supported people running her as the Democrap nominee.  I told left-wingers yeah yeah go vote for Hillary.
> 
> Why would I want them to choose a much better candidate if I knew their Hillary would fail?
> 
> So you don't believe that.   If you really believed that if we push for enforcing the American law, and not allowing people to just illegally enter the country, that we would completely get blown out in the election, then you wouldn't be here trying to convince us to change our minds.
> 
> You would want us to push for our positions, so that we would be wiped out in the election.   Except.... we did push our positions, and we have the presidency....  so....  Not convinced.
Click to expand...

The right wing has virtually no economic policies only social policy.   Nothing but right wing bigotry.


----------



## danielpalos

Porter Rockwell said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should back up and try again.  No tanks have rolled up on the borders despite numerous opportunities to so without any real opposition.  Do you have a point or is this another of your fishing expeditions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just examining the limits of your opposition to the use of the military.
> 
> 
> Would you support military action on the MEXICAN side of the border to control the flow of unwanted invaders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I support the Richest using their Capital to solve our problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you do.
> 
> 
> I do not. We owe Mexico NOTHING, but ire for their/your shitty behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government solves all problems for the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the government *IS* solving all the right wing's problems.  They are imposing National ID, 24 / 7 / 365 womb to the tomb surveillance, monitoring all their financial dealings, recording who is in what group and who said what on the Internet.  The government is aiding gun control starting with letting the states outlaw firearms incrementally and making sure that intel on every individual is so complete so as to stop *ANY* potential uprising in the future -  just as the right wing is lobbying for.
Click to expand...

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States. 



> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should back up and try again.  No tanks have rolled up on the borders despite numerous opportunities to so without any real opposition.  Do you have a point or is this another of your fishing expeditions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just examining the limits of your opposition to the use of the military.
> 
> 
> Would you support military action on the MEXICAN side of the border to control the flow of unwanted invaders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I support the Richest using their Capital to solve our problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you do.
> 
> 
> I do not. We owe Mexico NOTHING, but ire for their/your shitty behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government solves all problems for the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Border security is a government responsibility.
> 
> 
> As you well know, lying Pedro.
Click to expand...

so is the security of our free States as you well know, lying Peter.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's dumb to accept your concession of defeat?  Yep.  You busted me.  When one strategy is failing I try something  else.  That's unlike your strategy that has failed for over a decade and a half.
> 
> I guess you got used to being butt fucked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I havent done a single strategy at all, let alone over a decade and a half,,,
> 
> 
> you are so dumb you dont even realize your making yourself look like a moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMFAO.  Do you ever *READ *what you write?  I've been *IN* the fight, you post as if you want people to believe you have some credible insights only to reveal you are not part of a strategy???
> 
> Even Correll cannot outdo you for dumbassery.  You kind of remind me of the kind of guy who didn't even participate in amateur wrestling, climbing into a ring to take on a professional veteran wrestler and losing in seconds.  Then when you wake and regain consciousness, you stick your chest out and proclaim how you kicked that guy's ass.
> 
> America needs comedic relief.  Thank you for the laugh of the week.  What a way to start a Monday!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> its monday???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess that depends upon where you live.  But I digress.  I can't help but go over something in my own mind.  You see, on these boards, the wallists keep repeating the same points over and over, never seeing the inherent flaws in their arguments.
> 
> I'm well aware of the flaws in my proposals, but *NOBODY* on this board has been able to articulate one... then again, *they don't read *the material.  The standard canard of we have to protect the border simply doesn't get it.  Having won many a court battle, if you don't know your enemy; if you don't know his position as well as he does, you'll probably lose the fight.  Even if you deny that publicly and never read a real post that I put on this board, you think about it and let it sink in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so are you going to send me that contact info on that prosecutor friend of yours???
> 
> you offered after all,,,or were you lying again???
Click to expand...


No, you and I both realize that if you contact him, I will never know the truth.  You PM me your contact info; I contact him and promise to monitor the situation to make sure it don't get shelved.

It's obvious that *YOU *are the one lying. You want everyone to take your word when you sure as Hell would never take my word.  You want to make sure nobody can verify the *LIE* you got caught in.

Look son, all bullshit aside:  the bulk of you Internet Keyboard Commandos like playing games.  I'd rather meet people face to face.  You like being dishonest - we both know what my offer was and I prefer a man stand, look me in the eye and spit it out when he has an issue.

And it says in the Farmer's Almanac:  If a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble.


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I havent done a single strategy at all, let alone over a decade and a half,,,
> 
> 
> you are so dumb you dont even realize your making yourself look like a moron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMFAO.  Do you ever *READ *what you write?  I've been *IN* the fight, you post as if you want people to believe you have some credible insights only to reveal you are not part of a strategy???
> 
> Even Correll cannot outdo you for dumbassery.  You kind of remind me of the kind of guy who didn't even participate in amateur wrestling, climbing into a ring to take on a professional veteran wrestler and losing in seconds.  Then when you wake and regain consciousness, you stick your chest out and proclaim how you kicked that guy's ass.
> 
> America needs comedic relief.  Thank you for the laugh of the week.  What a way to start a Monday!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> its monday???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess that depends upon where you live.  But I digress.  I can't help but go over something in my own mind.  You see, on these boards, the wallists keep repeating the same points over and over, never seeing the inherent flaws in their arguments.
> 
> I'm well aware of the flaws in my proposals, but *NOBODY* on this board has been able to articulate one... then again, *they don't read *the material.  The standard canard of we have to protect the border simply doesn't get it.  Having won many a court battle, if you don't know your enemy; if you don't know his position as well as he does, you'll probably lose the fight.  Even if you deny that publicly and never read a real post that I put on this board, you think about it and let it sink in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so are you going to send me that contact info on that prosecutor friend of yours???
> 
> you offered after all,,,or were you lying again???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you and I both realize that if you contact him, I will never know the truth.  You PM me your contact info; I contact him and promise to monitor the situation to make sure it don't get shelved.
> 
> It's obvious that *YOU *are the one lying. You want everyone to take your word when you sure as Hell would never take my word.  You want to make sure nobody can verify the *LIE* you got caught in.
> 
> Look son, all bullshit aside:  the bulk of you Internet Keyboard Commandos like playing games.  I'd rather meet people face to face.  You like being dishonest - we both know what my offer was and I prefer a man stand, look me in the eye and spit it out when he has an issue.
> 
> And it says in the Farmer's Almanac:  If a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble.
Click to expand...

I figured you were lying,,,


----------



## Porter Rockwell

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMFAO.  Do you ever *READ *what you write?  I've been *IN* the fight, you post as if you want people to believe you have some credible insights only to reveal you are not part of a strategy???
> 
> Even Correll cannot outdo you for dumbassery.  You kind of remind me of the kind of guy who didn't even participate in amateur wrestling, climbing into a ring to take on a professional veteran wrestler and losing in seconds.  Then when you wake and regain consciousness, you stick your chest out and proclaim how you kicked that guy's ass.
> 
> America needs comedic relief.  Thank you for the laugh of the week.  What a way to start a Monday!
> 
> 
> 
> its monday???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess that depends upon where you live.  But I digress.  I can't help but go over something in my own mind.  You see, on these boards, the wallists keep repeating the same points over and over, never seeing the inherent flaws in their arguments.
> 
> I'm well aware of the flaws in my proposals, but *NOBODY* on this board has been able to articulate one... then again, *they don't read *the material.  The standard canard of we have to protect the border simply doesn't get it.  Having won many a court battle, if you don't know your enemy; if you don't know his position as well as he does, you'll probably lose the fight.  Even if you deny that publicly and never read a real post that I put on this board, you think about it and let it sink in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so are you going to send me that contact info on that prosecutor friend of yours???
> 
> you offered after all,,,or were you lying again???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you and I both realize that if you contact him, I will never know the truth.  You PM me your contact info; I contact him and promise to monitor the situation to make sure it don't get shelved.
> 
> It's obvious that *YOU *are the one lying. You want everyone to take your word when you sure as Hell would never take my word.  You want to make sure nobody can verify the *LIE* you got caught in.
> 
> Look son, all bullshit aside:  the bulk of you Internet Keyboard Commandos like playing games.  I'd rather meet people face to face.  You like being dishonest - we both know what my offer was and I prefer a man stand, look me in the eye and spit it out when he has an issue.
> 
> And it says in the Farmer's Almanac:  If a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I figured you were lying,,,
Click to expand...


No dumbass, you were the one caught lying.  Did you PM me and give me the info?  That was the deal.  You're a chickenshit that likes to post lies on the Internet and then try to deflect once you're caught.  

Nobody stole a damn thing from you.  You are a National Socialist that got busted.  You and the other non-reading troll should rename yourselves Dumb and Dumber.  And now, you pathological, lying, piece of dog squeeze - we're pretty much done.  Go stick your head back up Trump's ass where it belongs.


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> its monday???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess that depends upon where you live.  But I digress.  I can't help but go over something in my own mind.  You see, on these boards, the wallists keep repeating the same points over and over, never seeing the inherent flaws in their arguments.
> 
> I'm well aware of the flaws in my proposals, but *NOBODY* on this board has been able to articulate one... then again, *they don't read *the material.  The standard canard of we have to protect the border simply doesn't get it.  Having won many a court battle, if you don't know your enemy; if you don't know his position as well as he does, you'll probably lose the fight.  Even if you deny that publicly and never read a real post that I put on this board, you think about it and let it sink in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so are you going to send me that contact info on that prosecutor friend of yours???
> 
> you offered after all,,,or were you lying again???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you and I both realize that if you contact him, I will never know the truth.  You PM me your contact info; I contact him and promise to monitor the situation to make sure it don't get shelved.
> 
> It's obvious that *YOU *are the one lying. You want everyone to take your word when you sure as Hell would never take my word.  You want to make sure nobody can verify the *LIE* you got caught in.
> 
> Look son, all bullshit aside:  the bulk of you Internet Keyboard Commandos like playing games.  I'd rather meet people face to face.  You like being dishonest - we both know what my offer was and I prefer a man stand, look me in the eye and spit it out when he has an issue.
> 
> And it says in the Farmer's Almanac:  If a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I figured you were lying,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No dumbass, you were the one caught lying.  Did you PM me and give me the info?  That was the deal.  You're a chickenshit that likes to post lies on the Internet and then try to deflect once you're caught.
> 
> Nobody stole a damn thing from you.  You are a National Socialist that got busted.  You and the other non-reading troll should rename yourselves Dumb and Dumber.  And now, you pathological, lying, piece of dog squeeze - we're pretty much done.  Go stick your head back up Trump's ass where it belongs.
Click to expand...

what lies did I post???


----------



## Porter Rockwell

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess that depends upon where you live.  But I digress.  I can't help but go over something in my own mind.  You see, on these boards, the wallists keep repeating the same points over and over, never seeing the inherent flaws in their arguments.
> 
> I'm well aware of the flaws in my proposals, but *NOBODY* on this board has been able to articulate one... then again, *they don't read *the material.  The standard canard of we have to protect the border simply doesn't get it.  Having won many a court battle, if you don't know your enemy; if you don't know his position as well as he does, you'll probably lose the fight.  Even if you deny that publicly and never read a real post that I put on this board, you think about it and let it sink in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so are you going to send me that contact info on that prosecutor friend of yours???
> 
> you offered after all,,,or were you lying again???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you and I both realize that if you contact him, I will never know the truth.  You PM me your contact info; I contact him and promise to monitor the situation to make sure it don't get shelved.
> 
> It's obvious that *YOU *are the one lying. You want everyone to take your word when you sure as Hell would never take my word.  You want to make sure nobody can verify the *LIE* you got caught in.
> 
> Look son, all bullshit aside:  the bulk of you Internet Keyboard Commandos like playing games.  I'd rather meet people face to face.  You like being dishonest - we both know what my offer was and I prefer a man stand, look me in the eye and spit it out when he has an issue.
> 
> And it says in the Farmer's Almanac:  If a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I figured you were lying,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No dumbass, you were the one caught lying.  Did you PM me and give me the info?  That was the deal.  You're a chickenshit that likes to post lies on the Internet and then try to deflect once you're caught.
> 
> Nobody stole a damn thing from you.  You are a National Socialist that got busted.  You and the other non-reading troll should rename yourselves Dumb and Dumber.  And now, you pathological, lying, piece of dog squeeze - we're pretty much done.  Go stick your head back up Trump's ass where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what lies did I post???
Click to expand...


Start with post # 1311 and work backward to the allegation that someone held you up with a gun.


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> so are you going to send me that contact info on that prosecutor friend of yours???
> 
> you offered after all,,,or were you lying again???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you and I both realize that if you contact him, I will never know the truth.  You PM me your contact info; I contact him and promise to monitor the situation to make sure it don't get shelved.
> 
> It's obvious that *YOU *are the one lying. You want everyone to take your word when you sure as Hell would never take my word.  You want to make sure nobody can verify the *LIE* you got caught in.
> 
> Look son, all bullshit aside:  the bulk of you Internet Keyboard Commandos like playing games.  I'd rather meet people face to face.  You like being dishonest - we both know what my offer was and I prefer a man stand, look me in the eye and spit it out when he has an issue.
> 
> And it says in the Farmer's Almanac:  If a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I figured you were lying,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No dumbass, you were the one caught lying.  Did you PM me and give me the info?  That was the deal.  You're a chickenshit that likes to post lies on the Internet and then try to deflect once you're caught.
> 
> Nobody stole a damn thing from you.  You are a National Socialist that got busted.  You and the other non-reading troll should rename yourselves Dumb and Dumber.  And now, you pathological, lying, piece of dog squeeze - we're pretty much done.  Go stick your head back up Trump's ass where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what lies did I post???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Start with post # 1311 and work backward to the allegation that someone held you up with a gun.
Click to expand...



how would you know that was a lie???

you werent there,,,

so that makes you a fucking liar,,,

and dont PM me anymore unless its to give me the number of your friend and your info so I can tell him who sent me,,,


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Jitss617 said:


> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?




Once a post goes over 1000 posts, many posters have already forgotten what the post is about and what the facts are.  

So, to recap...

A militia leader tries to pretend to be a border patrol militiaman.  He gets arrested for his troubles - and is a felon carrying a firearm to boot.

Now, some think the guy is some kind of hero.  I think he's an idiot.  If he studied the legal history of this subject, he would realize that in 2003 some border patrol guys stopped some Salvadorans at the border when they attempted to trespass into the U.S. and effect an improper entry.

The border patrol guys were there at the behest of the property owner and when the border patrol guys stopped the trespass and improper entry attempt, it ended up in court.  There, the judge told the border patrol guys that they violated the "_civil rights_" of the foreigners and consequently the border patrol guys were sent to prison; the property owner lost his ranch to the Salvadorans.

So, essentially, these "_civil rights_" trumped the PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS of Americans.  I DISAGREED with the ruling and urged both parties (border patrol guys and the land owner) to appeal the case.  They declined.  And so, the law is, if you go to the border and try to play the part of an ICE agent, you will be arrested because the undocumented foreigners have "_civil rights_."  

Leiva v. Ranch Rescue


----------



## Porter Rockwell

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you and I both realize that if you contact him, I will never know the truth.  You PM me your contact info; I contact him and promise to monitor the situation to make sure it don't get shelved.
> 
> It's obvious that *YOU *are the one lying. You want everyone to take your word when you sure as Hell would never take my word.  You want to make sure nobody can verify the *LIE* you got caught in.
> 
> Look son, all bullshit aside:  the bulk of you Internet Keyboard Commandos like playing games.  I'd rather meet people face to face.  You like being dishonest - we both know what my offer was and I prefer a man stand, look me in the eye and spit it out when he has an issue.
> 
> And it says in the Farmer's Almanac:  If a man could have half his wishes, he'd just double his trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> I figured you were lying,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No dumbass, you were the one caught lying.  Did you PM me and give me the info?  That was the deal.  You're a chickenshit that likes to post lies on the Internet and then try to deflect once you're caught.
> 
> Nobody stole a damn thing from you.  You are a National Socialist that got busted.  You and the other non-reading troll should rename yourselves Dumb and Dumber.  And now, you pathological, lying, piece of dog squeeze - we're pretty much done.  Go stick your head back up Trump's ass where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what lies did I post???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Start with post # 1311 and work backward to the allegation that someone held you up with a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> how would you know that was a lie???
> 
> you werent there,,,
> 
> so that makes you a fucking liar,,,
> 
> and dont PM me anymore unless its to give me the number of your friend and your info so I can tell him who sent me,,,
Click to expand...


Your rationale is so silly that it sounds like something a 10 year old would say. * YOU* made a false allegation.  If such an event happened, you would verify it by providing a copy of the police report.  My critics for the last number of years said if you don't have a link, it didn't happen.  I'm extending the same standard to you.

Many years ago, the media would lie about the size of our crowds and it was common knowledge.  If you were right of center, the media lied about the amount of support you got.  They did it to us and lied, but in the end, we turned this area from Democrat to Republican in one election cycle.  Since the MSM was not honest, I had to acquiesce, on this very thread, and let it go.  So, the MSM is the only credible source according to my critics.  My word is not good enough.  

I CAN do this for you:  You accept my word and I'll accept yours.  Then we start over.  But, if you want to say something personal, you should have enough decency and respect for others to take it to PM.  Your personal issues with me are not related to the topic and have no place on this thread.


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I figured you were lying,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No dumbass, you were the one caught lying.  Did you PM me and give me the info?  That was the deal.  You're a chickenshit that likes to post lies on the Internet and then try to deflect once you're caught.
> 
> Nobody stole a damn thing from you.  You are a National Socialist that got busted.  You and the other non-reading troll should rename yourselves Dumb and Dumber.  And now, you pathological, lying, piece of dog squeeze - we're pretty much done.  Go stick your head back up Trump's ass where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what lies did I post???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Start with post # 1311 and work backward to the allegation that someone held you up with a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> how would you know that was a lie???
> 
> you werent there,,,
> 
> so that makes you a fucking liar,,,
> 
> and dont PM me anymore unless its to give me the number of your friend and your info so I can tell him who sent me,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your rationale is so silly that it sounds like something a 10 year old would say. * YOU* made a false allegation.  If such an event happened, you would verify it by providing a copy of the police report.  My critics for the last number of years said if you don't have a link, it didn't happen.  I'm extending the same standard to you.
> 
> Many years ago, the media would lie about the size of our crowds and it was common knowledge.  If you were right of center, the media lied about the amount of support you got.  They did it to us and lied, but in the end, we turned this area from Democrat to Republican in one election cycle.  Since the MSM was not honest, I had to acquiesce, on this very thread, and let it go.  So, the MSM is the only credible source according to my critics.  My word is not good enough.
> 
> I CAN do this for you:  You accept my word and I'll accept yours.  Then we start over.  But, if you want to say something personal, you should have enough decency and respect for others to take it to PM.  Your personal issues with me are not related to the topic and have no place on this thread.
Click to expand...

so you get caught lying and try to throw it back on me,,,

sorry not gonna work and you are still a LIAR,,,


----------



## Porter Rockwell

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> No dumbass, you were the one caught lying.  Did you PM me and give me the info?  That was the deal.  You're a chickenshit that likes to post lies on the Internet and then try to deflect once you're caught.
> 
> Nobody stole a damn thing from you.  You are a National Socialist that got busted.  You and the other non-reading troll should rename yourselves Dumb and Dumber.  And now, you pathological, lying, piece of dog squeeze - we're pretty much done.  Go stick your head back up Trump's ass where it belongs.
> 
> 
> 
> what lies did I post???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Start with post # 1311 and work backward to the allegation that someone held you up with a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> how would you know that was a lie???
> 
> you werent there,,,
> 
> so that makes you a fucking liar,,,
> 
> and dont PM me anymore unless its to give me the number of your friend and your info so I can tell him who sent me,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your rationale is so silly that it sounds like something a 10 year old would say. * YOU* made a false allegation.  If such an event happened, you would verify it by providing a copy of the police report.  My critics for the last number of years said if you don't have a link, it didn't happen.  I'm extending the same standard to you.
> 
> Many years ago, the media would lie about the size of our crowds and it was common knowledge.  If you were right of center, the media lied about the amount of support you got.  They did it to us and lied, but in the end, we turned this area from Democrat to Republican in one election cycle.  Since the MSM was not honest, I had to acquiesce, on this very thread, and let it go.  So, the MSM is the only credible source according to my critics.  My word is not good enough.
> 
> I CAN do this for you:  You accept my word and I'll accept yours.  Then we start over.  But, if you want to say something personal, you should have enough decency and respect for others to take it to PM.  Your personal issues with me are not related to the topic and have no place on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you get caught lying and try to throw it back on me,,,
> 
> sorry not gonna work and you are still a LIAR,,,
Click to expand...


Posting your accusation in all caps doesn't make it true.  I am not a liar; you are and it's been proven.  You're also a dumb son of a bitch as I asked you nicely not to disrespect the OP's thread, but take this to PM.  I trust the posters can read the previous posts and make up their own minds.

The end of this is that what you have to say to me, you won't say to my face and this belongs in PM.  So, excuse the Hell out of me when I ignore your next personal attack - One you will make here but, again NEVER to my face.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Jitss617 said:


> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?




Okay, we almost got derailed, but I want to repeat this because after 1000 + posts nobody really remembers what the facts are.  I will repeat them one more time so as to avoid the off topic comments:

Once a post goes over 1000 posts, many posters have already forgotten what the post is about and what the facts are. 

So, to recap...

A militia leader tries to pretend to be a border patrol militiaman. He gets arrested for his troubles - and is a felon carrying a firearm to boot.

Now, some think the guy is some kind of hero. I think he's an idiot. If he studied the legal history of this subject, he would realize that in 2003 some border patrol guys stopped some Salvadorans at the border when they attempted to trespass into the U.S. and effect an improper entry.

The border patrol guys were there at the behest of the property owner and when the border patrol guys stopped the trespass and improper entry attempt, it ended up in court. There, the judge told the border patrol guys that they violated the "_civil rights_" of the foreigners and consequently the border patrol guys were sent to prison; the property owner lost his ranch to the Salvadorans.

So, essentially, these "_civil rights_" trumped the PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS of Americans. I DISAGREED with the ruling and urged both parties (border patrol guys and the land owner) to appeal the case. They declined. And so, the law is, if you go to the border and try to play the part of an ICE agent, you will be arrested because the undocumented foreigners have "_civil rights_."


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> what lies did I post???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Start with post # 1311 and work backward to the allegation that someone held you up with a gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> how would you know that was a lie???
> 
> you werent there,,,
> 
> so that makes you a fucking liar,,,
> 
> and dont PM me anymore unless its to give me the number of your friend and your info so I can tell him who sent me,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your rationale is so silly that it sounds like something a 10 year old would say. * YOU* made a false allegation.  If such an event happened, you would verify it by providing a copy of the police report.  My critics for the last number of years said if you don't have a link, it didn't happen.  I'm extending the same standard to you.
> 
> Many years ago, the media would lie about the size of our crowds and it was common knowledge.  If you were right of center, the media lied about the amount of support you got.  They did it to us and lied, but in the end, we turned this area from Democrat to Republican in one election cycle.  Since the MSM was not honest, I had to acquiesce, on this very thread, and let it go.  So, the MSM is the only credible source according to my critics.  My word is not good enough.
> 
> I CAN do this for you:  You accept my word and I'll accept yours.  Then we start over.  But, if you want to say something personal, you should have enough decency and respect for others to take it to PM.  Your personal issues with me are not related to the topic and have no place on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you get caught lying and try to throw it back on me,,,
> 
> sorry not gonna work and you are still a LIAR,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Posting your accusation in all caps doesn't make it true.  I am not a liar; you are and it's been proven.  You're also a dumb son of a bitch as I asked you nicely not to disrespect the OP's thread, but take this to PM.  I trust the posters can read the previous posts and make up their own minds.
> 
> The end of this is that what you have to say to me, you won't say to my face and this belongs in PM.  So, excuse the Hell out of me when I ignore your next personal attack - One you will make here but, again NEVER to my face.
Click to expand...




so you get caught lying and try to deflect back on me,,,

sorry youre still a liar


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> New Mexico militia detains migrants at gunpoint until Border Patrol arrives: report
> 
> 
> Let’s get it going! Which one of you coward democrats want to stop us!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, we almost got derailed, but I want to repeat this because after 1000 + posts nobody really remembers what the facts are.  I will repeat them one more time so as to avoid the off topic comments:
> 
> Once a post goes over 1000 posts, many posters have already forgotten what the post is about and what the facts are.
> 
> So, to recap...
> 
> A militia leader tries to pretend to be a border patrol militiaman. He gets arrested for his troubles - and is a felon carrying a firearm to boot.
> 
> Now, some think the guy is some kind of hero. I think he's an idiot. If he studied the legal history of this subject, he would realize that in 2003 some border patrol guys stopped some Salvadorans at the border when they attempted to trespass into the U.S. and effect an improper entry.
> 
> The border patrol guys were there at the behest of the property owner and when the border patrol guys stopped the trespass and improper entry attempt, it ended up in court. There, the judge told the border patrol guys that they violated the "_civil rights_" of the foreigners and consequently the border patrol guys were sent to prison; the property owner lost his ranch to the Salvadorans.
> 
> So, essentially, these "_civil rights_" trumped the PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS of Americans. I DISAGREED with the ruling and urged both parties (border patrol guys and the land owner) to appeal the case. They declined. And so, the law is, if you go to the border and try to play the part of an ICE agent, you will be arrested because the undocumented foreigners have "_civil rights_."
Click to expand...

what civil right was violated and where is that right listed???


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> What strategy change do you suggest will prevent demographic shift from causing me to "lose this country in the next two election" cycles?
> 
> 
> And keep it concise and to the point. I want to see your answer, clearly and not buried in meaningless filler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want a college education in three words.  A former slave is about to school you.  Heed the words:
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> What strategy change do you suggest will prevent demographic shift from causing me to "lose this country in the next two election" cycles?
> 
> 
> And keep it concise and to the point. I want to see your answer, clearly and not buried in meaningless filler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd like to have a college education by reading a Tweet.  Let a former slave school you:
> 
> "_Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters_."   Frederick Douglass
> 
> Get back to me if you ever get serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My question was serious. You suggested a change in strategy and I asked you what strategy.
> 
> 
> You gave me "struggle".
> 
> 
> That is not a strategy. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you want a college education in five sentences.  The effective strategies have been posted at least half a dozen times and, by your own admission, you cannot read that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know why you are hesitant to answer. Because doing so, will reveal your attacks on me to be unfair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never attacked you.  I've only responded to you.  You've been answered with the truth and given literally hundreds of links that you could have studied.
> 
> When *YOU *are the one asking for information, not following up on the facts presented, and falling back on the  National Socialist canard, it is *YOU* who is being unfair.
> 
> You keep asking the same questions.  You keep getting complete answers, but it goes over five sentences so you say TLDR.  What's the point?  You have a cheering section here of .... what three people?  The left has the advantage and I see it every day.  For example, since Reagan where I live it was all Republican.  In the next election, even the Republicans are switching parties to run as Democrats.
> 
> The stronghold we once had changed as a result of the policies and people *YOU* support.  My generation was on a winning team.  The people you support are losing - county by county and state by state.  I'm just making sure we accurately record who is at fault for the demise of our culture, race, nation, and Constitution.
Click to expand...




You say you did not attack me, than in the next sentence you call me a nazi.




You also keep attacking me for supporting policies and strategies you oppose.


Me asking you for what strategy you suggest, is completely reasonable. 


That you were unable to give me one, suggests that you know that you don't have a very good answer.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Here is more info on how the wallists screwed all of the right wing:

Controversy in a border town / Citizen patrols get all sorts of reactions

Texas Vigilante Group Faces Charges and Lawsuit

Border Activist's Ranch Turned Over to Migrants

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/20/AR2005082000922.html

It is settled law whether we like it or not and whether or not we agree, undocumented foreigners have "_civil rights_."  If the wallists hadn't been cowards and tight wads, they would have raised the money and taken the verdict to court on appeal.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want a college education in three words.  A former slave is about to school you.  Heed the words:
> You'd like to have a college education by reading a Tweet.  Let a former slave school you:
> 
> "_Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters_."   Frederick Douglass
> 
> Get back to me if you ever get serious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My question was serious. You suggested a change in strategy and I asked you what strategy.
> 
> 
> You gave me "struggle".
> 
> 
> That is not a strategy. Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you want a college education in five sentences.  The effective strategies have been posted at least half a dozen times and, by your own admission, you cannot read that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know why you are hesitant to answer. Because doing so, will reveal your attacks on me to be unfair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never attacked you.  I've only responded to you.  You've been answered with the truth and given literally hundreds of links that you could have studied.
> 
> When *YOU *are the one asking for information, not following up on the facts presented, and falling back on the  National Socialist canard, it is *YOU* who is being unfair.
> 
> You keep asking the same questions.  You keep getting complete answers, but it goes over five sentences so you say TLDR.  What's the point?  You have a cheering section here of .... what three people?  The left has the advantage and I see it every day.  For example, since Reagan where I live it was all Republican.  In the next election, even the Republicans are switching parties to run as Democrats.
> 
> The stronghold we once had changed as a result of the policies and people *YOU* support.  My generation was on a winning team.  The people you support are losing - county by county and state by state.  I'm just making sure we accurately record who is at fault for the demise of our culture, race, nation, and Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say you did not attack me, than in the next sentence you call me a nazi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You also keep attacking me for supporting policies and strategies you oppose.
> 
> 
> Me asking you for what strategy you suggest, is completely reasonable.
> 
> 
> That you were unable to give me one, suggests that you know that you don't have a very good answer.
Click to expand...


Having answered you in at no less than 250 posts, to get into this would be a clusterfuck waste of time.  Who do you think cares?  If anyone besides you and your nob polisher ask, I'll go back and find at least half a dozen times where I have responded to this.  

PM me and give me your solemn word that once I answer you, you will never ask the question again and I'll do your push button monkey work so that the next time you deny it, I can prove that you are a liar.  It's simple:  The posts averaged ten paragraphs and that is more than you can read in any one sitting.  

Besides your personal problem, your pissing match don't have squat to do with this OP.  Respond to this in PM or you will be treated like the troll you are about to prove yourself to be.


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> Here is more info on how the wallists screwed all of the right wing:
> 
> Controversy in a border town / Citizen patrols get all sorts of reactions
> 
> Texas Vigilante Group Faces Charges and Lawsuit
> 
> Border Activist's Ranch Turned Over to Migrants
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/20/AR2005082000922.html
> 
> It is settled law whether we like it or not and whether or not we agree, undocumented foreigners have "_civil rights_."  If the wallists hadn't been cowards and tight wads, they would have raised the money and taken the verdict to court on appeal.




what civil rights were violated,,or are you lying again???


----------



## Porter Rockwell

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is more info on how the wallists screwed all of the right wing:
> 
> Controversy in a border town / Citizen patrols get all sorts of reactions
> 
> Texas Vigilante Group Faces Charges and Lawsuit
> 
> Border Activist's Ranch Turned Over to Migrants
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/20/AR2005082000922.html
> 
> It is settled law whether we like it or not and whether or not we agree, undocumented foreigners have "_civil rights_."  If the wallists hadn't been cowards and tight wads, they would have raised the money and taken the verdict to court on appeal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what civil rights were violated,,or are you lying again???
Click to expand...


You are an uneducated idiot that calls people a liar when you don't like them.  Well snowflake, here is a direct quote from one of the cited links your illiterate ass cannot read.  The other posters can:

"_In May, the Salvadoran couple was joined by four other plaintiffs in a *civil suit *that aims to effectively shut down Ranch Rescue's paramilitary operations.* The six migrants claim they were assaulted, falsely imprisoned, robbed and threatened with death* by members of Ranch Rescue and their host in Jim Hogg County, rancher Joe Sutton. One of the Salvadorans was allegedly pistol-whipped by Nethercott and attacked by Nethercott's dog."_


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is more info on how the wallists screwed all of the right wing:
> 
> Controversy in a border town / Citizen patrols get all sorts of reactions
> 
> Texas Vigilante Group Faces Charges and Lawsuit
> 
> Border Activist's Ranch Turned Over to Migrants
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/20/AR2005082000922.html
> 
> It is settled law whether we like it or not and whether or not we agree, undocumented foreigners have "_civil rights_."  If the wallists hadn't been cowards and tight wads, they would have raised the money and taken the verdict to court on appeal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what civil rights were violated,,or are you lying again???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an uneducated idiot that calls people a liar when you don't like them.  Well snowflake, here is a direct quote from one of the cited links your illiterate ass cannot read.  The other posters can:
> 
> "_In May, the Salvadoran couple was joined by four other plaintiffs in a *civil suit *that aims to effectively shut down Ranch Rescue's paramilitary operations.* The six migrants claim they were assaulted, falsely imprisoned, robbed and threatened with death* by members of Ranch Rescue and their host in Jim Hogg County, rancher Joe Sutton. One of the Salvadorans was allegedly pistol-whipped by Nethercott and attacked by Nethercott's dog."_
Click to expand...



being robbed and beaten isnt a civil right, its just a crime,,,

LIAR LIAR pants on fire smokes blowing out your ass


----------



## Porter Rockwell

*BEFORE* this bunch of illiterate wallists who are desperately trying to make this personal got into the fray, the constitutionalists I worked with were winning the fight.  That is why I virtually begged the militias to get Ranch Rescue to appeal the case.

WHERE did the constitutionalists stand on this issue BEFORE the wallists like Correll and Progressive Hunter came along?  Here is a quote:

Two separate groups of undocumented alien-travelers are bringing civil actions against a group of Defendants they encountered while traveling on foot through Jim Hogg County, Texas, in March 2003.

.._.The courts must initially resolve the issue of whether the initial crime of entering the United States illegally, a violation of Federal Immigration Law, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1325 (1996),"9 will preclude Plaintiffs from recovery against Ranch Rescue. If the court finds this initial violation to preclude any form of civil remedy, then Plaintiffs have no right to bring these actions. At first glance, this question appears to be settled. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution expressly states, "no State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."" The Courts have consistently held that an alien, no matter his status under the immigration laws, is a person within the meaning and grants of due process of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.5' However, even though the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments seemingly guarantee undocumented aliens the right to equal protection and due process, the Supreme Court is yet to rule on what equal protection and due process mean to persons whose presence inside the United States is based upon a violation of Federal Laws_.

https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1186&context=umialr

That was* BEFORE* the trials.  Well the courts ruled *against that reasoning*; Ranch Rescue did not appeal the rulings so that IS the law until another group has someone arrested and the law tested again in court - all the way up to the United States Supreme Court.  So yes, thanks to the wallists, the undocumented foreigners *DO* have civil rights.


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> *BEFORE* this bunch of illiterate wallists who are desperately trying to make this personal got into the fray, the constitutionalists I worked with were winning the fight.  That is why I virtually begged the militias to get Ranch Rescue to appeal the case.
> 
> WHERE did the constitutionalists stand on this issue BEFORE the wallists like Correll and Progressive Hunter came along?  Here is a quote:
> 
> Two separate groups of undocumented alien-travelers are bringing civil actions against a group of Defendants they encountered while traveling on foot through Jim Hogg County, Texas, in March 2003.
> 
> .._.The courts must initially resolve the issue of whether the initial crime of entering the United States illegally, a violation of Federal Immigration Law, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1325 (1996),"9 will preclude Plaintiffs from recovery against Ranch Rescue. If the court finds this initial violation to preclude any form of civil remedy, then Plaintiffs have no right to bring these actions. At first glance, this question appears to be settled. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution expressly states, "no State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."" The Courts have consistently held that an alien, no matter his status under the immigration laws, is a person within the meaning and grants of due process of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.5' However, even though the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments seemingly guarantee undocumented aliens the right to equal protection and due process, the Supreme Court is yet to rule on what equal protection and due process mean to persons whose presence inside the United States is based upon a violation of Federal Laws_.
> 
> https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1186&context=umialr
> 
> That was* BEFORE* the trials.  Well the courts ruled *against that reasoning*; Ranch Rescue did not appeal the rulings so that IS the law until another group has someone arrested and the law tested again in court - all the way up to the United States Supreme Court.  So yes, thanks to the wallists, the undocumented foreigners *DO* have civil rights.




doesnt mean they were violated,,,

LIAR


----------



## Porter Rockwell

progressive hunter said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BEFORE* this bunch of illiterate wallists who are desperately trying to make this personal got into the fray, the constitutionalists I worked with were winning the fight.  That is why I virtually begged the militias to get Ranch Rescue to appeal the case.
> 
> WHERE did the constitutionalists stand on this issue BEFORE the wallists like Correll and Progressive Hunter came along?  Here is a quote:
> 
> Two separate groups of undocumented alien-travelers are bringing civil actions against a group of Defendants they encountered while traveling on foot through Jim Hogg County, Texas, in March 2003.
> 
> .._.The courts must initially resolve the issue of whether the initial crime of entering the United States illegally, a violation of Federal Immigration Law, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1325 (1996),"9 will preclude Plaintiffs from recovery against Ranch Rescue. If the court finds this initial violation to preclude any form of civil remedy, then Plaintiffs have no right to bring these actions. At first glance, this question appears to be settled. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution expressly states, "no State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."" The Courts have consistently held that an alien, no matter his status under the immigration laws, is a person within the meaning and grants of due process of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.5' However, even though the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments seemingly guarantee undocumented aliens the right to equal protection and due process, the Supreme Court is yet to rule on what equal protection and due process mean to persons whose presence inside the United States is based upon a violation of Federal Laws_.
> 
> https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1186&context=umialr
> 
> That was* BEFORE* the trials.  Well the courts ruled *against that reasoning*; Ranch Rescue did not appeal the rulings so that IS the law until another group has someone arrested and the law tested again in court - all the way up to the United States Supreme Court.  So yes, thanks to the wallists, the undocumented foreigners *DO* have civil rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> doesnt mean they were violated,,,
> 
> LIAR
Click to expand...


You are a dumb ass.  Read the links.  You'll find out how wrong you are.

Here is more info on how the wallists screwed all of the right wing:

Controversy in a border town / Citizen patrols get all sorts of reactions

Texas Vigilante Group Faces Charges and Lawsuit

Border Activist's Ranch Turned Over to Migrants

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/20/AR2005082000922.html

It is settled law whether we like it or not and whether or not we agree, undocumented foreigners have "_civil rights_." If the wallists hadn't been cowards and tight wads, they would have raised the money and taken the verdict to court on appeal.

*BEFORE* this bunch of illiterate wallists who are desperately trying to make this personal got into the fray, the constitutionalists I worked with were winning the fight. That is why I virtually begged the militias to get Ranch Rescue to appeal the case.

WHERE did the constitutionalists stand on this issue BEFORE the wallists like Correll and Progressive Hunter came along? Here is a quote:

Two separate groups of undocumented alien-travelers are bringing civil actions against a group of Defendants they encountered while traveling on foot through Jim Hogg County, Texas, in March 2003.

.._.The courts must initially resolve the issue of whether the initial crime of entering the United States illegally, a violation of Federal Immigration Law, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1325 (1996),"9 will preclude Plaintiffs from recovery against Ranch Rescue. If the court finds this initial violation to preclude any form of civil remedy, then Plaintiffs have no right to bring these actions. At first glance, this question appears to be settled. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution expressly states, "no State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."" The Courts have consistently held that an alien, no matter his status under the immigration laws, is a person within the meaning and grants of due process of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.5' However, even though the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments seemingly guarantee undocumented aliens the right to equal protection and due process, the Supreme Court is yet to rule on what equal protection and due process mean to persons whose presence inside the United States is based upon a violation of Federal Laws_.

https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1186&context=umialr

That was* BEFORE* the trials. Well the courts ruled *against that reasoning*; Ranch Rescue did not appeal the rulings so that IS the law until another group has someone arrested and the law tested again in court - all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. So yes, thanks to the wallists, the undocumented foreigners *DO* have civil rights.


----------



## progressive hunter

Porter Rockwell said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BEFORE* this bunch of illiterate wallists who are desperately trying to make this personal got into the fray, the constitutionalists I worked with were winning the fight.  That is why I virtually begged the militias to get Ranch Rescue to appeal the case.
> 
> WHERE did the constitutionalists stand on this issue BEFORE the wallists like Correll and Progressive Hunter came along?  Here is a quote:
> 
> Two separate groups of undocumented alien-travelers are bringing civil actions against a group of Defendants they encountered while traveling on foot through Jim Hogg County, Texas, in March 2003.
> 
> .._.The courts must initially resolve the issue of whether the initial crime of entering the United States illegally, a violation of Federal Immigration Law, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1325 (1996),"9 will preclude Plaintiffs from recovery against Ranch Rescue. If the court finds this initial violation to preclude any form of civil remedy, then Plaintiffs have no right to bring these actions. At first glance, this question appears to be settled. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution expressly states, "no State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."" The Courts have consistently held that an alien, no matter his status under the immigration laws, is a person within the meaning and grants of due process of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.5' However, even though the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments seemingly guarantee undocumented aliens the right to equal protection and due process, the Supreme Court is yet to rule on what equal protection and due process mean to persons whose presence inside the United States is based upon a violation of Federal Laws_.
> 
> https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1186&context=umialr
> 
> That was* BEFORE* the trials.  Well the courts ruled *against that reasoning*; Ranch Rescue did not appeal the rulings so that IS the law until another group has someone arrested and the law tested again in court - all the way up to the United States Supreme Court.  So yes, thanks to the wallists, the undocumented foreigners *DO* have civil rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> doesnt mean they were violated,,,
> 
> LIAR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a dumb ass.  Read the links.  You'll find out how wrong you are.
> 
> Here is more info on how the wallists screwed all of the right wing:
> 
> Controversy in a border town / Citizen patrols get all sorts of reactions
> 
> Texas Vigilante Group Faces Charges and Lawsuit
> 
> Border Activist's Ranch Turned Over to Migrants
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/20/AR2005082000922.html
> 
> It is settled law whether we like it or not and whether or not we agree, undocumented foreigners have "_civil rights_." If the wallists hadn't been cowards and tight wads, they would have raised the money and taken the verdict to court on appeal.
> 
> *BEFORE* this bunch of illiterate wallists who are desperately trying to make this personal got into the fray, the constitutionalists I worked with were winning the fight. That is why I virtually begged the militias to get Ranch Rescue to appeal the case.
> 
> WHERE did the constitutionalists stand on this issue BEFORE the wallists like Correll and Progressive Hunter came along? Here is a quote:
> 
> Two separate groups of undocumented alien-travelers are bringing civil actions against a group of Defendants they encountered while traveling on foot through Jim Hogg County, Texas, in March 2003.
> 
> .._.The courts must initially resolve the issue of whether the initial crime of entering the United States illegally, a violation of Federal Immigration Law, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1325 (1996),"9 will preclude Plaintiffs from recovery against Ranch Rescue. If the court finds this initial violation to preclude any form of civil remedy, then Plaintiffs have no right to bring these actions. At first glance, this question appears to be settled. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution expressly states, "no State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."" The Courts have consistently held that an alien, no matter his status under the immigration laws, is a person within the meaning and grants of due process of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.5' However, even though the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments seemingly guarantee undocumented aliens the right to equal protection and due process, the Supreme Court is yet to rule on what equal protection and due process mean to persons whose presence inside the United States is based upon a violation of Federal Laws_.
> 
> https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1186&context=umialr
> 
> That was* BEFORE* the trials. Well the courts ruled *against that reasoning*; Ranch Rescue did not appeal the rulings so that IS the law until another group has someone arrested and the law tested again in court - all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. So yes, thanks to the wallists, the undocumented foreigners *DO* have civil rights.
Click to expand...



if there was a wall the wetbacks wouldnt have been here so it was they that violated our rights,,,

so what you oppose is the true solution,,,

and youre still a liar,,,


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Build a nice wall, to deter people from walking into the desert with small children.
> 
> 
> That is the humanitarian answer.
> 
> 
> But that is not really your concern. You want to turn America into a Third World Shithole, like  your home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A wall will not deter anyone.  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it will.
> 
> 
> Some people will not be able to carry a ladder into the desert. Some will try and be seen and catch because they are moving slower.
> 
> 
> Ever little bit the flow decreases, the easier it is, for the enforcement personnel and/or military to deal with the ones still coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History proves you wrong.  Furthermore, if you don't change your strategy, you will lose this country in the next two election cycles and this argument will be moot.  The majority of Americans disagree with you and I know how much democracy (mob rule and big rallies) impress the Hell out of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, you don't even believe that.     Seriously, you don't.  Because if you were stupid enough to actually believe everything you just said, then you wouldn't be on here trying to convince people to think differently.
> 
> Seriously, I knew the Hillary Clinton was going to lose, that's why prior to the election I supported people running her as the Democrap nominee.  I told left-wingers yeah yeah go vote for Hillary.
> 
> Why would I want them to choose a much better candidate if I knew their Hillary would fail?
> 
> So you don't believe that.   If you really believed that if we push for enforcing the American law, and not allowing people to just illegally enter the country, that we would completely get blown out in the election, then you wouldn't be here trying to convince us to change our minds.
> 
> You would want us to push for our positions, so that we would be wiped out in the election.   Except.... we did push our positions, and we have the presidency....  so....  Not convinced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right wing has virtually no economic policies only social policy.   Nothing but right wing bigotry.
Click to expand...



Have you considered the possibility that you are too delusional to be aware of our many, many economic policies, you race baiting asshole?


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just examining the limits of your opposition to the use of the military.
> 
> 
> Would you support military action on the MEXICAN side of the border to control the flow of unwanted invaders?
> 
> 
> 
> I support the Richest using their Capital to solve our problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you do.
> 
> 
> I do not. We owe Mexico NOTHING, but ire for their/your shitty behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government solves all problems for the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Border security is a government responsibility.
> 
> 
> As you well know, lying Pedro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so is the security of our free States as you well know, lying Peter.
Click to expand...




Never said it was not. But you are certainly acting like border security is not. So, want to address that, or are you going to be all surreal instead?


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> My question was serious. You suggested a change in strategy and I asked you what strategy.
> 
> 
> You gave me "struggle".
> 
> 
> That is not a strategy. Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you want a college education in five sentences.  The effective strategies have been posted at least half a dozen times and, by your own admission, you cannot read that much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know why you are hesitant to answer. Because doing so, will reveal your attacks on me to be unfair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never attacked you.  I've only responded to you.  You've been answered with the truth and given literally hundreds of links that you could have studied.
> 
> When *YOU *are the one asking for information, not following up on the facts presented, and falling back on the  National Socialist canard, it is *YOU* who is being unfair.
> 
> You keep asking the same questions.  You keep getting complete answers, but it goes over five sentences so you say TLDR.  What's the point?  You have a cheering section here of .... what three people?  The left has the advantage and I see it every day.  For example, since Reagan where I live it was all Republican.  In the next election, even the Republicans are switching parties to run as Democrats.
> 
> The stronghold we once had changed as a result of the policies and people *YOU* support.  My generation was on a winning team.  The people you support are losing - county by county and state by state.  I'm just making sure we accurately record who is at fault for the demise of our culture, race, nation, and Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say you did not attack me, than in the next sentence you call me a nazi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You also keep attacking me for supporting policies and strategies you oppose.
> 
> 
> Me asking you for what strategy you suggest, is completely reasonable.
> 
> 
> That you were unable to give me one, suggests that you know that you don't have a very good answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having answered you in at no less than 250 posts, to get into this would be a clusterfuck waste of time.  Who do you think cares?  If anyone besides you and your nob polisher ask, I'll go back and find at least half a dozen times where I have responded to this.
> 
> PM me and give me your solemn word that once I answer you, you will never ask the question again and I'll do your push button monkey work so that the next time you deny it, I can prove that you are a liar.  It's simple:  The posts averaged ten paragraphs and that is more than you can read in any one sitting.
> 
> Besides your personal problem, your pissing match don't have squat to do with this OP.  Respond to this in PM or you will be treated like the troll you are about to prove yourself to be.
Click to expand...




Dude. I understand why you are upset. You spend a significant portion of your life working towards something and it did not seem to work, so far.


Calling basically random people nazis, is not the way to deal with that.


You respectfully and civilly tell me the general strategy you envision working, and I will almost certainly, based on past conversations, respectfully and civilly disagree.


AND, you don't need to post 10 paragraphs to get an general outline across.


One possible answer I see  you tending towards, would be "embrace identity politics", for one example.


You don't have to go into details. I will get it.


What is your suggested strategy, to avoid "losing the country"?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> A wall will not deter anyone.  .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it will.
> 
> 
> Some people will not be able to carry a ladder into the desert. Some will try and be seen and catch because they are moving slower.
> 
> 
> Ever little bit the flow decreases, the easier it is, for the enforcement personnel and/or military to deal with the ones still coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History proves you wrong.  Furthermore, if you don't change your strategy, you will lose this country in the next two election cycles and this argument will be moot.  The majority of Americans disagree with you and I know how much democracy (mob rule and big rallies) impress the Hell out of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, you don't even believe that.     Seriously, you don't.  Because if you were stupid enough to actually believe everything you just said, then you wouldn't be on here trying to convince people to think differently.
> 
> Seriously, I knew the Hillary Clinton was going to lose, that's why prior to the election I supported people running her as the Democrap nominee.  I told left-wingers yeah yeah go vote for Hillary.
> 
> Why would I want them to choose a much better candidate if I knew their Hillary would fail?
> 
> So you don't believe that.   If you really believed that if we push for enforcing the American law, and not allowing people to just illegally enter the country, that we would completely get blown out in the election, then you wouldn't be here trying to convince us to change our minds.
> 
> You would want us to push for our positions, so that we would be wiped out in the election.   Except.... we did push our positions, and we have the presidency....  so....  Not convinced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right wing has virtually no economic policies only social policy.   Nothing but right wing bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have you considered the possibility that you are too delusional to be aware of our many, many economic policies, you race baiting asshole?
Click to expand...


It's my fault that you don't understand the economics of your own country?  What does that have to do with the OP?  

The issue at hand is in reference to people, like yourself, who egg on wannabe border patrollers that end up in jail, prison, being a snitch bitch, or killed by the LEOs for doing stupid stuff you support?

You demonstrate your stupidity when you start the name calling.  Foreigners are not a race.  *NONE* of the issues I raise have anything to do with race.  I would apply the laws equally, across the board - race, education, wealth, etc. not being considerations.  Can't say the same thing about your homeboy.  So, it sounds like more projection on your part, Mr. Hitler.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you want a college education in five sentences.  The effective strategies have been posted at least half a dozen times and, by your own admission, you cannot read that much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know why you are hesitant to answer. Because doing so, will reveal your attacks on me to be unfair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never attacked you.  I've only responded to you.  You've been answered with the truth and given literally hundreds of links that you could have studied.
> 
> When *YOU *are the one asking for information, not following up on the facts presented, and falling back on the  National Socialist canard, it is *YOU* who is being unfair.
> 
> You keep asking the same questions.  You keep getting complete answers, but it goes over five sentences so you say TLDR.  What's the point?  You have a cheering section here of .... what three people?  The left has the advantage and I see it every day.  For example, since Reagan where I live it was all Republican.  In the next election, even the Republicans are switching parties to run as Democrats.
> 
> The stronghold we once had changed as a result of the policies and people *YOU* support.  My generation was on a winning team.  The people you support are losing - county by county and state by state.  I'm just making sure we accurately record who is at fault for the demise of our culture, race, nation, and Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say you did not attack me, than in the next sentence you call me a nazi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You also keep attacking me for supporting policies and strategies you oppose.
> 
> 
> Me asking you for what strategy you suggest, is completely reasonable.
> 
> 
> That you were unable to give me one, suggests that you know that you don't have a very good answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having answered you in at no less than 250 posts, to get into this would be a clusterfuck waste of time.  Who do you think cares?  If anyone besides you and your nob polisher ask, I'll go back and find at least half a dozen times where I have responded to this.
> 
> PM me and give me your solemn word that once I answer you, you will never ask the question again and I'll do your push button monkey work so that the next time you deny it, I can prove that you are a liar.  It's simple:  The posts averaged ten paragraphs and that is more than you can read in any one sitting.
> 
> Besides your personal problem, your pissing match don't have squat to do with this OP.  Respond to this in PM or you will be treated like the troll you are about to prove yourself to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. I understand why you are upset. You spend a significant portion of your life working towards something and it did not seem to work, so far.
> 
> 
> Calling basically random people nazis, is not the way to deal with that.
> 
> 
> You respectfully and civilly tell me the general strategy you envision working, and I will almost certainly, based on past conversations, respectfully and civilly disagree.
> 
> 
> AND, you don't need to post 10 paragraphs to get an general outline across.
> 
> 
> One possible answer I see  you tending towards, would be "embrace identity politics", for one example.
> 
> 
> You don't have to go into details. I will get it.
> 
> 
> What is your suggested strategy, to avoid "losing the country"?
Click to expand...



So you accuse me of being a race baiting asshole and NOW you want to talk civilly?  You're like that other little worm.  You're a chickenshit coward, unable to engage in a conversation - which is more than three words and a grunt.  And you're never going to call me out so your name calling shows us the extent of your character.

I'm not calling random people nazis.  If you embrace certain viewpoints that are consistent with National Socialism and you parrot their talking points, it is what it is.

I am only angry at dumb ass white people whose callous actions ended with court decisions that negate your arguments.  Because of you, undocumented foreigners DO have rights and the only way we can challenge that is if someone else goes to jail and then the guys you support have to bail them out and battle the rulings in the federal courts.  You can talk shit, but you won't be the guinea pig that puts his ass on the line to find out.  And, in answer to your next question, yes I did a couple of times.

Even your own side has admitted to the facts I brought forward relative to this conversation:

Why you should be glad Minuteman Civil Defense Corps has a strict Code of Conduct

That's four paragraphs and a link.  Was that short enough for your pea brain?  And no ten paragraphs are only introductions to different aspects of actual discussions.... not even the actual discussion itself.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> A wall will not deter anyone.  .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it will.
> 
> 
> Some people will not be able to carry a ladder into the desert. Some will try and be seen and catch because they are moving slower.
> 
> 
> Ever little bit the flow decreases, the easier it is, for the enforcement personnel and/or military to deal with the ones still coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History proves you wrong.  Furthermore, if you don't change your strategy, you will lose this country in the next two election cycles and this argument will be moot.  The majority of Americans disagree with you and I know how much democracy (mob rule and big rallies) impress the Hell out of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, you don't even believe that.     Seriously, you don't.  Because if you were stupid enough to actually believe everything you just said, then you wouldn't be on here trying to convince people to think differently.
> 
> Seriously, I knew the Hillary Clinton was going to lose, that's why prior to the election I supported people running her as the Democrap nominee.  I told left-wingers yeah yeah go vote for Hillary.
> 
> Why would I want them to choose a much better candidate if I knew their Hillary would fail?
> 
> So you don't believe that.   If you really believed that if we push for enforcing the American law, and not allowing people to just illegally enter the country, that we would completely get blown out in the election, then you wouldn't be here trying to convince us to change our minds.
> 
> You would want us to push for our positions, so that we would be wiped out in the election.   Except.... we did push our positions, and we have the presidency....  so....  Not convinced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right wing has virtually no economic policies only social policy.   Nothing but right wing bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have you considered the possibility that you are too delusional to be aware of our many, many economic policies, you race baiting asshole?
Click to expand...

No.  The right wing only has socialism on a national basis, you appealing to ignorance, false witness bearer.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I support the Richest using their Capital to solve our problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you do.
> 
> 
> I do not. We owe Mexico NOTHING, but ire for their/your shitty behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government solves all problems for the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Border security is a government responsibility.
> 
> 
> As you well know, lying Pedro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so is the security of our free States as you well know, lying Peter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never said it was not. But you are certainly acting like border security is not. So, want to address that, or are you going to be all surreal instead?
Click to expand...

Because we have a refugee problem on our southern border simply Because, Ellis Island is closed.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it will.
> 
> 
> Some people will not be able to carry a ladder into the desert. Some will try and be seen and catch because they are moving slower.
> 
> 
> Ever little bit the flow decreases, the easier it is, for the enforcement personnel and/or military to deal with the ones still coming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History proves you wrong.  Furthermore, if you don't change your strategy, you will lose this country in the next two election cycles and this argument will be moot.  The majority of Americans disagree with you and I know how much democracy (mob rule and big rallies) impress the Hell out of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, you don't even believe that.     Seriously, you don't.  Because if you were stupid enough to actually believe everything you just said, then you wouldn't be on here trying to convince people to think differently.
> 
> Seriously, I knew the Hillary Clinton was going to lose, that's why prior to the election I supported people running her as the Democrap nominee.  I told left-wingers yeah yeah go vote for Hillary.
> 
> Why would I want them to choose a much better candidate if I knew their Hillary would fail?
> 
> So you don't believe that.   If you really believed that if we push for enforcing the American law, and not allowing people to just illegally enter the country, that we would completely get blown out in the election, then you wouldn't be here trying to convince us to change our minds.
> 
> You would want us to push for our positions, so that we would be wiped out in the election.   Except.... we did push our positions, and we have the presidency....  so....  Not convinced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right wing has virtually no economic policies only social policy.   Nothing but right wing bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have you considered the possibility that you are too delusional to be aware of our many, many economic policies, you race baiting asshole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  The right wing only has socialism on a national basis, you appealing to ignorance, false witness bearer.
Click to expand...


Correll does have a flair for appealing to the most ignorant among us.  He scares the Hell out of those with an IQ higher than their shoe size.  He doesn't even realize that he is a National Socialist because their platform exceeds his reading capacity.

Amazingly, every talking point the wallists have made relative to this thread has been a rehash of NS rhetoric and propaganda.  danilepalos, you and I don't agree on solutions, but left or right, most well read people understand what the NS platform is about.  

When the individual has no Property Rights, then that is the mark of a socialist country, not the constitutional Republic we were guaranteed in the Constitution.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it will.
> 
> 
> Some people will not be able to carry a ladder into the desert. Some will try and be seen and catch because they are moving slower.
> 
> 
> Ever little bit the flow decreases, the easier it is, for the enforcement personnel and/or military to deal with the ones still coming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History proves you wrong.  Furthermore, if you don't change your strategy, you will lose this country in the next two election cycles and this argument will be moot.  The majority of Americans disagree with you and I know how much democracy (mob rule and big rallies) impress the Hell out of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, you don't even believe that.     Seriously, you don't.  Because if you were stupid enough to actually believe everything you just said, then you wouldn't be on here trying to convince people to think differently.
> 
> Seriously, I knew the Hillary Clinton was going to lose, that's why prior to the election I supported people running her as the Democrap nominee.  I told left-wingers yeah yeah go vote for Hillary.
> 
> Why would I want them to choose a much better candidate if I knew their Hillary would fail?
> 
> So you don't believe that.   If you really believed that if we push for enforcing the American law, and not allowing people to just illegally enter the country, that we would completely get blown out in the election, then you wouldn't be here trying to convince us to change our minds.
> 
> You would want us to push for our positions, so that we would be wiped out in the election.   Except.... we did push our positions, and we have the presidency....  so....  Not convinced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right wing has virtually no economic policies only social policy.   Nothing but right wing bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have you considered the possibility that you are too delusional to be aware of our many, many economic policies, you race baiting asshole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's my fault that you don't understand the economics of your own country?  What does that have to do with the OP?
> 
> The issue at hand is in reference to people, like yourself, who egg on wannabe border patrollers that end up in jail, prison, being a snitch bitch, or killed by the LEOs for doing stupid stuff you support?
> 
> You demonstrate your stupidity when you start the name calling.  Foreigners are not a race.  *NONE* of the issues I raise have anything to do with race.  I would apply the laws equally, across the board - race, education, wealth, etc. not being considerations.  Can't say the same thing about your homeboy.  So, it sounds like more projection on your part, Mr. Hitler.
Click to expand...



Did you note that my response was to Danielpaulos, who, btw, is a hate filled monster who has sided with an illegal immigrant child rapist vs his child victim?


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know why you are hesitant to answer. Because doing so, will reveal your attacks on me to be unfair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never attacked you.  I've only responded to you.  You've been answered with the truth and given literally hundreds of links that you could have studied.
> 
> When *YOU *are the one asking for information, not following up on the facts presented, and falling back on the  National Socialist canard, it is *YOU* who is being unfair.
> 
> You keep asking the same questions.  You keep getting complete answers, but it goes over five sentences so you say TLDR.  What's the point?  You have a cheering section here of .... what three people?  The left has the advantage and I see it every day.  For example, since Reagan where I live it was all Republican.  In the next election, even the Republicans are switching parties to run as Democrats.
> 
> The stronghold we once had changed as a result of the policies and people *YOU* support.  My generation was on a winning team.  The people you support are losing - county by county and state by state.  I'm just making sure we accurately record who is at fault for the demise of our culture, race, nation, and Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say you did not attack me, than in the next sentence you call me a nazi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You also keep attacking me for supporting policies and strategies you oppose.
> 
> 
> Me asking you for what strategy you suggest, is completely reasonable.
> 
> 
> That you were unable to give me one, suggests that you know that you don't have a very good answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having answered you in at no less than 250 posts, to get into this would be a clusterfuck waste of time.  Who do you think cares?  If anyone besides you and your nob polisher ask, I'll go back and find at least half a dozen times where I have responded to this.
> 
> PM me and give me your solemn word that once I answer you, you will never ask the question again and I'll do your push button monkey work so that the next time you deny it, I can prove that you are a liar.  It's simple:  The posts averaged ten paragraphs and that is more than you can read in any one sitting.
> 
> Besides your personal problem, your pissing match don't have squat to do with this OP.  Respond to this in PM or you will be treated like the troll you are about to prove yourself to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. I understand why you are upset. You spend a significant portion of your life working towards something and it did not seem to work, so far.
> 
> 
> Calling basically random people nazis, is not the way to deal with that.
> 
> 
> You respectfully and civilly tell me the general strategy you envision working, and I will almost certainly, based on past conversations, respectfully and civilly disagree.
> 
> 
> AND, you don't need to post 10 paragraphs to get an general outline across.
> 
> 
> One possible answer I see  you tending towards, would be "embrace identity politics", for one example.
> 
> 
> You don't have to go into details. I will get it.
> 
> 
> What is your suggested strategy, to avoid "losing the country"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you accuse me of being a race baiting asshole and NOW you want to talk civilly?  You're like that other little worm.  You're a chickenshit coward, unable to engage in a conversation - which is more than three words and a grunt.  And you're never going to call me out so your name calling shows us the extent of your character.
> 
> I'm not calling random people nazis.  If you embrace certain viewpoints that are consistent with National Socialism and you parrot their talking points, it is what it is.
> 
> I am only angry at dumb ass white people whose callous actions ended with court decisions that negate your arguments.  Because of you, undocumented foreigners DO have rights and the only way we can challenge that is if someone else goes to jail and then the guys you support have to bail them out and battle the rulings in the federal courts.  You can talk shit, but you won't be the guinea pig that puts his ass on the line to find out.  And, in answer to your next question, yes I did a couple of times.
> 
> Even your own side has admitted to the facts I brought forward relative to this conversation:
> 
> Why you should be glad Minuteman Civil Defense Corps has a strict Code of Conduct
> 
> That's four paragraphs and a link.  Was that short enough for your pea brain?  And no ten paragraphs are only introductions to different aspects of actual discussions.... not even the actual discussion itself.
Click to expand...



I did not call you a race baiting asshole,, but you have called me a nazi, based on bullshit games. 


Go back and try replying to that post again. THis time without the confusion.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> History proves you wrong.  Furthermore, if you don't change your strategy, you will lose this country in the next two election cycles and this argument will be moot.  The majority of Americans disagree with you and I know how much democracy (mob rule and big rallies) impress the Hell out of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, you don't even believe that.     Seriously, you don't.  Because if you were stupid enough to actually believe everything you just said, then you wouldn't be on here trying to convince people to think differently.
> 
> Seriously, I knew the Hillary Clinton was going to lose, that's why prior to the election I supported people running her as the Democrap nominee.  I told left-wingers yeah yeah go vote for Hillary.
> 
> Why would I want them to choose a much better candidate if I knew their Hillary would fail?
> 
> So you don't believe that.   If you really believed that if we push for enforcing the American law, and not allowing people to just illegally enter the country, that we would completely get blown out in the election, then you wouldn't be here trying to convince us to change our minds.
> 
> You would want us to push for our positions, so that we would be wiped out in the election.   Except.... we did push our positions, and we have the presidency....  so....  Not convinced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right wing has virtually no economic policies only social policy.   Nothing but right wing bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have you considered the possibility that you are too delusional to be aware of our many, many economic policies, you race baiting asshole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's my fault that you don't understand the economics of your own country?  What does that have to do with the OP?
> 
> The issue at hand is in reference to people, like yourself, who egg on wannabe border patrollers that end up in jail, prison, being a snitch bitch, or killed by the LEOs for doing stupid stuff you support?
> 
> You demonstrate your stupidity when you start the name calling.  Foreigners are not a race.  *NONE* of the issues I raise have anything to do with race.  I would apply the laws equally, across the board - race, education, wealth, etc. not being considerations.  Can't say the same thing about your homeboy.  So, it sounds like more projection on your part, Mr. Hitler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you note that my response was to Danielpaulos, who, btw, is a hate filled monster who has sided with an illegal immigrant child rapist vs his child victim?
Click to expand...


You're stuck with a problem Correll.  You think that the solutions you've been spoon fed are the only solutions.  So, along comes our resident liberal.  He is your polar opposite.  He knows you aren't going to change your mind.  And I all I can say to you is that a man who don't use his head may as well have been born with two assholes.

The left gets to taunt you and point out the obvious.  It's because, in the end, you end up doing the liberals dirty work.  Jesus dealt with these people in his time.  He told them:

"_Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves._"  Matt. 23: 15

No matter how many times you are proven wrong, you double down.  If you had read books like Tom Sawyer growing up, you might begin to understand danielpalos strategy.  He's right about the *limitations of the law*; you're wrong about the solutions.  But, without the requisite information, you'll keep doing the wrong thing.  BTW, four paragraphs short enough for you?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never attacked you.  I've only responded to you.  You've been answered with the truth and given literally hundreds of links that you could have studied.
> 
> When *YOU *are the one asking for information, not following up on the facts presented, and falling back on the  National Socialist canard, it is *YOU* who is being unfair.
> 
> You keep asking the same questions.  You keep getting complete answers, but it goes over five sentences so you say TLDR.  What's the point?  You have a cheering section here of .... what three people?  The left has the advantage and I see it every day.  For example, since Reagan where I live it was all Republican.  In the next election, even the Republicans are switching parties to run as Democrats.
> 
> The stronghold we once had changed as a result of the policies and people *YOU* support.  My generation was on a winning team.  The people you support are losing - county by county and state by state.  I'm just making sure we accurately record who is at fault for the demise of our culture, race, nation, and Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say you did not attack me, than in the next sentence you call me a nazi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You also keep attacking me for supporting policies and strategies you oppose.
> 
> 
> Me asking you for what strategy you suggest, is completely reasonable.
> 
> 
> That you were unable to give me one, suggests that you know that you don't have a very good answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having answered you in at no less than 250 posts, to get into this would be a clusterfuck waste of time.  Who do you think cares?  If anyone besides you and your nob polisher ask, I'll go back and find at least half a dozen times where I have responded to this.
> 
> PM me and give me your solemn word that once I answer you, you will never ask the question again and I'll do your push button monkey work so that the next time you deny it, I can prove that you are a liar.  It's simple:  The posts averaged ten paragraphs and that is more than you can read in any one sitting.
> 
> Besides your personal problem, your pissing match don't have squat to do with this OP.  Respond to this in PM or you will be treated like the troll you are about to prove yourself to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. I understand why you are upset. You spend a significant portion of your life working towards something and it did not seem to work, so far.
> 
> 
> Calling basically random people nazis, is not the way to deal with that.
> 
> 
> You respectfully and civilly tell me the general strategy you envision working, and I will almost certainly, based on past conversations, respectfully and civilly disagree.
> 
> 
> AND, you don't need to post 10 paragraphs to get an general outline across.
> 
> 
> One possible answer I see  you tending towards, would be "embrace identity politics", for one example.
> 
> 
> You don't have to go into details. I will get it.
> 
> 
> What is your suggested strategy, to avoid "losing the country"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you accuse me of being a race baiting asshole and NOW you want to talk civilly?  You're like that other little worm.  You're a chickenshit coward, unable to engage in a conversation - which is more than three words and a grunt.  And you're never going to call me out so your name calling shows us the extent of your character.
> 
> I'm not calling random people nazis.  If you embrace certain viewpoints that are consistent with National Socialism and you parrot their talking points, it is what it is.
> 
> I am only angry at dumb ass white people whose callous actions ended with court decisions that negate your arguments.  Because of you, undocumented foreigners DO have rights and the only way we can challenge that is if someone else goes to jail and then the guys you support have to bail them out and battle the rulings in the federal courts.  You can talk shit, but you won't be the guinea pig that puts his ass on the line to find out.  And, in answer to your next question, yes I did a couple of times.
> 
> Even your own side has admitted to the facts I brought forward relative to this conversation:
> 
> Why you should be glad Minuteman Civil Defense Corps has a strict Code of Conduct
> 
> That's four paragraphs and a link.  Was that short enough for your pea brain?  And no ten paragraphs are only introductions to different aspects of actual discussions.... not even the actual discussion itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did not call you a race baiting asshole,, but you have called me a nazi, based on bullshit games.
> 
> 
> Go back and try replying to that post again. THis time without the confusion.
Click to expand...


I read so many posts here that it was bound to happen.  I did make a reply to you not directed at me.  I truly apologize and admit that you did *NOT* call me a race baiting asshole.  I am sorry for the screw up.

So that you fully understand something, I grew up around David Duke and Don Black (among others.)  They attended many a meeting where conservatives, and right wing people met to develop strategies.   When people spout National Socialist solutions, I'm keenly aware at a personal level of what they are because this is something I* lived*.  At the time Costa Garvis came out with a movie called _Betrayed_ (it stars  Tom Berenger and Debra Winger.)  Garvis, being Greek, was as about as emotionally detached from taking sides as any filmmaker I've ever heard of.

That movie will give you a no holds barred look at how racist, nazi, conservative, right wing, etc. groups try (and mostly unsuccessfully)  attempt to work against far left liberalism.  It is a fair and balanced drama thriller, so if you're unwilling to read, you might download and watch an unbiased look.  You will see me and you will see yourself.  The solutions you post did not work in the past, aren't working and will not work in the future.

You can't understand the solutions and all I can do is leave you with some parting words of wisdom:

_"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."  _George Santayana

I *DO* remember the past and see you traveling down that road.  You don't know the past and, consequently, will not understand the future. You keep trying to debate me when it would be more advantageous to take sound counsel.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, you don't even believe that.     Seriously, you don't.  Because if you were stupid enough to actually believe everything you just said, then you wouldn't be on here trying to convince people to think differently.
> 
> Seriously, I knew the Hillary Clinton was going to lose, that's why prior to the election I supported people running her as the Democrap nominee.  I told left-wingers yeah yeah go vote for Hillary.
> 
> Why would I want them to choose a much better candidate if I knew their Hillary would fail?
> 
> So you don't believe that.   If you really believed that if we push for enforcing the American law, and not allowing people to just illegally enter the country, that we would completely get blown out in the election, then you wouldn't be here trying to convince us to change our minds.
> 
> You would want us to push for our positions, so that we would be wiped out in the election.   Except.... we did push our positions, and we have the presidency....  so....  Not convinced.
> 
> 
> 
> The right wing has virtually no economic policies only social policy.   Nothing but right wing bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have you considered the possibility that you are too delusional to be aware of our many, many economic policies, you race baiting asshole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's my fault that you don't understand the economics of your own country?  What does that have to do with the OP?
> 
> The issue at hand is in reference to people, like yourself, who egg on wannabe border patrollers that end up in jail, prison, being a snitch bitch, or killed by the LEOs for doing stupid stuff you support?
> 
> You demonstrate your stupidity when you start the name calling.  Foreigners are not a race.  *NONE* of the issues I raise have anything to do with race.  I would apply the laws equally, across the board - race, education, wealth, etc. not being considerations.  Can't say the same thing about your homeboy.  So, it sounds like more projection on your part, Mr. Hitler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you note that my response was to Danielpaulos, who, btw, is a hate filled monster who has sided with an illegal immigrant child rapist vs his child victim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're stuck with a problem Correll.  You think that the solutions you've been spoon fed are the only solutions.  So, along comes our resident liberal.  He is your polar opposite.  He knows you aren't going to change your mind. ....
Click to expand...




Incorrect.


I think that the solutions being pursued right now, are ONE possible set of solutions, and I want solutions.


THe solutions you want, you won't exactly say.


Something I have noticed, is that a defense mechanism of the open border types, is to just keep talking in circles about possible solutions and never actually DO anything, and all the while the Third World keeps flooding US.


All that stuff where you insult me, and quote the bible, nicely done filler, nothing more.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say you did not attack me, than in the next sentence you call me a nazi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You also keep attacking me for supporting policies and strategies you oppose.
> 
> 
> Me asking you for what strategy you suggest, is completely reasonable.
> 
> 
> That you were unable to give me one, suggests that you know that you don't have a very good answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having answered you in at no less than 250 posts, to get into this would be a clusterfuck waste of time.  Who do you think cares?  If anyone besides you and your nob polisher ask, I'll go back and find at least half a dozen times where I have responded to this.
> 
> PM me and give me your solemn word that once I answer you, you will never ask the question again and I'll do your push button monkey work so that the next time you deny it, I can prove that you are a liar.  It's simple:  The posts averaged ten paragraphs and that is more than you can read in any one sitting.
> 
> Besides your personal problem, your pissing match don't have squat to do with this OP.  Respond to this in PM or you will be treated like the troll you are about to prove yourself to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. I understand why you are upset. You spend a significant portion of your life working towards something and it did not seem to work, so far.
> 
> 
> Calling basically random people nazis, is not the way to deal with that.
> 
> 
> You respectfully and civilly tell me the general strategy you envision working, and I will almost certainly, based on past conversations, respectfully and civilly disagree.
> 
> 
> AND, you don't need to post 10 paragraphs to get an general outline across.
> 
> 
> One possible answer I see  you tending towards, would be "embrace identity politics", for one example.
> 
> 
> You don't have to go into details. I will get it.
> 
> 
> What is your suggested strategy, to avoid "losing the country"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you accuse me of being a race baiting asshole and NOW you want to talk civilly?  You're like that other little worm.  You're a chickenshit coward, unable to engage in a conversation - which is more than three words and a grunt.  And you're never going to call me out so your name calling shows us the extent of your character.
> 
> I'm not calling random people nazis.  If you embrace certain viewpoints that are consistent with National Socialism and you parrot their talking points, it is what it is.
> 
> I am only angry at dumb ass white people whose callous actions ended with court decisions that negate your arguments.  Because of you, undocumented foreigners DO have rights and the only way we can challenge that is if someone else goes to jail and then the guys you support have to bail them out and battle the rulings in the federal courts.  You can talk shit, but you won't be the guinea pig that puts his ass on the line to find out.  And, in answer to your next question, yes I did a couple of times.
> 
> Even your own side has admitted to the facts I brought forward relative to this conversation:
> 
> Why you should be glad Minuteman Civil Defense Corps has a strict Code of Conduct
> 
> That's four paragraphs and a link.  Was that short enough for your pea brain?  And no ten paragraphs are only introductions to different aspects of actual discussions.... not even the actual discussion itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did not call you a race baiting asshole,, but you have called me a nazi, based on bullshit games.
> 
> 
> Go back and try replying to that post again. THis time without the confusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read so many posts here that it was bound to happen.  I did make a reply to you not directed at me.  I truly apologize and admit that you did *NOT* call me a race baiting asshole.  I am sorry for the screw up.
> 
> So that you fully understand something, I grew up around David Duke and Don Black (among others.)  They attended many a meeting where conservatives, and right wing people met to develop strategies.   When people spout National Socialist solutions, I'm keenly aware at a personal level of what they are because this is something I* lived*.  At the time Costa Garvis came out with a movie called _Betrayed_ (it stars  Tom Berenger and Debra Winger.)  Garvis, being Greek, was as about as emotionally detached from taking sides as any filmmaker I've ever heard of.
> 
> That movie will give you a no holds barred look at how racist, nazi, conservative, right wing, etc. groups try (and mostly unsuccessfully)  attempt to work against far left liberalism.  It is a fair and balanced drama thriller, so if you're unwilling to read, you might download and watch an unbiased look.  You will see me and you will see yourself.  The solutions you post did not work in the past, aren't working and will not work in the future.
> 
> You can't understand the solutions and all I can do is leave you with some parting words of wisdom:
> 
> _"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."  _George Santayana
> 
> I *DO* remember the past and see you traveling down that road.  You don't know the past and, consequently, will not understand the future. You keep trying to debate me when it would be more advantageous to take sound counsel.
Click to expand...




Nazis did not invent the idea of secure borders. You give me a secure border without a Wall, and I'll be happy. 


Our border right now, is not secure. The Wall is one possible solution, and those that are against is, seem to have a lot of overlap with those that have supported Amnesty in the past, and/or other anti-American shit.


Overlap? Mmm,  you love that and build massive connections over that. You want to look at those people, people who oppose the Wall, and show how they are all anti-American commies?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right wing has virtually no economic policies only social policy.   Nothing but right wing bigotry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you considered the possibility that you are too delusional to be aware of our many, many economic policies, you race baiting asshole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's my fault that you don't understand the economics of your own country?  What does that have to do with the OP?
> 
> The issue at hand is in reference to people, like yourself, who egg on wannabe border patrollers that end up in jail, prison, being a snitch bitch, or killed by the LEOs for doing stupid stuff you support?
> 
> You demonstrate your stupidity when you start the name calling.  Foreigners are not a race.  *NONE* of the issues I raise have anything to do with race.  I would apply the laws equally, across the board - race, education, wealth, etc. not being considerations.  Can't say the same thing about your homeboy.  So, it sounds like more projection on your part, Mr. Hitler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you note that my response was to Danielpaulos, who, btw, is a hate filled monster who has sided with an illegal immigrant child rapist vs his child victim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're stuck with a problem Correll.  You think that the solutions you've been spoon fed are the only solutions.  So, along comes our resident liberal.  He is your polar opposite.  He knows you aren't going to change your mind. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> 
> I think that the solutions being pursued right now, are ONE possible set of solutions, and I want solutions.
> 
> 
> THe solutions you want, you won't exactly say.
> 
> 
> Something I have noticed, is that a defense mechanism of the open border types, is to just keep talking in circles about possible solutions and never actually DO anything, and all the while the Third World keeps flooding US.
> 
> 
> All that stuff where you insult me, and quote the bible, nicely done filler, nothing more.
Click to expand...


I'm pretty much correct.  If you wanted solutions, you would study.  You don't.

I have presented my solutions many times.  But, for you it came down to TLDR.  All we can talk about in even ten or twelve paragraphs are the very bare bones basics.  In other threads as well as this one, you refused to *READ* the damn thing.  

You keep talking about an "_open border type_."   Can you demonstrate, by name and actions some of these people you are hurling that accusation at?  Or, are you creating a straw man argument?

I've already *DONE* more about the situation than you will (at your present pace) if you live to be 300.  Did you ever man the border?  Ever taken your politicians out to lunch and made your case?  Have you ever read case law on the subject (not a one page summary, but a real case?)  Have you ever attended Latino meetings to get their take on what's going on?  That is a difference between you and I.  If ten or twelve paragraphs are too daunting for you; if you're intimidated by ten to twelve minutes of reading per exchange, then you can't handle the truth.  You have to undo the damage the liberals and National Socialists have done before you can see the real solution.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you considered the possibility that you are too delusional to be aware of our many, many economic policies, you race baiting asshole?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's my fault that you don't understand the economics of your own country?  What does that have to do with the OP?
> 
> The issue at hand is in reference to people, like yourself, who egg on wannabe border patrollers that end up in jail, prison, being a snitch bitch, or killed by the LEOs for doing stupid stuff you support?
> 
> You demonstrate your stupidity when you start the name calling.  Foreigners are not a race.  *NONE* of the issues I raise have anything to do with race.  I would apply the laws equally, across the board - race, education, wealth, etc. not being considerations.  Can't say the same thing about your homeboy.  So, it sounds like more projection on your part, Mr. Hitler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you note that my response was to Danielpaulos, who, btw, is a hate filled monster who has sided with an illegal immigrant child rapist vs his child victim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're stuck with a problem Correll.  You think that the solutions you've been spoon fed are the only solutions.  So, along comes our resident liberal.  He is your polar opposite.  He knows you aren't going to change your mind. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> 
> I think that the solutions being pursued right now, are ONE possible set of solutions, and I want solutions.
> 
> 
> THe solutions you want, you won't exactly say.
> 
> 
> Something I have noticed, is that a defense mechanism of the open border types, is to just keep talking in circles about possible solutions and never actually DO anything, and all the while the Third World keeps flooding US.
> 
> 
> All that stuff where you insult me, and quote the bible, nicely done filler, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty much correct.  If you wanted solutions, you would study.  You don't.
> 
> I have presented my solutions many times.  But, for you it came down to TLDR.  All we can talk about in even ten or twelve paragraphs are the very bare bones basics.  In other threads as well as this one, you refused to *READ* the damn thing.
> 
> You keep talking about an "_open border type_."   Can you demonstrate, by name and actions some of these people you are hurling that accusation at?  Or, are you creating a straw man argument?
> .....
Click to expand...



Nope. I can't take your pretense of being unaware of the Open BOrder types seriously.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having answered you in at no less than 250 posts, to get into this would be a clusterfuck waste of time.  Who do you think cares?  If anyone besides you and your nob polisher ask, I'll go back and find at least half a dozen times where I have responded to this.
> 
> PM me and give me your solemn word that once I answer you, you will never ask the question again and I'll do your push button monkey work so that the next time you deny it, I can prove that you are a liar.  It's simple:  The posts averaged ten paragraphs and that is more than you can read in any one sitting.
> 
> Besides your personal problem, your pissing match don't have squat to do with this OP.  Respond to this in PM or you will be treated like the troll you are about to prove yourself to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. I understand why you are upset. You spend a significant portion of your life working towards something and it did not seem to work, so far.
> 
> 
> Calling basically random people nazis, is not the way to deal with that.
> 
> 
> You respectfully and civilly tell me the general strategy you envision working, and I will almost certainly, based on past conversations, respectfully and civilly disagree.
> 
> 
> AND, you don't need to post 10 paragraphs to get an general outline across.
> 
> 
> One possible answer I see  you tending towards, would be "embrace identity politics", for one example.
> 
> 
> You don't have to go into details. I will get it.
> 
> 
> What is your suggested strategy, to avoid "losing the country"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you accuse me of being a race baiting asshole and NOW you want to talk civilly?  You're like that other little worm.  You're a chickenshit coward, unable to engage in a conversation - which is more than three words and a grunt.  And you're never going to call me out so your name calling shows us the extent of your character.
> 
> I'm not calling random people nazis.  If you embrace certain viewpoints that are consistent with National Socialism and you parrot their talking points, it is what it is.
> 
> I am only angry at dumb ass white people whose callous actions ended with court decisions that negate your arguments.  Because of you, undocumented foreigners DO have rights and the only way we can challenge that is if someone else goes to jail and then the guys you support have to bail them out and battle the rulings in the federal courts.  You can talk shit, but you won't be the guinea pig that puts his ass on the line to find out.  And, in answer to your next question, yes I did a couple of times.
> 
> Even your own side has admitted to the facts I brought forward relative to this conversation:
> 
> Why you should be glad Minuteman Civil Defense Corps has a strict Code of Conduct
> 
> That's four paragraphs and a link.  Was that short enough for your pea brain?  And no ten paragraphs are only introductions to different aspects of actual discussions.... not even the actual discussion itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did not call you a race baiting asshole,, but you have called me a nazi, based on bullshit games.
> 
> 
> Go back and try replying to that post again. THis time without the confusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read so many posts here that it was bound to happen.  I did make a reply to you not directed at me.  I truly apologize and admit that you did *NOT* call me a race baiting asshole.  I am sorry for the screw up.
> 
> So that you fully understand something, I grew up around David Duke and Don Black (among others.)  They attended many a meeting where conservatives, and right wing people met to develop strategies.   When people spout National Socialist solutions, I'm keenly aware at a personal level of what they are because this is something I* lived*.  At the time Costa Garvis came out with a movie called _Betrayed_ (it stars  Tom Berenger and Debra Winger.)  Garvis, being Greek, was as about as emotionally detached from taking sides as any filmmaker I've ever heard of.
> 
> That movie will give you a no holds barred look at how racist, nazi, conservative, right wing, etc. groups try (and mostly unsuccessfully)  attempt to work against far left liberalism.  It is a fair and balanced drama thriller, so if you're unwilling to read, you might download and watch an unbiased look.  You will see me and you will see yourself.  The solutions you post did not work in the past, aren't working and will not work in the future.
> 
> You can't understand the solutions and all I can do is leave you with some parting words of wisdom:
> 
> _"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."  _George Santayana
> 
> I *DO* remember the past and see you traveling down that road.  You don't know the past and, consequently, will not understand the future. You keep trying to debate me when it would be more advantageous to take sound counsel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nazis did not invent the idea of secure borders. You give me a secure border without a Wall, and I'll be happy.
> 
> 
> Our border right now, is not secure. The Wall is one possible solution, and those that are against is, seem to have a lot of overlap with those that have supported Amnesty in the past, and/or other anti-American shit.
> 
> 
> Overlap? Mmm,  you love that and build massive connections over that. You want to look at those people, people who oppose the Wall, and show how they are all anti-American commies?
Click to expand...


You don't know enough of history to know who in the Hell invented the border wall idea.  In *THIS* country, the first talk of manning borders to keep out foreigners came from a former member of the Nazi party.  That is a fact that you've failed to *factually* refute.  The first politicians to begin talking about fences and walls were Democrats.  Surely to God you don't want me to embarrass you for the fifth time on this board with the facts, do you?  You won't read them, but somebody else might - and they'd know how absolutely idiotic your response is.

As for amnesty, I'd love to scream in your face for being outright stupid on this part of the equation.  All of your talk about people coming here "_legally_" is predicated upon pure legal fiction.  Let me draw you a simple analogy:  You are saying if a person made an improper U Turn, you would deny them the privilege of EVER having a driver's license.  It's not going to fucking happen, Correll.  Like it or not and believe it or not coming into the United States without papers is a federal civil misdemeanor (the county equivalent of an* improper* U Turn.)  The violation is even called* improper* in the federal statute. 

To think that you're going to keep people out on the basis they came here without papers is fantasy that isn't going to happen.  Furthermore, the* United States Supreme Court ruled* that is it NOT a crime for undocumented people to be in the United States without being documented.  And there is where your brain gets foggy.  Without amending the Constitution, you have no redress - except what you're implying.  If everyone comes here "_legally_" as you erroneously believe, it is code for eventual citizenship.  The liberals and the courts are helping you out at the tune of a million new citizens per year.  One day... really soon, the OTCs will outnumber you and vote you into oblivion.  One would think you would pull your head out of your ass long enough to engage in a serious discussion.  When you can handle a dozen paragraphs at a time, let me know.  I can explain this stuff to you a fifth time.  Don't hate me.  I didn't write the damn laws.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's my fault that you don't understand the economics of your own country?  What does that have to do with the OP?
> 
> The issue at hand is in reference to people, like yourself, who egg on wannabe border patrollers that end up in jail, prison, being a snitch bitch, or killed by the LEOs for doing stupid stuff you support?
> 
> You demonstrate your stupidity when you start the name calling.  Foreigners are not a race.  *NONE* of the issues I raise have anything to do with race.  I would apply the laws equally, across the board - race, education, wealth, etc. not being considerations.  Can't say the same thing about your homeboy.  So, it sounds like more projection on your part, Mr. Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you note that my response was to Danielpaulos, who, btw, is a hate filled monster who has sided with an illegal immigrant child rapist vs his child victim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're stuck with a problem Correll.  You think that the solutions you've been spoon fed are the only solutions.  So, along comes our resident liberal.  He is your polar opposite.  He knows you aren't going to change your mind. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> 
> I think that the solutions being pursued right now, are ONE possible set of solutions, and I want solutions.
> 
> 
> THe solutions you want, you won't exactly say.
> 
> 
> Something I have noticed, is that a defense mechanism of the open border types, is to just keep talking in circles about possible solutions and never actually DO anything, and all the while the Third World keeps flooding US.
> 
> 
> All that stuff where you insult me, and quote the bible, nicely done filler, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty much correct.  If you wanted solutions, you would study.  You don't.
> 
> I have presented my solutions many times.  But, for you it came down to TLDR.  All we can talk about in even ten or twelve paragraphs are the very bare bones basics.  In other threads as well as this one, you refused to *READ* the damn thing.
> 
> You keep talking about an "_open border type_."   Can you demonstrate, by name and actions some of these people you are hurling that accusation at?  Or, are you creating a straw man argument?
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I can't take your pretense of being unaware of the Open BOrder types seriously.
Click to expand...



The open border type is a fallacy that you cannot substantiate with actual names and political platforms.  That is far different than when I talk about David Duke, Jim Gilchrist, John Tanton and what they advocated.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. I understand why you are upset. You spend a significant portion of your life working towards something and it did not seem to work, so far.
> 
> 
> Calling basically random people nazis, is not the way to deal with that.
> 
> 
> You respectfully and civilly tell me the general strategy you envision working, and I will almost certainly, based on past conversations, respectfully and civilly disagree.
> 
> 
> AND, you don't need to post 10 paragraphs to get an general outline across.
> 
> 
> One possible answer I see  you tending towards, would be "embrace identity politics", for one example.
> 
> 
> You don't have to go into details. I will get it.
> 
> 
> What is your suggested strategy, to avoid "losing the country"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you accuse me of being a race baiting asshole and NOW you want to talk civilly?  You're like that other little worm.  You're a chickenshit coward, unable to engage in a conversation - which is more than three words and a grunt.  And you're never going to call me out so your name calling shows us the extent of your character.
> 
> I'm not calling random people nazis.  If you embrace certain viewpoints that are consistent with National Socialism and you parrot their talking points, it is what it is.
> 
> I am only angry at dumb ass white people whose callous actions ended with court decisions that negate your arguments.  Because of you, undocumented foreigners DO have rights and the only way we can challenge that is if someone else goes to jail and then the guys you support have to bail them out and battle the rulings in the federal courts.  You can talk shit, but you won't be the guinea pig that puts his ass on the line to find out.  And, in answer to your next question, yes I did a couple of times.
> 
> Even your own side has admitted to the facts I brought forward relative to this conversation:
> 
> Why you should be glad Minuteman Civil Defense Corps has a strict Code of Conduct
> 
> That's four paragraphs and a link.  Was that short enough for your pea brain?  And no ten paragraphs are only introductions to different aspects of actual discussions.... not even the actual discussion itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did not call you a race baiting asshole,, but you have called me a nazi, based on bullshit games.
> 
> 
> Go back and try replying to that post again. THis time without the confusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read so many posts here that it was bound to happen.  I did make a reply to you not directed at me.  I truly apologize and admit that you did *NOT* call me a race baiting asshole.  I am sorry for the screw up.
> 
> So that you fully understand something, I grew up around David Duke and Don Black (among others.)  They attended many a meeting where conservatives, and right wing people met to develop strategies.   When people spout National Socialist solutions, I'm keenly aware at a personal level of what they are because this is something I* lived*.  At the time Costa Garvis came out with a movie called _Betrayed_ (it stars  Tom Berenger and Debra Winger.)  Garvis, being Greek, was as about as emotionally detached from taking sides as any filmmaker I've ever heard of.
> 
> That movie will give you a no holds barred look at how racist, nazi, conservative, right wing, etc. groups try (and mostly unsuccessfully)  attempt to work against far left liberalism.  It is a fair and balanced drama thriller, so if you're unwilling to read, you might download and watch an unbiased look.  You will see me and you will see yourself.  The solutions you post did not work in the past, aren't working and will not work in the future.
> 
> You can't understand the solutions and all I can do is leave you with some parting words of wisdom:
> 
> _"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."  _George Santayana
> 
> I *DO* remember the past and see you traveling down that road.  You don't know the past and, consequently, will not understand the future. You keep trying to debate me when it would be more advantageous to take sound counsel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nazis did not invent the idea of secure borders. You give me a secure border without a Wall, and I'll be happy.
> 
> 
> Our border right now, is not secure. The Wall is one possible solution, and those that are against is, seem to have a lot of overlap with those that have supported Amnesty in the past, and/or other anti-American shit.
> 
> 
> Overlap? Mmm,  you love that and build massive connections over that. You want to look at those people, people who oppose the Wall, and show how they are all anti-American commies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know enough of history to know who in the Hell invented the border wall idea.  In *THIS* country, the first talk .....
Click to expand...



Just no. Ideas flow across borders. That is a good thing. That you try to pretend that anyone in this country that has an idea, MUST get it from someone in this country who had it before them, 


is wrong on so many levels.



I am not going to play that game.


----------



## danielpalos

There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's my fault that you don't understand the economics of your own country?  What does that have to do with the OP?
> 
> The issue at hand is in reference to people, like yourself, who egg on wannabe border patrollers that end up in jail, prison, being a snitch bitch, or killed by the LEOs for doing stupid stuff you support?
> 
> You demonstrate your stupidity when you start the name calling.  Foreigners are not a race.  *NONE* of the issues I raise have anything to do with race.  I would apply the laws equally, across the board - race, education, wealth, etc. not being considerations.  Can't say the same thing about your homeboy.  So, it sounds like more projection on your part, Mr. Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you note that my response was to Danielpaulos, who, btw, is a hate filled monster who has sided with an illegal immigrant child rapist vs his child victim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're stuck with a problem Correll.  You think that the solutions you've been spoon fed are the only solutions.  So, along comes our resident liberal.  He is your polar opposite.  He knows you aren't going to change your mind. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> 
> I think that the solutions being pursued right now, are ONE possible set of solutions, and I want solutions.
> 
> 
> THe solutions you want, you won't exactly say.
> 
> 
> Something I have noticed, is that a defense mechanism of the open border types, is to just keep talking in circles about possible solutions and never actually DO anything, and all the while the Third World keeps flooding US.
> 
> 
> All that stuff where you insult me, and quote the bible, nicely done filler, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty much correct.  If you wanted solutions, you would study.  You don't.
> 
> I have presented my solutions many times.  But, for you it came down to TLDR.  All we can talk about in even ten or twelve paragraphs are the very bare bones basics.  In other threads as well as this one, you refused to *READ* the damn thing.
> 
> You keep talking about an "_open border type_."   Can you demonstrate, by name and actions some of these people you are hurling that accusation at?  Or, are you creating a straw man argument?
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I can't take your pretense of being unaware of the Open BOrder types seriously.
Click to expand...


You don't have to convince me, son.  You have to convince the voters and the politicians.  We barely hung onto the governorship here the last election and now politicians are jumping ship, announcing they will run as Democrats the next time.

They heard your argument.  Fewer and fewer are buying it.  You should do some serious study before engaging with me.  In the book The Art of War, Sun Tzu wrote:

"_Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and __victory__. Know not thy enemy nor yourself, wallow in defeat every time._"

You know *NOTHING* about your opposition.  Hell, you won't even take a week of your time to probe the edges.  You don't know yourself; all you do is repeat the same canard as if repetition will make it true.  So, one the world's most renown military strategists has predicted defeat for you.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you accuse me of being a race baiting asshole and NOW you want to talk civilly?  You're like that other little worm.  You're a chickenshit coward, unable to engage in a conversation - which is more than three words and a grunt.  And you're never going to call me out so your name calling shows us the extent of your character.
> 
> I'm not calling random people nazis.  If you embrace certain viewpoints that are consistent with National Socialism and you parrot their talking points, it is what it is.
> 
> I am only angry at dumb ass white people whose callous actions ended with court decisions that negate your arguments.  Because of you, undocumented foreigners DO have rights and the only way we can challenge that is if someone else goes to jail and then the guys you support have to bail them out and battle the rulings in the federal courts.  You can talk shit, but you won't be the guinea pig that puts his ass on the line to find out.  And, in answer to your next question, yes I did a couple of times.
> 
> Even your own side has admitted to the facts I brought forward relative to this conversation:
> 
> Why you should be glad Minuteman Civil Defense Corps has a strict Code of Conduct
> 
> That's four paragraphs and a link.  Was that short enough for your pea brain?  And no ten paragraphs are only introductions to different aspects of actual discussions.... not even the actual discussion itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not call you a race baiting asshole,, but you have called me a nazi, based on bullshit games.
> 
> 
> Go back and try replying to that post again. THis time without the confusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read so many posts here that it was bound to happen.  I did make a reply to you not directed at me.  I truly apologize and admit that you did *NOT* call me a race baiting asshole.  I am sorry for the screw up.
> 
> So that you fully understand something, I grew up around David Duke and Don Black (among others.)  They attended many a meeting where conservatives, and right wing people met to develop strategies.   When people spout National Socialist solutions, I'm keenly aware at a personal level of what they are because this is something I* lived*.  At the time Costa Garvis came out with a movie called _Betrayed_ (it stars  Tom Berenger and Debra Winger.)  Garvis, being Greek, was as about as emotionally detached from taking sides as any filmmaker I've ever heard of.
> 
> That movie will give you a no holds barred look at how racist, nazi, conservative, right wing, etc. groups try (and mostly unsuccessfully)  attempt to work against far left liberalism.  It is a fair and balanced drama thriller, so if you're unwilling to read, you might download and watch an unbiased look.  You will see me and you will see yourself.  The solutions you post did not work in the past, aren't working and will not work in the future.
> 
> You can't understand the solutions and all I can do is leave you with some parting words of wisdom:
> 
> _"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."  _George Santayana
> 
> I *DO* remember the past and see you traveling down that road.  You don't know the past and, consequently, will not understand the future. You keep trying to debate me when it would be more advantageous to take sound counsel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nazis did not invent the idea of secure borders. You give me a secure border without a Wall, and I'll be happy.
> 
> 
> Our border right now, is not secure. The Wall is one possible solution, and those that are against is, seem to have a lot of overlap with those that have supported Amnesty in the past, and/or other anti-American shit.
> 
> 
> Overlap? Mmm,  you love that and build massive connections over that. You want to look at those people, people who oppose the Wall, and show how they are all anti-American commies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know enough of history to know who in the Hell invented the border wall idea.  In *THIS* country, the first talk .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just no. Ideas flow across borders. That is a good thing. That you try to pretend that anyone in this country that has an idea, MUST get it from someone in this country who had it before them,
> 
> 
> is wrong on so many levels.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not going to play that game.
Click to expand...


The only game is the one you're playing is in that space between your ears.  In this country, the wall idea *AND ITS PRETEXTS AND ITS RHETORIC WERE DEVELOPED BY NAZIS*.

You didn't just buy the wall, but you bought the bullshit that went with it.  It doesn't matter.  Military strategists and historians ALL disagree with the wall idea:

Walls Don't Work

Border walls are going up globally at a dizzying pace — but history teaches us that walls don’t work


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you note that my response was to Danielpaulos, who, btw, is a hate filled monster who has sided with an illegal immigrant child rapist vs his child victim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're stuck with a problem Correll.  You think that the solutions you've been spoon fed are the only solutions.  So, along comes our resident liberal.  He is your polar opposite.  He knows you aren't going to change your mind. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> 
> I think that the solutions being pursued right now, are ONE possible set of solutions, and I want solutions.
> 
> 
> THe solutions you want, you won't exactly say.
> 
> 
> Something I have noticed, is that a defense mechanism of the open border types, is to just keep talking in circles about possible solutions and never actually DO anything, and all the while the Third World keeps flooding US.
> 
> 
> All that stuff where you insult me, and quote the bible, nicely done filler, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty much correct.  If you wanted solutions, you would study.  You don't.
> 
> I have presented my solutions many times.  But, for you it came down to TLDR.  All we can talk about in even ten or twelve paragraphs are the very bare bones basics.  In other threads as well as this one, you refused to *READ* the damn thing.
> 
> You keep talking about an "_open border type_."   Can you demonstrate, by name and actions some of these people you are hurling that accusation at?  Or, are you creating a straw man argument?
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I can't take your pretense of being unaware of the Open BOrder types seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have to convince me, son.  You have to convince the voters and the politicians.  We barely hung onto the governorship here the last election and now politicians are jumping ship, announcing they will run as Democrats the next time.
> 
> They heard your argument.  Fewer and fewer are buying it.  You should do some serious study before engaging with me.  In the book The Art of War, Sun Tzu wrote:
> 
> "_Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and __victory__. Know not thy enemy nor yourself, wallow in defeat every time._"
> 
> You know *NOTHING* about your opposition.  Hell, you won't even take a week of your time to probe the edges.  You don't know yourself; all you do is repeat the same canard as if repetition will make it true.  So, one the world's most renown military strategists has predicted defeat for you.
Click to expand...




THat people are not buying my argument, does not mean that it is not a good argument.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not call you a race baiting asshole,, but you have called me a nazi, based on bullshit games.
> 
> 
> Go back and try replying to that post again. THis time without the confusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read so many posts here that it was bound to happen.  I did make a reply to you not directed at me.  I truly apologize and admit that you did *NOT* call me a race baiting asshole.  I am sorry for the screw up.
> 
> So that you fully understand something, I grew up around David Duke and Don Black (among others.)  They attended many a meeting where conservatives, and right wing people met to develop strategies.   When people spout National Socialist solutions, I'm keenly aware at a personal level of what they are because this is something I* lived*.  At the time Costa Garvis came out with a movie called _Betrayed_ (it stars  Tom Berenger and Debra Winger.)  Garvis, being Greek, was as about as emotionally detached from taking sides as any filmmaker I've ever heard of.
> 
> That movie will give you a no holds barred look at how racist, nazi, conservative, right wing, etc. groups try (and mostly unsuccessfully)  attempt to work against far left liberalism.  It is a fair and balanced drama thriller, so if you're unwilling to read, you might download and watch an unbiased look.  You will see me and you will see yourself.  The solutions you post did not work in the past, aren't working and will not work in the future.
> 
> You can't understand the solutions and all I can do is leave you with some parting words of wisdom:
> 
> _"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."  _George Santayana
> 
> I *DO* remember the past and see you traveling down that road.  You don't know the past and, consequently, will not understand the future. You keep trying to debate me when it would be more advantageous to take sound counsel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nazis did not invent the idea of secure borders. You give me a secure border without a Wall, and I'll be happy.
> 
> 
> Our border right now, is not secure. The Wall is one possible solution, and those that are against is, seem to have a lot of overlap with those that have supported Amnesty in the past, and/or other anti-American shit.
> 
> 
> Overlap? Mmm,  you love that and build massive connections over that. You want to look at those people, people who oppose the Wall, and show how they are all anti-American commies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know enough of history to know who in the Hell invented the border wall idea.  In *THIS* country, the first talk .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just no. Ideas flow across borders. That is a good thing. That you try to pretend that anyone in this country that has an idea, MUST get it from someone in this country who had it before them,
> 
> 
> is wrong on so many levels.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not going to play that game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only game is the one you're playing is in that space between your ears.  In this country, the wall idea *AND ITS PRETEXTS AND ITS RHETORIC WERE DEVELOPED BY NAZIS*.
> 
> You didn't just buy the wall, but you bought the bullshit that went with it.  It doesn't matter.  Military strategists and historians ALL disagree with the wall idea:
> 
> Walls Don't Work
> 
> Border walls are going up globally at a dizzying pace — but history teaches us that walls don’t work
Click to expand...




You know what does not work? What we have been doing. 


We know that it does not work, and you want to keep doing it.



Your nazi references are noted and dismissed. Nazis did not invent the ideas of Walls.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're stuck with a problem Correll.  You think that the solutions you've been spoon fed are the only solutions.  So, along comes our resident liberal.  He is your polar opposite.  He knows you aren't going to change your mind. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> 
> I think that the solutions being pursued right now, are ONE possible set of solutions, and I want solutions.
> 
> 
> THe solutions you want, you won't exactly say.
> 
> 
> Something I have noticed, is that a defense mechanism of the open border types, is to just keep talking in circles about possible solutions and never actually DO anything, and all the while the Third World keeps flooding US.
> 
> 
> All that stuff where you insult me, and quote the bible, nicely done filler, nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm pretty much correct.  If you wanted solutions, you would study.  You don't.
> 
> I have presented my solutions many times.  But, for you it came down to TLDR.  All we can talk about in even ten or twelve paragraphs are the very bare bones basics.  In other threads as well as this one, you refused to *READ* the damn thing.
> 
> You keep talking about an "_open border type_."   Can you demonstrate, by name and actions some of these people you are hurling that accusation at?  Or, are you creating a straw man argument?
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I can't take your pretense of being unaware of the Open BOrder types seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have to convince me, son.  You have to convince the voters and the politicians.  We barely hung onto the governorship here the last election and now politicians are jumping ship, announcing they will run as Democrats the next time.
> 
> They heard your argument.  Fewer and fewer are buying it.  You should do some serious study before engaging with me.  In the book The Art of War, Sun Tzu wrote:
> 
> "_Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and __victory__. Know not thy enemy nor yourself, wallow in defeat every time._"
> 
> You know *NOTHING* about your opposition.  Hell, you won't even take a week of your time to probe the edges.  You don't know yourself; all you do is repeat the same canard as if repetition will make it true.  So, one the world's most renown military strategists has predicted defeat for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THat people are not buying my argument, does not mean that it is not a good argument.
Click to expand...


It's not a good argument.  A wall would not work in America because it would be like closing the barn door after the cows got out.  When Kamala Harris can be a serious contender for president, you cannot sustain the wall idea in the de facto democracy.  That is just reality.

Besides, when Trump began saying he'd take money from Socialist Security and the military - having lied about making Mexico pay, he torpedoed the whole wall idea.  It's imploding even as we argue.

You still have a problem with foreigners and if you fail to follow a path toward the restoration of Liberty, you will only be left with one path left to protect yourself with - and you have tried harder than the left to close that door.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read so many posts here that it was bound to happen.  I did make a reply to you not directed at me.  I truly apologize and admit that you did *NOT* call me a race baiting asshole.  I am sorry for the screw up.
> 
> So that you fully understand something, I grew up around David Duke and Don Black (among others.)  They attended many a meeting where conservatives, and right wing people met to develop strategies.   When people spout National Socialist solutions, I'm keenly aware at a personal level of what they are because this is something I* lived*.  At the time Costa Garvis came out with a movie called _Betrayed_ (it stars  Tom Berenger and Debra Winger.)  Garvis, being Greek, was as about as emotionally detached from taking sides as any filmmaker I've ever heard of.
> 
> That movie will give you a no holds barred look at how racist, nazi, conservative, right wing, etc. groups try (and mostly unsuccessfully)  attempt to work against far left liberalism.  It is a fair and balanced drama thriller, so if you're unwilling to read, you might download and watch an unbiased look.  You will see me and you will see yourself.  The solutions you post did not work in the past, aren't working and will not work in the future.
> 
> You can't understand the solutions and all I can do is leave you with some parting words of wisdom:
> 
> _"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."  _George Santayana
> 
> I *DO* remember the past and see you traveling down that road.  You don't know the past and, consequently, will not understand the future. You keep trying to debate me when it would be more advantageous to take sound counsel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nazis did not invent the idea of secure borders. You give me a secure border without a Wall, and I'll be happy.
> 
> 
> Our border right now, is not secure. The Wall is one possible solution, and those that are against is, seem to have a lot of overlap with those that have supported Amnesty in the past, and/or other anti-American shit.
> 
> 
> Overlap? Mmm,  you love that and build massive connections over that. You want to look at those people, people who oppose the Wall, and show how they are all anti-American commies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know enough of history to know who in the Hell invented the border wall idea.  In *THIS* country, the first talk .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just no. Ideas flow across borders. That is a good thing. That you try to pretend that anyone in this country that has an idea, MUST get it from someone in this country who had it before them,
> 
> 
> is wrong on so many levels.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not going to play that game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only game is the one you're playing is in that space between your ears.  In this country, the wall idea *AND ITS PRETEXTS AND ITS RHETORIC WERE DEVELOPED BY NAZIS*.
> 
> You didn't just buy the wall, but you bought the bullshit that went with it.  It doesn't matter.  Military strategists and historians ALL disagree with the wall idea:
> 
> Walls Don't Work
> 
> Border walls are going up globally at a dizzying pace — but history teaches us that walls don’t work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what does not work? What we have been doing.
> 
> 
> We know that it does not work, and you want to keep doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your nazi references are noted and dismissed. Nazis did not invent the ideas of Walls.
Click to expand...


Nazis were the first to suggest the wall idea in America.  It's not just the wall, but the political rhetoric and the peripheral legislation that surrounds it.  We aren't just talking the wall, but various other things that accompany it.  For the benefit of others, here is an analogy:

When we came up with the interstate system, laws had to be agreed on.  Who would pay for the interstate?  Who would maintain it?  Would states and local governments be able to enforce the laws?  Who would get the money from fees and fines?  ALL of that went with it.

So, here comes Correll, the most uneducated wallist in America.  He wants a wall, but he doesn't understand the peripheral laws that were created in order to enforce the nutty wall idea.  He's oblivious to the Constitution Free Zone; he's in love with Hitler's tattoo idea on steroids... National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, along with the elimination of the concept of innocent until proven guilty.  The wall don't mean a damn thing without peripheral laws to enforce it.  How many Liberties do you lose before you say the wall isn't worth the losses?

What we're doing is to enforce unconstitutional laws, most of them forced into law by the Democrats (like Ted Kennedy) and to continue a power grab where the United States Supreme Court acted above their constitutional limits in 1875.  Those laws were incrementally put into place in order to destroy the stated reason our Constitution was created for in the first place.

What I want is a dramatic shift, but it will not happen overnight.  What I want *will work *because it is how America became the greatest nation in the annals of history.  There is not much of a chance that the wall will be built.  The Republicans lost the House (where funding bills originate) and they could lose the Senate in the next election cycle.  Correll, and those like him, have *NO* Plan B.  Not knowing history, they cannot return to a time when this wasn't the litmus test of your loyalty to this country and the issue did not exist.  IF / when Correll decides to get past the personality contest and learn a little history, the solution will become painfully obvious.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> 
> I think that the solutions being pursued right now, are ONE possible set of solutions, and I want solutions.
> 
> 
> THe solutions you want, you won't exactly say.
> 
> 
> Something I have noticed, is that a defense mechanism of the open border types, is to just keep talking in circles about possible solutions and never actually DO anything, and all the while the Third World keeps flooding US.
> 
> 
> All that stuff where you insult me, and quote the bible, nicely done filler, nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty much correct.  If you wanted solutions, you would study.  You don't.
> 
> I have presented my solutions many times.  But, for you it came down to TLDR.  All we can talk about in even ten or twelve paragraphs are the very bare bones basics.  In other threads as well as this one, you refused to *READ* the damn thing.
> 
> You keep talking about an "_open border type_."   Can you demonstrate, by name and actions some of these people you are hurling that accusation at?  Or, are you creating a straw man argument?
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I can't take your pretense of being unaware of the Open BOrder types seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have to convince me, son.  You have to convince the voters and the politicians.  We barely hung onto the governorship here the last election and now politicians are jumping ship, announcing they will run as Democrats the next time.
> 
> They heard your argument.  Fewer and fewer are buying it.  You should do some serious study before engaging with me.  In the book The Art of War, Sun Tzu wrote:
> 
> "_Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and __victory__. Know not thy enemy nor yourself, wallow in defeat every time._"
> 
> You know *NOTHING* about your opposition.  Hell, you won't even take a week of your time to probe the edges.  You don't know yourself; all you do is repeat the same canard as if repetition will make it true.  So, one the world's most renown military strategists has predicted defeat for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THat people are not buying my argument, does not mean that it is not a good argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a good argument.  A wall would not work in America because it would be like closing the barn door after the cows got out.  When Kamala Harris can be a serious contender for president, you cannot sustain the wall idea in the de facto democracy.  That is just reality.
Click to expand...



A fair point. But there are still more "horses" "leaving" ie illegals entering. So, even though it is very late in the game, stopping that flow is still a worthwhile endeavor.




> Besides, when Trump began saying he'd take money from Socialist Security and the military - having lied about making Mexico pay, he torpedoed the whole wall idea.  It's imploding even as we argue.



He "lied" about funding? Wow. A politician never did that before. He pulled money from somewhere else? Wow. A politician never did that before.


You don't give a shit about any of that, and neither do I. And neither does anyone else really.





> You still have a problem with foreigners and if you fail to follow a path toward the restoration of Liberty, you will only be left with one path left to protect yourself with - and you have tried harder than the left to close that door.




1. My "problem" with foreigners, is that I want to advance the interests of Americans and America, and not "foreigners" especially at the expense of Americans and America.


2. "Path"? Not really. I hope it does not come to that, and regardless if it does, more "foreigners" will not make it easier.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nazis did not invent the idea of secure borders. You give me a secure border without a Wall, and I'll be happy.
> 
> 
> Our border right now, is not secure. The Wall is one possible solution, and those that are against is, seem to have a lot of overlap with those that have supported Amnesty in the past, and/or other anti-American shit.
> 
> 
> Overlap? Mmm,  you love that and build massive connections over that. You want to look at those people, people who oppose the Wall, and show how they are all anti-American commies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know enough of history to know who in the Hell invented the border wall idea.  In *THIS* country, the first talk .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just no. Ideas flow across borders. That is a good thing. That you try to pretend that anyone in this country that has an idea, MUST get it from someone in this country who had it before them,
> 
> 
> is wrong on so many levels.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not going to play that game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only game is the one you're playing is in that space between your ears.  In this country, the wall idea *AND ITS PRETEXTS AND ITS RHETORIC WERE DEVELOPED BY NAZIS*.
> 
> You didn't just buy the wall, but you bought the bullshit that went with it.  It doesn't matter.  Military strategists and historians ALL disagree with the wall idea:
> 
> Walls Don't Work
> 
> Border walls are going up globally at a dizzying pace — but history teaches us that walls don’t work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what does not work? What we have been doing.
> 
> 
> We know that it does not work, and you want to keep doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your nazi references are noted and dismissed. Nazis did not invent the ideas of Walls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nazis were the first to suggest the wall idea in America.  It's not just the wall, but the political rhetoric and the peripheral legislation that surrounds it.  We aren't just talking the wall, but various other things that accompany it.  For the benefit of others, here is an analogy:
> 
> When we came up with the interstate system, laws had to be agreed on.  Who would pay for the interstate?  Who would maintain it?  Would states and local governments be able to enforce the laws?  Who would get the money from fees and fines?  ALL of that went with it.
> 
> So, here comes Correll, the most uneducated wallist in America.  He wants a wall, but he doesn't understand the peripheral laws that were created in order to enforce the nutty wall idea.  He's oblivious to the Constitution Free Zone; he's in love with Hitler's tattoo idea on steroids... National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, along with the elimination of the concept of innocent until proven guilty.  The wall don't mean a damn thing without peripheral laws to enforce it.  How many Liberties do you lose before you say the wall isn't worth the losses?
> 
> What we're doing is to enforce unconstitutional laws, most of them forced into law by the Democrats (like Ted Kennedy) and to continue a power grab where the United States Supreme Court acted above their constitutional limits in 1875.  Those laws were incrementally put into place in order to destroy the stated reason our Constitution was created for in the first place.
> 
> What I want is a dramatic shift, but it will not happen overnight.  What I want *will work *because it is how America became the greatest nation in the annals of history.  There is not much of a chance that the wall will be built.  The Republicans lost the House (where funding bills originate) and they could lose the Senate in the next election cycle.  Correll, and those like him, have *NO* Plan B.  Not knowing history, they cannot return to a time when this wasn't the litmus test of your loyalty to this country and the issue did not exist.  IF / when Correll decides to get past the personality contest and learn a little history, the solution will become painfully obvious.
Click to expand...




What your policy of letting them in will get US, is more of California. 


By 2050, every city in the US, will be like fucking LA. and LA, will be like Mexico City. 


That is not a nation that will be America. YOu are not going to get them to adopt our culture or politics or policies.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty much correct.  If you wanted solutions, you would study.  You don't.
> 
> I have presented my solutions many times.  But, for you it came down to TLDR.  All we can talk about in even ten or twelve paragraphs are the very bare bones basics.  In other threads as well as this one, you refused to *READ* the damn thing.
> 
> You keep talking about an "_open border type_."   Can you demonstrate, by name and actions some of these people you are hurling that accusation at?  Or, are you creating a straw man argument?
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I can't take your pretense of being unaware of the Open BOrder types seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have to convince me, son.  You have to convince the voters and the politicians.  We barely hung onto the governorship here the last election and now politicians are jumping ship, announcing they will run as Democrats the next time.
> 
> They heard your argument.  Fewer and fewer are buying it.  You should do some serious study before engaging with me.  In the book The Art of War, Sun Tzu wrote:
> 
> "_Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and __victory__. Know not thy enemy nor yourself, wallow in defeat every time._"
> 
> You know *NOTHING* about your opposition.  Hell, you won't even take a week of your time to probe the edges.  You don't know yourself; all you do is repeat the same canard as if repetition will make it true.  So, one the world's most renown military strategists has predicted defeat for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THat people are not buying my argument, does not mean that it is not a good argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a good argument.  A wall would not work in America because it would be like closing the barn door after the cows got out.  When Kamala Harris can be a serious contender for president, you cannot sustain the wall idea in the de facto democracy.  That is just reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A fair point. But there are still more "horses" "leaving" ie illegals entering. So, even though it is very late in the game, stopping that flow is still a worthwhile endeavor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, when Trump began saying he'd take money from Socialist Security and the military - having lied about making Mexico pay, he torpedoed the whole wall idea.  It's imploding even as we argue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He "lied" about funding? Wow. A politician never did that before. He pulled money from somewhere else? Wow. A politician never did that before.
> 
> 
> You don't give a shit about any of that, and neither do I. And neither does anyone else really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still have a problem with foreigners and if you fail to follow a path toward the restoration of Liberty, you will only be left with one path left to protect yourself with - and you have tried harder than the left to close that door.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. My "problem" with foreigners, is that I want to advance the interests of Americans and America, and not "foreigners" especially at the expense of Americans and America.
> 
> 
> 2. "Path"? Not really. I hope it does not come to that, and regardless if it does, more "foreigners" will not make it easier.
Click to expand...




Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty much correct.  If you wanted solutions, you would study.  You don't.
> 
> I have presented my solutions many times.  But, for you it came down to TLDR.  All we can talk about in even ten or twelve paragraphs are the very bare bones basics.  In other threads as well as this one, you refused to *READ* the damn thing.
> 
> You keep talking about an "_open border type_."   Can you demonstrate, by name and actions some of these people you are hurling that accusation at?  Or, are you creating a straw man argument?
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I can't take your pretense of being unaware of the Open BOrder types seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have to convince me, son.  You have to convince the voters and the politicians.  We barely hung onto the governorship here the last election and now politicians are jumping ship, announcing they will run as Democrats the next time.
> 
> They heard your argument.  Fewer and fewer are buying it.  You should do some serious study before engaging with me.  In the book The Art of War, Sun Tzu wrote:
> 
> "_Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and __victory__. Know not thy enemy nor yourself, wallow in defeat every time._"
> 
> You know *NOTHING* about your opposition.  Hell, you won't even take a week of your time to probe the edges.  You don't know yourself; all you do is repeat the same canard as if repetition will make it true.  So, one the world's most renown military strategists has predicted defeat for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THat people are not buying my argument, does not mean that it is not a good argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a good argument.  A wall would not work in America because it would be like closing the barn door after the cows got out.  When Kamala Harris can be a serious contender for president, you cannot sustain the wall idea in the de facto democracy.  That is just reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A fair point. But there are still more "horses" "leaving" ie illegals entering. So, even though it is very late in the game, stopping that flow is still a worthwhile endeavor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, when Trump began saying he'd take money from Socialist Security and the military - having lied about making Mexico pay, he torpedoed the whole wall idea.  It's imploding even as we argue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He "lied" about funding? Wow. A politician never did that before. He pulled money from somewhere else? Wow. A politician never did that before.
> 
> 
> You don't give a shit about any of that, and neither do I. And neither does anyone else really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still have a problem with foreigners and if you fail to follow a path toward the restoration of Liberty, you will only be left with one path left to protect yourself with - and you have tried harder than the left to close that door.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. My "problem" with foreigners, is that I want to advance the interests of Americans and America, and not "foreigners" especially at the expense of Americans and America.
> 
> 
> 2. "Path"? Not really. I hope it does not come to that, and regardless if it does, more "foreigners" will not make it easier.
Click to expand...


You are extremely naive; always sabotaging your own arguments.  If more people are leaving than are entering as you claim, that negates your argument for the need of any wall.

Secondly, you damn right I care about Trump lying.  You might be young right now, but if you were a veteran or a retiree and Trump was about to cut your livelihood, you would take a hard look at what the real options are AND you would look at the problem a bit more objectively.  

If building a wall were to cost those on a fixed income more of their money (lots of Americans already choose between medicine and food as it is) they would forego the wall.  Ditto for the military.  We might be going to war soon... so cut the military budget for a freaking wall???

The needs and interests of the American people is that the Republic be preserved.  Your *unalienable* Rights are worth something; the Right to own private property is worth preserving; the ability to be self sufficient and self reliant have a tremendous value; the Right to privacy was important enough for the founders to go to war over.  All of this should be important to you.

The laws you want enforced ultimately lead to citizenship.  Once those people become citizens, they *ARE* going to vote you into oblivion.  The courts are shooting down the wall idea - as you just witnessed yet another defeat for Trump and his funding schemes.  Now, he's created two more groups of pissed off Americans - the military and the AARP crowd - which is no small voting bloc.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I can't take your pretense of being unaware of the Open BOrder types seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to convince me, son.  You have to convince the voters and the politicians.  We barely hung onto the governorship here the last election and now politicians are jumping ship, announcing they will run as Democrats the next time.
> 
> They heard your argument.  Fewer and fewer are buying it.  You should do some serious study before engaging with me.  In the book The Art of War, Sun Tzu wrote:
> 
> "_Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and __victory__. Know not thy enemy nor yourself, wallow in defeat every time._"
> 
> You know *NOTHING* about your opposition.  Hell, you won't even take a week of your time to probe the edges.  You don't know yourself; all you do is repeat the same canard as if repetition will make it true.  So, one the world's most renown military strategists has predicted defeat for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THat people are not buying my argument, does not mean that it is not a good argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a good argument.  A wall would not work in America because it would be like closing the barn door after the cows got out.  When Kamala Harris can be a serious contender for president, you cannot sustain the wall idea in the de facto democracy.  That is just reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A fair point. But there are still more "horses" "leaving" ie illegals entering. So, even though it is very late in the game, stopping that flow is still a worthwhile endeavor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, when Trump began saying he'd take money from Socialist Security and the military - having lied about making Mexico pay, he torpedoed the whole wall idea.  It's imploding even as we argue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He "lied" about funding? Wow. A politician never did that before. He pulled money from somewhere else? Wow. A politician never did that before.
> 
> 
> You don't give a shit about any of that, and neither do I. And neither does anyone else really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still have a problem with foreigners and if you fail to follow a path toward the restoration of Liberty, you will only be left with one path left to protect yourself with - and you have tried harder than the left to close that door.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. My "problem" with foreigners, is that I want to advance the interests of Americans and America, and not "foreigners" especially at the expense of Americans and America.
> 
> 
> 2. "Path"? Not really. I hope it does not come to that, and regardless if it does, more "foreigners" will not make it easier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I can't take your pretense of being unaware of the Open BOrder types seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have to convince me, son.  You have to convince the voters and the politicians.  We barely hung onto the governorship here the last election and now politicians are jumping ship, announcing they will run as Democrats the next time.
> 
> They heard your argument.  Fewer and fewer are buying it.  You should do some serious study before engaging with me.  In the book The Art of War, Sun Tzu wrote:
> 
> "_Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and __victory__. Know not thy enemy nor yourself, wallow in defeat every time._"
> 
> You know *NOTHING* about your opposition.  Hell, you won't even take a week of your time to probe the edges.  You don't know yourself; all you do is repeat the same canard as if repetition will make it true.  So, one the world's most renown military strategists has predicted defeat for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THat people are not buying my argument, does not mean that it is not a good argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a good argument.  A wall would not work in America because it would be like closing the barn door after the cows got out.  When Kamala Harris can be a serious contender for president, you cannot sustain the wall idea in the de facto democracy.  That is just reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A fair point. But there are still more "horses" "leaving" ie illegals entering. So, even though it is very late in the game, stopping that flow is still a worthwhile endeavor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, when Trump began saying he'd take money from Socialist Security and the military - having lied about making Mexico pay, he torpedoed the whole wall idea.  It's imploding even as we argue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He "lied" about funding? Wow. A politician never did that before. He pulled money from somewhere else? Wow. A politician never did that before.
> 
> 
> You don't give a shit about any of that, and neither do I. And neither does anyone else really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still have a problem with foreigners and if you fail to follow a path toward the restoration of Liberty, you will only be left with one path left to protect yourself with - and you have tried harder than the left to close that door.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. My "problem" with foreigners, is that I want to advance the interests of Americans and America, and not "foreigners" especially at the expense of Americans and America.
> 
> 
> 2. "Path"? Not really. I hope it does not come to that, and regardless if it does, more "foreigners" will not make it easier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are extremely naive; always sabotaging your own arguments.  If more people are leaving than are entering as you claim, that negates your argument for the need of any wall.
Click to expand...


Dude. I was addressing using YOUR analogy. Illegals are still coming in, so stopping that would be a good thing.




> Secondly, you damn right I care about Trump lying.  You might be young right now, but if you were a veteran or a retiree and Trump was about to cut your livelihood, you would take a hard look at what the real options are AND you would look at the problem a bit more objectively.




So, if Trump actually was forcing Mexico to pay for this, you would support it, because Trump was not "lying"? 


Yeah, didn't think so. 


Like I said, neither one of us care about that. So, why did you bring it up?




> If building a wall were to cost those on a fixed income more of their money (lots of Americans already choose between medicine and food as it is) they would forego the wall.  Ditto for the military.  We might be going to war soon... so cut the military budget for a freaking wall???




a. Our unfunded mandates are unsustainable whether we build a Wall or not. 
b. Yes, cut the military for the Wall, if that is what it takes. An invasion is taking place. This nation is being taken away from Americans. 





> The needs and interests of the American people is that the Republic be preserved.  Your *unalienable* Rights are worth something; the Right to own private property is worth preserving; the ability to be self sufficient and self reliant have a tremendous value; the Right to privacy was important enough for the founders to go to war over.  All of this should be important to you.





Our right to self determination is being violated, massively and forever by this influx of foreigners. Funny you don't care about that right.




> The laws you want enforced ultimately lead to citizenship.  Once those people become citizens, they *ARE* going to vote you into oblivion.  The courts are shooting down the wall idea - as you just witnessed yet another defeat for Trump and his funding schemes.  Now, he's created two more groups of pissed off Americans - the military and the AARP crowd - which is no small voting bloc.




1. I do not support them becoming citizens. So, please stop assigning me responsibility based on stuff you assume.

2. They are likely to "vote me into oblivion". So, why do you attack me for "having a problem" with them?

3. That the open border types are fighting back in the courts is a problem. Why are you blaming me for the sins of others?

4. Trump is not creating this problem or the pissed off people. That you blame him for this is insane.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know enough of history to know who in the Hell invented the border wall idea.  In *THIS* country, the first talk .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just no. Ideas flow across borders. That is a good thing. That you try to pretend that anyone in this country that has an idea, MUST get it from someone in this country who had it before them,
> 
> 
> is wrong on so many levels.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not going to play that game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only game is the one you're playing is in that space between your ears.  In this country, the wall idea *AND ITS PRETEXTS AND ITS RHETORIC WERE DEVELOPED BY NAZIS*.
> 
> You didn't just buy the wall, but you bought the bullshit that went with it.  It doesn't matter.  Military strategists and historians ALL disagree with the wall idea:
> 
> Walls Don't Work
> 
> Border walls are going up globally at a dizzying pace — but history teaches us that walls don’t work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what does not work? What we have been doing.
> 
> 
> We know that it does not work, and you want to keep doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your nazi references are noted and dismissed. Nazis did not invent the ideas of Walls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nazis were the first to suggest the wall idea in America.  It's not just the wall, but the political rhetoric and the peripheral legislation that surrounds it.  We aren't just talking the wall, but various other things that accompany it.  For the benefit of others, here is an analogy:
> 
> When we came up with the interstate system, laws had to be agreed on.  Who would pay for the interstate?  Who would maintain it?  Would states and local governments be able to enforce the laws?  Who would get the money from fees and fines?  ALL of that went with it.
> 
> So, here comes Correll, the most uneducated wallist in America.  He wants a wall, but he doesn't understand the peripheral laws that were created in order to enforce the nutty wall idea.  He's oblivious to the Constitution Free Zone; he's in love with Hitler's tattoo idea on steroids... National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, along with the elimination of the concept of innocent until proven guilty.  The wall don't mean a damn thing without peripheral laws to enforce it.  How many Liberties do you lose before you say the wall isn't worth the losses?
> 
> What we're doing is to enforce unconstitutional laws, most of them forced into law by the Democrats (like Ted Kennedy) and to continue a power grab where the United States Supreme Court acted above their constitutional limits in 1875.  Those laws were incrementally put into place in order to destroy the stated reason our Constitution was created for in the first place.
> 
> What I want is a dramatic shift, but it will not happen overnight.  What I want *will work *because it is how America became the greatest nation in the annals of history.  There is not much of a chance that the wall will be built.  The Republicans lost the House (where funding bills originate) and they could lose the Senate in the next election cycle.  Correll, and those like him, have *NO* Plan B.  Not knowing history, they cannot return to a time when this wasn't the litmus test of your loyalty to this country and the issue did not exist.  IF / when Correll decides to get past the personality contest and learn a little history, the solution will become painfully obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What your policy of letting them in will get US, is more of California.
> 
> 
> By 2050, every city in the US, will be like fucking LA. and LA, will be like Mexico City.
> 
> 
> That is not a nation that will be America. YOu are not going to get them to adopt our culture or politics or policies.
Click to expand...


You won't *READ* about history and the law, so you don't have a clue as to what I'd do to reverse the situation.  You are ignorant above any description and it would work to your advantage to* ASK QUESTIONS*, then take time to *READ* the answers before spewing horseshit.

I've tried to shame you into reading and learning what it is you're talking about.  That cannot be done.  I've tried nice, argumentative, and everything in between.  But, if you think for one minute that I back a plan that would make the U.S. look like L.A. you are a fucking idiot.  So, I'll be nice and presume that was pure fluff on your part.

You have not studied the concepts of state citizenship versus national citizenship; you know *NOTHING* about the separation of powers of the government; you have no concept of the limited role of the federal government in a de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic and, worse, you don't have a damn clue as to how many constitutional violations it took on the part of the government to get us where we are today.  

Without a clear cut knowledge of that history along with what our laws really say, you are too deaf, dumb, and blind to understand how you reverse course, retain the Liberties of the people, and watch Nancy Pelosi and her ilk change course as opposed to playing you like a fine tuned fiddle.  The reality of your situation is that you are playing the part of a useful idiot (the left's terminology) for liberals; you refuse to educate yourself; your wall will never be completed; the peripheral laws / policies you are helping along will not only counteract your own lobbying, but will serve to stop future generations from seeking to be free from tyranny.  THAT makes you dangerous.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just no. Ideas flow across borders. That is a good thing. That you try to pretend that anyone in this country that has an idea, MUST get it from someone in this country who had it before them,
> 
> 
> is wrong on so many levels.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not going to play that game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only game is the one you're playing is in that space between your ears.  In this country, the wall idea *AND ITS PRETEXTS AND ITS RHETORIC WERE DEVELOPED BY NAZIS*.
> 
> You didn't just buy the wall, but you bought the bullshit that went with it.  It doesn't matter.  Military strategists and historians ALL disagree with the wall idea:
> 
> Walls Don't Work
> 
> Border walls are going up globally at a dizzying pace — but history teaches us that walls don’t work
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what does not work? What we have been doing.
> 
> 
> We know that it does not work, and you want to keep doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your nazi references are noted and dismissed. Nazis did not invent the ideas of Walls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nazis were the first to suggest the wall idea in America.  It's not just the wall, but the political rhetoric and the peripheral legislation that surrounds it.  We aren't just talking the wall, but various other things that accompany it.  For the benefit of others, here is an analogy:
> 
> When we came up with the interstate system, laws had to be agreed on.  Who would pay for the interstate?  Who would maintain it?  Would states and local governments be able to enforce the laws?  Who would get the money from fees and fines?  ALL of that went with it.
> 
> So, here comes Correll, the most uneducated wallist in America.  He wants a wall, but he doesn't understand the peripheral laws that were created in order to enforce the nutty wall idea.  He's oblivious to the Constitution Free Zone; he's in love with Hitler's tattoo idea on steroids... National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, along with the elimination of the concept of innocent until proven guilty.  The wall don't mean a damn thing without peripheral laws to enforce it.  How many Liberties do you lose before you say the wall isn't worth the losses?
> 
> What we're doing is to enforce unconstitutional laws, most of them forced into law by the Democrats (like Ted Kennedy) and to continue a power grab where the United States Supreme Court acted above their constitutional limits in 1875.  Those laws were incrementally put into place in order to destroy the stated reason our Constitution was created for in the first place.
> 
> What I want is a dramatic shift, but it will not happen overnight.  What I want *will work *because it is how America became the greatest nation in the annals of history.  There is not much of a chance that the wall will be built.  The Republicans lost the House (where funding bills originate) and they could lose the Senate in the next election cycle.  Correll, and those like him, have *NO* Plan B.  Not knowing history, they cannot return to a time when this wasn't the litmus test of your loyalty to this country and the issue did not exist.  IF / when Correll decides to get past the personality contest and learn a little history, the solution will become painfully obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What your policy of letting them in will get US, is more of California.
> 
> 
> By 2050, every city in the US, will be like fucking LA. and LA, will be like Mexico City.
> 
> 
> That is not a nation that will be America. YOu are not going to get them to adopt our culture or politics or policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You won't *READ* about history and the law, so you don't have a clue as to what I'd do to reverse the situation.  You are ignorant above any description and it would work to your advantage to* ASK QUESTIONS*, then take time to *READ* the answers before spewing horseshit.
> 
> I've tried to shame you into reading and learning what it is you're talking about.  That cannot be done.  I've tried nice, argumentative, and everything in between.  But, if you think for one minute that I back a plan that would make the U.S. look like L.A. you are a fucking idiot.  So, I'll be nice and presume that was pure fluff on your part.
> 
> You have not studied the concepts of state citizenship versus national citizenship; you know *NOTHING* about the separation of powers of the government; you have no concept of the limited role of the federal government in a de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic and, worse, you don't have a damn clue as to how many constitutional violations it took on the part of the government to get us where we are today.
> 
> Without a clear cut knowledge of that history along with what our laws really say, you are too deaf, dumb, and blind to understand how you reverse course, retain the Liberties of the people, and watch Nancy Pelosi and her ilk change course as opposed to playing you like a fine tuned fiddle.  The reality of your situation is that you are playing the part of a useful idiot (the left's terminology) for liberals; you refuse to educate yourself; your wall will never be completed; the peripheral laws / policies you are helping along will not only counteract your own lobbying, but will serve to stop future generations from seeking to be free from tyranny.  THAT makes you dangerous.
Click to expand...



I can watch a stream of millions of Mexicans flowing into America and see what it is doing to America.


You can't.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to convince me, son.  You have to convince the voters and the politicians.  We barely hung onto the governorship here the last election and now politicians are jumping ship, announcing they will run as Democrats the next time.
> 
> They heard your argument.  Fewer and fewer are buying it.  You should do some serious study before engaging with me.  In the book The Art of War, Sun Tzu wrote:
> 
> "_Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and __victory__. Know not thy enemy nor yourself, wallow in defeat every time._"
> 
> You know *NOTHING* about your opposition.  Hell, you won't even take a week of your time to probe the edges.  You don't know yourself; all you do is repeat the same canard as if repetition will make it true.  So, one the world's most renown military strategists has predicted defeat for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THat people are not buying my argument, does not mean that it is not a good argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a good argument.  A wall would not work in America because it would be like closing the barn door after the cows got out.  When Kamala Harris can be a serious contender for president, you cannot sustain the wall idea in the de facto democracy.  That is just reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A fair point. But there are still more "horses" "leaving" ie illegals entering. So, even though it is very late in the game, stopping that flow is still a worthwhile endeavor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, when Trump began saying he'd take money from Socialist Security and the military - having lied about making Mexico pay, he torpedoed the whole wall idea.  It's imploding even as we argue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He "lied" about funding? Wow. A politician never did that before. He pulled money from somewhere else? Wow. A politician never did that before.
> 
> 
> You don't give a shit about any of that, and neither do I. And neither does anyone else really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still have a problem with foreigners and if you fail to follow a path toward the restoration of Liberty, you will only be left with one path left to protect yourself with - and you have tried harder than the left to close that door.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. My "problem" with foreigners, is that I want to advance the interests of Americans and America, and not "foreigners" especially at the expense of Americans and America.
> 
> 
> 2. "Path"? Not really. I hope it does not come to that, and regardless if it does, more "foreigners" will not make it easier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to convince me, son.  You have to convince the voters and the politicians.  We barely hung onto the governorship here the last election and now politicians are jumping ship, announcing they will run as Democrats the next time.
> 
> They heard your argument.  Fewer and fewer are buying it.  You should do some serious study before engaging with me.  In the book The Art of War, Sun Tzu wrote:
> 
> "_Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and __victory__. Know not thy enemy nor yourself, wallow in defeat every time._"
> 
> You know *NOTHING* about your opposition.  Hell, you won't even take a week of your time to probe the edges.  You don't know yourself; all you do is repeat the same canard as if repetition will make it true.  So, one the world's most renown military strategists has predicted defeat for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THat people are not buying my argument, does not mean that it is not a good argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a good argument.  A wall would not work in America because it would be like closing the barn door after the cows got out.  When Kamala Harris can be a serious contender for president, you cannot sustain the wall idea in the de facto democracy.  That is just reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A fair point. But there are still more "horses" "leaving" ie illegals entering. So, even though it is very late in the game, stopping that flow is still a worthwhile endeavor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, when Trump began saying he'd take money from Socialist Security and the military - having lied about making Mexico pay, he torpedoed the whole wall idea.  It's imploding even as we argue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He "lied" about funding? Wow. A politician never did that before. He pulled money from somewhere else? Wow. A politician never did that before.
> 
> 
> You don't give a shit about any of that, and neither do I. And neither does anyone else really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still have a problem with foreigners and if you fail to follow a path toward the restoration of Liberty, you will only be left with one path left to protect yourself with - and you have tried harder than the left to close that door.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. My "problem" with foreigners, is that I want to advance the interests of Americans and America, and not "foreigners" especially at the expense of Americans and America.
> 
> 
> 2. "Path"? Not really. I hope it does not come to that, and regardless if it does, more "foreigners" will not make it easier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are extremely naive; always sabotaging your own arguments.  If more people are leaving than are entering as you claim, that negates your argument for the need of any wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude. I was addressing using YOUR analogy. Illegals are still coming in, so stopping that would be a good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, you damn right I care about Trump lying.  You might be young right now, but if you were a veteran or a retiree and Trump was about to cut your livelihood, you would take a hard look at what the real options are AND you would look at the problem a bit more objectively.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, if Trump actually was forcing Mexico to pay for this, you would support it, because Trump was not "lying"?
> 
> 
> Yeah, didn't think so.
> 
> 
> Like I said, neither one of us care about that. So, why did you bring it up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If building a wall were to cost those on a fixed income more of their money (lots of Americans already choose between medicine and food as it is) they would forego the wall.  Ditto for the military.  We might be going to war soon... so cut the military budget for a freaking wall???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a. Our unfunded mandates are unsustainable whether we build a Wall or not.
> b. Yes, cut the military for the Wall, if that is what it takes. An invasion is taking place. This nation is being taken away from Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The needs and interests of the American people is that the Republic be preserved.  Your *unalienable* Rights are worth something; the Right to own private property is worth preserving; the ability to be self sufficient and self reliant have a tremendous value; the Right to privacy was important enough for the founders to go to war over.  All of this should be important to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our right to self determination is being violated, massively and forever by this influx of foreigners. Funny you don't care about that right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The laws you want enforced ultimately lead to citizenship.  Once those people become citizens, they *ARE* going to vote you into oblivion.  The courts are shooting down the wall idea - as you just witnessed yet another defeat for Trump and his funding schemes.  Now, he's created two more groups of pissed off Americans - the military and the AARP crowd - which is no small voting bloc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I do not support them becoming citizens. So, please stop assigning me responsibility based on stuff you assume.
> 
> 2. They are likely to "vote me into oblivion". So, why do you attack me for "having a problem" with them?
> 
> 3. That the open border types are fighting back in the courts is a problem. Why are you blaming me for the sins of others?
> 
> 4. Trump is not creating this problem or the pissed off people. That you blame him for this is insane.
Click to expand...


Okay, you're being a dumb ass and I'm going to violate my own rules to respond.  Your next multi objection post will be ignored for what it is on your part - pure desperation.

You are being STUPID.  You already know *WHY* I oppose the wall. The peripheral laws surrounding it* repeal the Bill of Rights. * Get that through your fucking head.

The fact that Trump lied about who was going to pay for the wall IS of a concern to me.  This is back to back responses to you on the same allegation.  He is going to take the money from the military and those on fixed incomes.  Or so he thinks, so yes,* I DO CARE.*

1)  If you don't want undocumented foreigners to become citizens, get your head out of your ass and quit calling them _"illegals_"  and other terms that may imply a support for the unconstitutional and liberal laws that govern the issue

2)  The reason I'm "_attacking_" your dumb ass is because is that you have to trample the Rights of the people in order to achieve your objective.  *The costs of your wall come at a cost to the Bill of Rights*.  So fuck you Correll.  Fuck you and the horse you rode in on you POS traitor

3)  You have not given an example of one, single, solitary "_open border type_."  It sounds more like an asinine fantasy you harbor.  If you love walls and fences so damn much, you'd be happy in a prison

4)  Donald Trump don't give a rip about this perceived problem you moron.  He's a liar... a point you readily agree to.  He has also employed undocumented foreigners for decades.  He tells you what you want to hear and then allows the courts to shoot his bullshit down.

Donald Trump is a globalist; a close friend to Rupert Murdoch - the guy who sits on the Board of Directors for the Council on Foreign Relations.  They are letting you dig your own grave.  Meanwhile, you are asleep.  Donald Trump just nominated Chuck Canterbury to head the ATF.  Canterbury is committed to disarming America.  He wants to confiscate all the privately held weapons in America.

Your wall isn't going to get built and you're taking away our ability to have any future options to stop the situation brought about by laws you support without having studied a damn one of them.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only game is the one you're playing is in that space between your ears.  In this country, the wall idea *AND ITS PRETEXTS AND ITS RHETORIC WERE DEVELOPED BY NAZIS*.
> 
> You didn't just buy the wall, but you bought the bullshit that went with it.  It doesn't matter.  Military strategists and historians ALL disagree with the wall idea:
> 
> Walls Don't Work
> 
> Border walls are going up globally at a dizzying pace — but history teaches us that walls don’t work
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what does not work? What we have been doing.
> 
> 
> We know that it does not work, and you want to keep doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your nazi references are noted and dismissed. Nazis did not invent the ideas of Walls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nazis were the first to suggest the wall idea in America.  It's not just the wall, but the political rhetoric and the peripheral legislation that surrounds it.  We aren't just talking the wall, but various other things that accompany it.  For the benefit of others, here is an analogy:
> 
> When we came up with the interstate system, laws had to be agreed on.  Who would pay for the interstate?  Who would maintain it?  Would states and local governments be able to enforce the laws?  Who would get the money from fees and fines?  ALL of that went with it.
> 
> So, here comes Correll, the most uneducated wallist in America.  He wants a wall, but he doesn't understand the peripheral laws that were created in order to enforce the nutty wall idea.  He's oblivious to the Constitution Free Zone; he's in love with Hitler's tattoo idea on steroids... National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, along with the elimination of the concept of innocent until proven guilty.  The wall don't mean a damn thing without peripheral laws to enforce it.  How many Liberties do you lose before you say the wall isn't worth the losses?
> 
> What we're doing is to enforce unconstitutional laws, most of them forced into law by the Democrats (like Ted Kennedy) and to continue a power grab where the United States Supreme Court acted above their constitutional limits in 1875.  Those laws were incrementally put into place in order to destroy the stated reason our Constitution was created for in the first place.
> 
> What I want is a dramatic shift, but it will not happen overnight.  What I want *will work *because it is how America became the greatest nation in the annals of history.  There is not much of a chance that the wall will be built.  The Republicans lost the House (where funding bills originate) and they could lose the Senate in the next election cycle.  Correll, and those like him, have *NO* Plan B.  Not knowing history, they cannot return to a time when this wasn't the litmus test of your loyalty to this country and the issue did not exist.  IF / when Correll decides to get past the personality contest and learn a little history, the solution will become painfully obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What your policy of letting them in will get US, is more of California.
> 
> 
> By 2050, every city in the US, will be like fucking LA. and LA, will be like Mexico City.
> 
> 
> That is not a nation that will be America. YOu are not going to get them to adopt our culture or politics or policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You won't *READ* about history and the law, so you don't have a clue as to what I'd do to reverse the situation.  You are ignorant above any description and it would work to your advantage to* ASK QUESTIONS*, then take time to *READ* the answers before spewing horseshit.
> 
> I've tried to shame you into reading and learning what it is you're talking about.  That cannot be done.  I've tried nice, argumentative, and everything in between.  But, if you think for one minute that I back a plan that would make the U.S. look like L.A. you are a fucking idiot.  So, I'll be nice and presume that was pure fluff on your part.
> 
> You have not studied the concepts of state citizenship versus national citizenship; you know *NOTHING* about the separation of powers of the government; you have no concept of the limited role of the federal government in a de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic and, worse, you don't have a damn clue as to how many constitutional violations it took on the part of the government to get us where we are today.
> 
> Without a clear cut knowledge of that history along with what our laws really say, you are too deaf, dumb, and blind to understand how you reverse course, retain the Liberties of the people, and watch Nancy Pelosi and her ilk change course as opposed to playing you like a fine tuned fiddle.  The reality of your situation is that you are playing the part of a useful idiot (the left's terminology) for liberals; you refuse to educate yourself; your wall will never be completed; the peripheral laws / policies you are helping along will not only counteract your own lobbying, but will serve to stop future generations from seeking to be free from tyranny.  THAT makes you dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can watch a stream of millions of Mexicans flowing into America and see what it is doing to America.
> 
> 
> You can't.
Click to expand...


You lying son of a bitch.  You've never manned the border.  I used to live in and around Los Angeles.  May still have relatives there.  

If foreigners are flowing into America, it is due to our culture.  As long as our nation sees no harm in multiculturalism (and you have yet to denounce that yourself) then no wall is going to stop the situation.

The last I heard, Georgia was number four in the numbers of undocumented foreigners.  They're great for business, but the world is not just about what makes Donald Trump and his rich elite buddies happy.  We got lots of Hispanics here and lots and lots of jobs.

We also have local governments thinking they are Nazis.  We have high taxes and a white culture that has become an embarrassment.  We're losing our Freedoms and Liberties on a daily basis.  The foreigners are worming their way into government, making us the very kinds of cesspools they fled (so much for your "_legal_" immigration theories.)   

The people best suited to resolve this are the ones sitting it out and letting the NEW WORLD ORDER / One World Government guys set us up.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> THat people are not buying my argument, does not mean that it is not a good argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a good argument.  A wall would not work in America because it would be like closing the barn door after the cows got out.  When Kamala Harris can be a serious contender for president, you cannot sustain the wall idea in the de facto democracy.  That is just reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A fair point. But there are still more "horses" "leaving" ie illegals entering. So, even though it is very late in the game, stopping that flow is still a worthwhile endeavor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, when Trump began saying he'd take money from Socialist Security and the military - having lied about making Mexico pay, he torpedoed the whole wall idea.  It's imploding even as we argue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He "lied" about funding? Wow. A politician never did that before. He pulled money from somewhere else? Wow. A politician never did that before.
> 
> 
> You don't give a shit about any of that, and neither do I. And neither does anyone else really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still have a problem with foreigners and if you fail to follow a path toward the restoration of Liberty, you will only be left with one path left to protect yourself with - and you have tried harder than the left to close that door.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. My "problem" with foreigners, is that I want to advance the interests of Americans and America, and not "foreigners" especially at the expense of Americans and America.
> 
> 
> 2. "Path"? Not really. I hope it does not come to that, and regardless if it does, more "foreigners" will not make it easier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> THat people are not buying my argument, does not mean that it is not a good argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a good argument.  A wall would not work in America because it would be like closing the barn door after the cows got out.  When Kamala Harris can be a serious contender for president, you cannot sustain the wall idea in the de facto democracy.  That is just reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A fair point. But there are still more "horses" "leaving" ie illegals entering. So, even though it is very late in the game, stopping that flow is still a worthwhile endeavor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, when Trump began saying he'd take money from Socialist Security and the military - having lied about making Mexico pay, he torpedoed the whole wall idea.  It's imploding even as we argue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He "lied" about funding? Wow. A politician never did that before. He pulled money from somewhere else? Wow. A politician never did that before.
> 
> 
> You don't give a shit about any of that, and neither do I. And neither does anyone else really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still have a problem with foreigners and if you fail to follow a path toward the restoration of Liberty, you will only be left with one path left to protect yourself with - and you have tried harder than the left to close that door.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. My "problem" with foreigners, is that I want to advance the interests of Americans and America, and not "foreigners" especially at the expense of Americans and America.
> 
> 
> 2. "Path"? Not really. I hope it does not come to that, and regardless if it does, more "foreigners" will not make it easier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are extremely naive; always sabotaging your own arguments.  If more people are leaving than are entering as you claim, that negates your argument for the need of any wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude. I was addressing using YOUR analogy. Illegals are still coming in, so stopping that would be a good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, you damn right I care about Trump lying.  You might be young right now, but if you were a veteran or a retiree and Trump was about to cut your livelihood, you would take a hard look at what the real options are AND you would look at the problem a bit more objectively.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, if Trump actually was forcing Mexico to pay for this, you would support it, because Trump was not "lying"?
> 
> 
> Yeah, didn't think so.
> 
> 
> Like I said, neither one of us care about that. So, why did you bring it up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If building a wall were to cost those on a fixed income more of their money (lots of Americans already choose between medicine and food as it is) they would forego the wall.  Ditto for the military.  We might be going to war soon... so cut the military budget for a freaking wall???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a. Our unfunded mandates are unsustainable whether we build a Wall or not.
> b. Yes, cut the military for the Wall, if that is what it takes. An invasion is taking place. This nation is being taken away from Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The needs and interests of the American people is that the Republic be preserved.  Your *unalienable* Rights are worth something; the Right to own private property is worth preserving; the ability to be self sufficient and self reliant have a tremendous value; the Right to privacy was important enough for the founders to go to war over.  All of this should be important to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our right to self determination is being violated, massively and forever by this influx of foreigners. Funny you don't care about that right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The laws you want enforced ultimately lead to citizenship.  Once those people become citizens, they *ARE* going to vote you into oblivion.  The courts are shooting down the wall idea - as you just witnessed yet another defeat for Trump and his funding schemes.  Now, he's created two more groups of pissed off Americans - the military and the AARP crowd - which is no small voting bloc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I do not support them becoming citizens. So, please stop assigning me responsibility based on stuff you assume.
> 
> 2. They are likely to "vote me into oblivion". So, why do you attack me for "having a problem" with them?
> 
> 3. That the open border types are fighting back in the courts is a problem. Why are you blaming me for the sins of others?
> 
> 4. Trump is not creating this problem or the pissed off people. That you blame him for this is insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, you're being a dumb ass and I'm going to violate my own rules to respond.  Your next multi objection post will be ignored for what it is on your part - pure desperation.
> 
> You are being STUPID.  You already know *WHY* I oppose the wall. The peripheral laws surrounding it* repeal the Bill of Rights. * Get that through your fucking head.
> 
> The fact that Trump lied about who was going to pay for the wall IS of a concern to me.  This is back to back responses to you on the same allegation.  He is going to take the money from the military and those on fixed incomes.  Or so he thinks, so yes,* I DO CARE.*
> 
> 1)  If you don't want undocumented foreigners to become citizens, get your head out of your ass and quit calling them _"illegals_"  and other terms that may imply a support for the unconstitutional and liberal laws that govern the issue
> 
> 2)  The reason I'm "_attacking_" your dumb ass is because is that you have to trample the Rights of the people in order to achieve your objective.  *The costs of your wall come at a cost to the Bill of Rights*.  So fuck you Correll.  Fuck you and the horse you rode in on you POS traitor
> 
> 3)  You have not given an example of one, single, solitary "_open border type_."  It sounds more like an asinine fantasy you harbor.  If you love walls and fences so damn much, you'd be happy in a prison
> 
> 4)  Donald Trump don't give a rip about this perceived problem you moron.  He's a liar... a point you readily agree to.  He has also employed undocumented foreigners for decades.  He tells you what you want to hear and then allows the courts to shoot his bullshit down.
> 
> Donald Trump is a globalist; a close friend to Rupert Murdoch - the guy who sits on the Board of Directors for the Council on Foreign Relations.  They are letting you dig your own grave.  Meanwhile, you are asleep.  Donald Trump just nominated Chuck Canterbury to head the ATF.  Canterbury is committed to disarming America.  He wants to confiscate all the privately held weapons in America.
> 
> Your wall isn't going to get built and you're taking away our ability to have any future options to stop the situation brought about by laws you support without having studied a damn one of them.
Click to expand...




1. They are here illegally, and against the wishes of the citizens of this nation. Their growing presence you admit is very harmful to this nation and it's citizens.   


2. If our Constitution cannot survive the building of a Wall and deporting people who have invaded US, then it is doomed, because once this nation becomes Mexico, the new voting population won't care about it. Either way we lose.

3. Anyone that wants to leave the border open, and does not want to deport the people here against our wishes, is supporting an effectively open border. ANd plenty of people want that. Your confusion on this is not credible.

4. Trump was the choice for the most aggressive on this issue, and he is being that. The rest is meaningless fluff.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what does not work? What we have been doing.
> 
> 
> We know that it does not work, and you want to keep doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your nazi references are noted and dismissed. Nazis did not invent the ideas of Walls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nazis were the first to suggest the wall idea in America.  It's not just the wall, but the political rhetoric and the peripheral legislation that surrounds it.  We aren't just talking the wall, but various other things that accompany it.  For the benefit of others, here is an analogy:
> 
> When we came up with the interstate system, laws had to be agreed on.  Who would pay for the interstate?  Who would maintain it?  Would states and local governments be able to enforce the laws?  Who would get the money from fees and fines?  ALL of that went with it.
> 
> So, here comes Correll, the most uneducated wallist in America.  He wants a wall, but he doesn't understand the peripheral laws that were created in order to enforce the nutty wall idea.  He's oblivious to the Constitution Free Zone; he's in love with Hitler's tattoo idea on steroids... National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, along with the elimination of the concept of innocent until proven guilty.  The wall don't mean a damn thing without peripheral laws to enforce it.  How many Liberties do you lose before you say the wall isn't worth the losses?
> 
> What we're doing is to enforce unconstitutional laws, most of them forced into law by the Democrats (like Ted Kennedy) and to continue a power grab where the United States Supreme Court acted above their constitutional limits in 1875.  Those laws were incrementally put into place in order to destroy the stated reason our Constitution was created for in the first place.
> 
> What I want is a dramatic shift, but it will not happen overnight.  What I want *will work *because it is how America became the greatest nation in the annals of history.  There is not much of a chance that the wall will be built.  The Republicans lost the House (where funding bills originate) and they could lose the Senate in the next election cycle.  Correll, and those like him, have *NO* Plan B.  Not knowing history, they cannot return to a time when this wasn't the litmus test of your loyalty to this country and the issue did not exist.  IF / when Correll decides to get past the personality contest and learn a little history, the solution will become painfully obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What your policy of letting them in will get US, is more of California.
> 
> 
> By 2050, every city in the US, will be like fucking LA. and LA, will be like Mexico City.
> 
> 
> That is not a nation that will be America. YOu are not going to get them to adopt our culture or politics or policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You won't *READ* about history and the law, so you don't have a clue as to what I'd do to reverse the situation.  You are ignorant above any description and it would work to your advantage to* ASK QUESTIONS*, then take time to *READ* the answers before spewing horseshit.
> 
> I've tried to shame you into reading and learning what it is you're talking about.  That cannot be done.  I've tried nice, argumentative, and everything in between.  But, if you think for one minute that I back a plan that would make the U.S. look like L.A. you are a fucking idiot.  So, I'll be nice and presume that was pure fluff on your part.
> 
> You have not studied the concepts of state citizenship versus national citizenship; you know *NOTHING* about the separation of powers of the government; you have no concept of the limited role of the federal government in a de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic and, worse, you don't have a damn clue as to how many constitutional violations it took on the part of the government to get us where we are today.
> 
> Without a clear cut knowledge of that history along with what our laws really say, you are too deaf, dumb, and blind to understand how you reverse course, retain the Liberties of the people, and watch Nancy Pelosi and her ilk change course as opposed to playing you like a fine tuned fiddle.  The reality of your situation is that you are playing the part of a useful idiot (the left's terminology) for liberals; you refuse to educate yourself; your wall will never be completed; the peripheral laws / policies you are helping along will not only counteract your own lobbying, but will serve to stop future generations from seeking to be free from tyranny.  THAT makes you dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can watch a stream of millions of Mexicans flowing into America and see what it is doing to America.
> 
> 
> You can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lying son of a bitch.  You've never manned the border.  I used to live in and around Los Angeles.  May still have relatives there.
> 
> If foreigners are flowing into America, it is due to our culture.  As long as our nation sees no harm in multiculturalism (and you have yet to denounce that yourself) then no wall is going to stop the situation.
> 
> The last I heard, Georgia was number four in the numbers of undocumented foreigners.  They're great for business, but the world is not just about what makes Donald Trump and his rich elite buddies happy.  We got lots of Hispanics here and lots and lots of jobs.
> 
> We also have local governments thinking they are Nazis.  We have high taxes and a white culture that has become an embarrassment.  We're losing our Freedoms and Liberties on a daily basis.  The foreigners are worming their way into government, making us the very kinds of cesspools they fled (so much for your "_legal_" immigration theories.)
> 
> The people best suited to resolve this are the ones sitting it out and letting the NEW WORLD ORDER / One World Government guys set us up.
Click to expand...




1. I did not literally mean I was standing there watching them walk across the border. My point stands. I see what it is doing to America. YOu seem not to.


2. It is not due to our culture. 

3. I denounce multiculturalism. 

4. There can be a gap between culture and law. Though attacking multiculturalism needs to be attacked too, and I do.

5. The benefit to the employers of having unlimited cheap labor, is obvious. As it the negative effect to American workers having to compete with them.

6. Nazis are an insignificant fringe. 

7. High taxes are a problem. High taxes is not nazi. Please do not tell me that you think that Nazis invented the idea of high taxes in America.

8. Yes, our culture is taking a beating. You know what won't help? Siding with the Anti-Americans on any issues.

9. Not sure what you mean by "legal immigration".

10.  I don't know who you think is "best suited". I know what I want and why.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

1)  You are wrong.  The United States Supreme Court* RULED* that being in the United States is not a crime.  Furthermore if the American people did not want them here, they would not hire to them, sell to them, buy from them, or do business with anyone that does.  We, do, however, and the majority of the American people have proven your statement to be an absolute *lie* and you can't accept it

2)  Our Constitution cannot survive the repeal of the Bill of Rights

3)  You can make all the presuppositions you want and keep that open borders lie going, but repeating it over and over won't make it true.  Your wishes do not reflect the will of the majority - and YOU have argued for democracy ever since you and I first tangled.  FWIW - I'm not a democrat like you and I know what it would take to rectify the current situation

4)  On all the key issues Trump has lost his ass in court; he did not come up with a plan to make Mexico pay; Trump then tried to take away from the military AND seniors thereby creating even MORE opposition to his idea.  He did that on purpose.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nazis were the first to suggest the wall idea in America.  It's not just the wall, but the political rhetoric and the peripheral legislation that surrounds it.  We aren't just talking the wall, but various other things that accompany it.  For the benefit of others, here is an analogy:
> 
> When we came up with the interstate system, laws had to be agreed on.  Who would pay for the interstate?  Who would maintain it?  Would states and local governments be able to enforce the laws?  Who would get the money from fees and fines?  ALL of that went with it.
> 
> So, here comes Correll, the most uneducated wallist in America.  He wants a wall, but he doesn't understand the peripheral laws that were created in order to enforce the nutty wall idea.  He's oblivious to the Constitution Free Zone; he's in love with Hitler's tattoo idea on steroids... National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, along with the elimination of the concept of innocent until proven guilty.  The wall don't mean a damn thing without peripheral laws to enforce it.  How many Liberties do you lose before you say the wall isn't worth the losses?
> 
> What we're doing is to enforce unconstitutional laws, most of them forced into law by the Democrats (like Ted Kennedy) and to continue a power grab where the United States Supreme Court acted above their constitutional limits in 1875.  Those laws were incrementally put into place in order to destroy the stated reason our Constitution was created for in the first place.
> 
> What I want is a dramatic shift, but it will not happen overnight.  What I want *will work *because it is how America became the greatest nation in the annals of history.  There is not much of a chance that the wall will be built.  The Republicans lost the House (where funding bills originate) and they could lose the Senate in the next election cycle.  Correll, and those like him, have *NO* Plan B.  Not knowing history, they cannot return to a time when this wasn't the litmus test of your loyalty to this country and the issue did not exist.  IF / when Correll decides to get past the personality contest and learn a little history, the solution will become painfully obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What your policy of letting them in will get US, is more of California.
> 
> 
> By 2050, every city in the US, will be like fucking LA. and LA, will be like Mexico City.
> 
> 
> That is not a nation that will be America. YOu are not going to get them to adopt our culture or politics or policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You won't *READ* about history and the law, so you don't have a clue as to what I'd do to reverse the situation.  You are ignorant above any description and it would work to your advantage to* ASK QUESTIONS*, then take time to *READ* the answers before spewing horseshit.
> 
> I've tried to shame you into reading and learning what it is you're talking about.  That cannot be done.  I've tried nice, argumentative, and everything in between.  But, if you think for one minute that I back a plan that would make the U.S. look like L.A. you are a fucking idiot.  So, I'll be nice and presume that was pure fluff on your part.
> 
> You have not studied the concepts of state citizenship versus national citizenship; you know *NOTHING* about the separation of powers of the government; you have no concept of the limited role of the federal government in a de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic and, worse, you don't have a damn clue as to how many constitutional violations it took on the part of the government to get us where we are today.
> 
> Without a clear cut knowledge of that history along with what our laws really say, you are too deaf, dumb, and blind to understand how you reverse course, retain the Liberties of the people, and watch Nancy Pelosi and her ilk change course as opposed to playing you like a fine tuned fiddle.  The reality of your situation is that you are playing the part of a useful idiot (the left's terminology) for liberals; you refuse to educate yourself; your wall will never be completed; the peripheral laws / policies you are helping along will not only counteract your own lobbying, but will serve to stop future generations from seeking to be free from tyranny.  THAT makes you dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can watch a stream of millions of Mexicans flowing into America and see what it is doing to America.
> 
> 
> You can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lying son of a bitch.  You've never manned the border.  I used to live in and around Los Angeles.  May still have relatives there.
> 
> If foreigners are flowing into America, it is due to our culture.  As long as our nation sees no harm in multiculturalism (and you have yet to denounce that yourself) then no wall is going to stop the situation.
> 
> The last I heard, Georgia was number four in the numbers of undocumented foreigners.  They're great for business, but the world is not just about what makes Donald Trump and his rich elite buddies happy.  We got lots of Hispanics here and lots and lots of jobs.
> 
> We also have local governments thinking they are Nazis.  We have high taxes and a white culture that has become an embarrassment.  We're losing our Freedoms and Liberties on a daily basis.  The foreigners are worming their way into government, making us the very kinds of cesspools they fled (so much for your "_legal_" immigration theories.)
> 
> The people best suited to resolve this are the ones sitting it out and letting the NEW WORLD ORDER / One World Government guys set us up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I did not literally mean I was standing there watching them walk across the border. My point stands. I see what it is doing to America. YOu seem not to.
> 
> 
> 2. It is not due to our culture.
> 
> 3. I denounce multiculturalism.
> 
> 4. There can be a gap between culture and law. Though attacking multiculturalism needs to be attacked too, and I do.
> 
> 5. The benefit to the employers of having unlimited cheap labor, is obvious. As it the negative effect to American workers having to compete with them.
> 
> 6. Nazis are an insignificant fringe.
> 
> 7. High taxes are a problem. High taxes is not nazi. Please do not tell me that you think that Nazis invented the idea of high taxes in America.
> 
> 8. Yes, our culture is taking a beating. You know what won't help? Siding with the Anti-Americans on any issues.
> 
> 9. Not sure what you mean by "legal immigration".
> 
> 10.  I don't know who you think is "best suited". I know what I want and why.
Click to expand...



1)  If you saw what was happening in America, you would educate yourself as to the facts

2)  Yes, our problems *are* due to our culture.  You are a glowing example with your tens of thousands of posts and* NO* ability to give a sensible answer because you're like that entire generation of Americans:  clueless, uneducated, lazy, uninformed, and working for the enemy without knowing it.  

Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply and have more people on drugs per capita than anywhere in the world.  We have more people in prisons than anywhere on the planet.  Half of the American people are dependent on the government for their daily bread and too lazy to look for a job... and IF they do, they are covered in tattoos and body piercings with no education, no job skills, no driver's license, and no common sense.  Yes, you have a culture problem

3)  Since you denounce multiculturalism, you've represented that you understand the 14th Amendment.  Glad you won't be saying "_illegal"_ any longer

4)  Nonresponsive

5)  Competition is good for business.  Get your generation off drugs and give employers their Rights back.  Make our culture strong then tell the government to allow companies to hire who they want.  All you're saying is that you are too lazy, stupid and incompetent to compete with third worlders for entry level jobs

6)  Nazis, regardless of their numbers, own and control your talking points on the immigration issue.  The CFR is a small group too, but look at their influence.  You need to get democracy out of your head

7)  Straw man argument that is beneath even your dumb ass so no response is necessary

8)  Since you've been siding with Nazis, the CFR and others working to destroy America I'm sure you will begin studying the issue and quit working for those who are destroying America... if you believe your own rhetoric

9)  The Two United States and the Law

http://understandcontractlawandyouwin.com/state-citizenship-federal-citizenship/

10)  Non responsive

You're an idiot Correll.  You bitch about the size of my posts and give me TEN things to respond to?  And then you aren't going to read the answers?  Then you're going to repeat the same bullshit as if that will change things?  What if someone else reads this AND DOES FOLLOW THE LINKS AND DOES THE RESEARCH????


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> 1)  You are wrong.  The United States Supreme Court* RULED* that being in the United States is not a crime.  Furthermore if the American people did not want them here, they would not hire to them, sell to them, buy from them, or do business with anyone that does.  We, do, however, and the majority of the American people have proven your statement to be an absolute *lie* and you can't accept it
> 
> 2)  Our Constitution cannot survive the repeal of the Bill of Rights
> 
> 3)  You can make all the presuppositions you want and keep that open borders lie going, but repeating it over and over won't make it true.  Your wishes do not reflect the will of the majority - and YOU have argued for democracy ever since you and I first tangled.  FWIW - I'm not a democrat like you and I know what it would take to rectify the current situation
> 
> 4)  On all the key issues Trump has lost his ass in court; he did not come up with a plan to make Mexico pay; Trump then tried to take away from the military AND seniors thereby creating even MORE opposition to his idea.  He did that on purpose.





1.a. I do not know what legal travesty  you are referring to, but a foreigner who entered here against our laws is breaking the laws by being here. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar or a fool.

1b. The American people have a process by which to change the law if they want the Open Border you describe. They have not. YOur argument that they support the presence of people that are here illegally does not make any sense. 


2. You made that point. I responded. That you ignored my response and reasserted your position is the logical fallacy of Proof by Assertion. You just admitted that you cannot refute my points, and that you know my point about the Right of Self Determination is correct.


3. My description of the behavior of you and others like you, is not an assumption, but a observation of your behavior.  Your denial of open border types is not credible.


4. Your speculation about what Trump is thinking is noted. My point about his platform being the most aggressive on this issue stands.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only game is the one you're playing is in that space between your ears.  In this country, the wall idea *AND ITS PRETEXTS AND ITS RHETORIC WERE DEVELOPED BY NAZIS*.
> 
> You didn't just buy the wall, but you bought the bullshit that went with it.  It doesn't matter.  Military strategists and historians ALL disagree with the wall idea:
> 
> Walls Don't Work
> 
> Border walls are going up globally at a dizzying pace — but history teaches us that walls don’t work
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what does not work? What we have been doing.
> 
> 
> We know that it does not work, and you want to keep doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your nazi references are noted and dismissed. Nazis did not invent the ideas of Walls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nazis were the first to suggest the wall idea in America.  It's not just the wall, but the political rhetoric and the peripheral legislation that surrounds it.  We aren't just talking the wall, but various other things that accompany it.  For the benefit of others, here is an analogy:
> 
> When we came up with the interstate system, laws had to be agreed on.  Who would pay for the interstate?  Who would maintain it?  Would states and local governments be able to enforce the laws?  Who would get the money from fees and fines?  ALL of that went with it.
> 
> So, here comes Correll, the most uneducated wallist in America.  He wants a wall, but he doesn't understand the peripheral laws that were created in order to enforce the nutty wall idea.  He's oblivious to the Constitution Free Zone; he's in love with Hitler's tattoo idea on steroids... National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, along with the elimination of the concept of innocent until proven guilty.  The wall don't mean a damn thing without peripheral laws to enforce it.  How many Liberties do you lose before you say the wall isn't worth the losses?
> 
> What we're doing is to enforce unconstitutional laws, most of them forced into law by the Democrats (like Ted Kennedy) and to continue a power grab where the United States Supreme Court acted above their constitutional limits in 1875.  Those laws were incrementally put into place in order to destroy the stated reason our Constitution was created for in the first place.
> 
> What I want is a dramatic shift, but it will not happen overnight.  What I want *will work *because it is how America became the greatest nation in the annals of history.  There is not much of a chance that the wall will be built.  The Republicans lost the House (where funding bills originate) and they could lose the Senate in the next election cycle.  Correll, and those like him, have *NO* Plan B.  Not knowing history, they cannot return to a time when this wasn't the litmus test of your loyalty to this country and the issue did not exist.  IF / when Correll decides to get past the personality contest and learn a little history, the solution will become painfully obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What your policy of letting them in will get US, is more of California.
> 
> 
> By 2050, every city in the US, will be like fucking LA. and LA, will be like Mexico City.
> 
> 
> That is not a nation that will be America. YOu are not going to get them to adopt our culture or politics or policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You won't *READ* about history and the law, so you don't have a clue as to what I'd do to reverse the situation.  You are ignorant above any description and it would work to your advantage to* ASK QUESTIONS*, then take time to *READ* the answers before spewing horseshit.
> 
> I've tried to shame you into reading and learning what it is you're talking about.  That cannot be done.  I've tried nice, argumentative, and everything in between.  But, if you think for one minute that I back a plan that would make the U.S. look like L.A. you are a fucking idiot.  So, I'll be nice and presume that was pure fluff on your part.
> 
> You have not studied the concepts of state citizenship versus national citizenship; you know *NOTHING* about the separation of powers of the government; you have no concept of the limited role of the federal government in a de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic and, worse, you don't have a damn clue as to how many constitutional violations it took on the part of the government to get us where we are today.
> 
> Without a clear cut knowledge of that history along with what our laws really say, you are too deaf, dumb, and blind to understand how you reverse course, retain the Liberties of the people, and watch Nancy Pelosi and her ilk change course as opposed to playing you like a fine tuned fiddle.  The reality of your situation is that you are playing the part of a useful idiot (the left's terminology) for liberals; you refuse to educate yourself; your wall will never be completed; the peripheral laws / policies you are helping along will not only counteract your own lobbying, but will serve to stop future generations from seeking to be free from tyranny.  THAT makes you dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can watch a stream of millions of Mexicans flowing into America and see what it is doing to America.
> 
> 
> You can't.
Click to expand...

the right wing is worse.

we have no immigration clause. 

and, we should have no illegal problem or any illegal underclass.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> What your policy of letting them in will get US, is more of California.
> 
> 
> By 2050, every city in the US, will be like fucking LA. and LA, will be like Mexico City.
> 
> 
> That is not a nation that will be America. YOu are not going to get them to adopt our culture or politics or policies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You won't *READ* about history and the law, so you don't have a clue as to what I'd do to reverse the situation.  You are ignorant above any description and it would work to your advantage to* ASK QUESTIONS*, then take time to *READ* the answers before spewing horseshit.
> 
> I've tried to shame you into reading and learning what it is you're talking about.  That cannot be done.  I've tried nice, argumentative, and everything in between.  But, if you think for one minute that I back a plan that would make the U.S. look like L.A. you are a fucking idiot.  So, I'll be nice and presume that was pure fluff on your part.
> 
> You have not studied the concepts of state citizenship versus national citizenship; you know *NOTHING* about the separation of powers of the government; you have no concept of the limited role of the federal government in a de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic and, worse, you don't have a damn clue as to how many constitutional violations it took on the part of the government to get us where we are today.
> 
> Without a clear cut knowledge of that history along with what our laws really say, you are too deaf, dumb, and blind to understand how you reverse course, retain the Liberties of the people, and watch Nancy Pelosi and her ilk change course as opposed to playing you like a fine tuned fiddle.  The reality of your situation is that you are playing the part of a useful idiot (the left's terminology) for liberals; you refuse to educate yourself; your wall will never be completed; the peripheral laws / policies you are helping along will not only counteract your own lobbying, but will serve to stop future generations from seeking to be free from tyranny.  THAT makes you dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can watch a stream of millions of Mexicans flowing into America and see what it is doing to America.
> 
> 
> You can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lying son of a bitch.  You've never manned the border.  I used to live in and around Los Angeles.  May still have relatives there.
> 
> If foreigners are flowing into America, it is due to our culture.  As long as our nation sees no harm in multiculturalism (and you have yet to denounce that yourself) then no wall is going to stop the situation.
> 
> The last I heard, Georgia was number four in the numbers of undocumented foreigners.  They're great for business, but the world is not just about what makes Donald Trump and his rich elite buddies happy.  We got lots of Hispanics here and lots and lots of jobs.
> 
> We also have local governments thinking they are Nazis.  We have high taxes and a white culture that has become an embarrassment.  We're losing our Freedoms and Liberties on a daily basis.  The foreigners are worming their way into government, making us the very kinds of cesspools they fled (so much for your "_legal_" immigration theories.)
> 
> The people best suited to resolve this are the ones sitting it out and letting the NEW WORLD ORDER / One World Government guys set us up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I did not literally mean I was standing there watching them walk across the border. My point stands. I see what it is doing to America. YOu seem not to.
> 
> 
> 2. It is not due to our culture.
> 
> 3. I denounce multiculturalism.
> 
> 4. There can be a gap between culture and law. Though attacking multiculturalism needs to be attacked too, and I do.
> 
> 5. The benefit to the employers of having unlimited cheap labor, is obvious. As it the negative effect to American workers having to compete with them.
> 
> 6. Nazis are an insignificant fringe.
> 
> 7. High taxes are a problem. High taxes is not nazi. Please do not tell me that you think that Nazis invented the idea of high taxes in America.
> 
> 8. Yes, our culture is taking a beating. You know what won't help? Siding with the Anti-Americans on any issues.
> 
> 9. Not sure what you mean by "legal immigration".
> 
> 10.  I don't know who you think is "best suited". I know what I want and why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  If you saw what was happening in America, you would educate yourself as to the facts
> 
> 2)  Yes, our problems *are* due to our culture.  You are a glowing example with your tens of thousands of posts and* NO* ability to give a sensible answer because you're like that entire generation of Americans:  clueless, uneducated, lazy, uninformed, and working for the enemy without knowing it.
> 
> Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply and have more people on drugs per capita than anywhere in the world.  We have more people in prisons than anywhere on the planet.  Half of the American people are dependent on the government for their daily bread and too lazy to look for a job... and IF they do, they are covered in tattoos and body piercings with no education, no job skills, no driver's license, and no common sense.  Yes, you have a culture problem
> 
> 3)  Since you denounce multiculturalism, you've represented that you understand the 14th Amendment.  Glad you won't be saying "_illegal"_ any longer
> 
> 4)  Nonresponsive
> 
> 5)  Competition is good for business.  Get your generation off drugs and give employers their Rights back.  Make our culture strong then tell the government to allow companies to hire who they want.  All you're saying is that you are too lazy, stupid and incompetent to compete with third worlders for entry level jobs
> 
> 6)  Nazis, regardless of their numbers, own and control your talking points on the immigration issue.  The CFR is a small group too, but look at their influence.  You need to get democracy out of your head
> 
> 7)  Straw man argument that is beneath even your dumb ass so no response is necessary
> 
> 8)  Since you've been siding with Nazis, the CFR and others working to destroy America I'm sure you will begin studying the issue and quit working for those who are destroying America... if you believe your own rhetoric
> 
> 9)  The Two United States and the Law
> 
> http://understandcontractlawandyouwin.com/state-citizenship-federal-citizenship/
> 
> 10)  Non responsive
> 
> You're an idiot Correll.  You bitch about the size of my posts and give me TEN things to respond to?  And then you aren't going to read the answers?  Then you're going to repeat the same bullshit as if that will change things?  What if someone else reads this AND DOES FOLLOW THE LINKS AND DOES THE RESEARCH????
Click to expand...





1. My point was that I can see the damage that illegal immigration is doing to this country and you seem not to, or not to care. That your response was nothing but snark, was a dodge, because you cannot refute what I said. My point stands. I can see the damage and you can't or don't care.


2. You complain about my style of posting, but you keep getting confused. You said illegal immigration is caused by our culture and I said it was not. My point stands.

3. I denounced multiculturalism. You conclude, without explaining how, that that means I understand the 14th and also without explanation conclude that I won't be saying "illegal" any more.  Dude. You are terrible at guessing what I mean. Don't make ANY connections without asking me about them first. YOu SUCK at that. SUCK!


4. Foreigners are let into this country by a corrupt political class, not because of our culture. 

5. Calling me names, is not an argument. My point stands. Cheap labor is good for employers, not employees. Address that, and drop the shit.

6. Nazis are an insignificant fringe. If you have a problem with an idea or a policy, explain the problem, don't play silly Kevin Bacon games.


7. You are the one that mentioned high taxes and Nazis next to each other, and you play conflating games ALL THE TIME.

8.  Can you vague that up a bit? I almost followed your "logic" there for a second. Actually that was a lie. YOu went off the deep end, immediately.


9. Got it, you hoped I would not ask, and you don't want to explain.

10.  Everything I posted was a response to a point your raised. You don't want 10 responses? Be more concise. Wander less. Avoid making wild leaps and assigning me blame based on stuff that only exists in your head.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what does not work? What we have been doing.
> 
> 
> We know that it does not work, and you want to keep doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your nazi references are noted and dismissed. Nazis did not invent the ideas of Walls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nazis were the first to suggest the wall idea in America.  It's not just the wall, but the political rhetoric and the peripheral legislation that surrounds it.  We aren't just talking the wall, but various other things that accompany it.  For the benefit of others, here is an analogy:
> 
> When we came up with the interstate system, laws had to be agreed on.  Who would pay for the interstate?  Who would maintain it?  Would states and local governments be able to enforce the laws?  Who would get the money from fees and fines?  ALL of that went with it.
> 
> So, here comes Correll, the most uneducated wallist in America.  He wants a wall, but he doesn't understand the peripheral laws that were created in order to enforce the nutty wall idea.  He's oblivious to the Constitution Free Zone; he's in love with Hitler's tattoo idea on steroids... National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, along with the elimination of the concept of innocent until proven guilty.  The wall don't mean a damn thing without peripheral laws to enforce it.  How many Liberties do you lose before you say the wall isn't worth the losses?
> 
> What we're doing is to enforce unconstitutional laws, most of them forced into law by the Democrats (like Ted Kennedy) and to continue a power grab where the United States Supreme Court acted above their constitutional limits in 1875.  Those laws were incrementally put into place in order to destroy the stated reason our Constitution was created for in the first place.
> 
> What I want is a dramatic shift, but it will not happen overnight.  What I want *will work *because it is how America became the greatest nation in the annals of history.  There is not much of a chance that the wall will be built.  The Republicans lost the House (where funding bills originate) and they could lose the Senate in the next election cycle.  Correll, and those like him, have *NO* Plan B.  Not knowing history, they cannot return to a time when this wasn't the litmus test of your loyalty to this country and the issue did not exist.  IF / when Correll decides to get past the personality contest and learn a little history, the solution will become painfully obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What your policy of letting them in will get US, is more of California.
> 
> 
> By 2050, every city in the US, will be like fucking LA. and LA, will be like Mexico City.
> 
> 
> That is not a nation that will be America. YOu are not going to get them to adopt our culture or politics or policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You won't *READ* about history and the law, so you don't have a clue as to what I'd do to reverse the situation.  You are ignorant above any description and it would work to your advantage to* ASK QUESTIONS*, then take time to *READ* the answers before spewing horseshit.
> 
> I've tried to shame you into reading and learning what it is you're talking about.  That cannot be done.  I've tried nice, argumentative, and everything in between.  But, if you think for one minute that I back a plan that would make the U.S. look like L.A. you are a fucking idiot.  So, I'll be nice and presume that was pure fluff on your part.
> 
> You have not studied the concepts of state citizenship versus national citizenship; you know *NOTHING* about the separation of powers of the government; you have no concept of the limited role of the federal government in a de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic and, worse, you don't have a damn clue as to how many constitutional violations it took on the part of the government to get us where we are today.
> 
> Without a clear cut knowledge of that history along with what our laws really say, you are too deaf, dumb, and blind to understand how you reverse course, retain the Liberties of the people, and watch Nancy Pelosi and her ilk change course as opposed to playing you like a fine tuned fiddle.  The reality of your situation is that you are playing the part of a useful idiot (the left's terminology) for liberals; you refuse to educate yourself; your wall will never be completed; the peripheral laws / policies you are helping along will not only counteract your own lobbying, but will serve to stop future generations from seeking to be free from tyranny.  THAT makes you dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can watch a stream of millions of Mexicans flowing into America and see what it is doing to America.
> 
> 
> You can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing is worse.
> 
> we have no immigration clause.
> 
> and, we should have no illegal problem or any illegal underclass.
Click to expand...



Said the man that sided with the rapist instead of his child victim, because the rapist was a Mexican.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You are wrong.  The United States Supreme Court* RULED* that being in the United States is not a crime.  Furthermore if the American people did not want them here, they would not hire to them, sell to them, buy from them, or do business with anyone that does.  We, do, however, and the majority of the American people have proven your statement to be an absolute *lie* and you can't accept it
> 
> 2)  Our Constitution cannot survive the repeal of the Bill of Rights
> 
> 3)  You can make all the presuppositions you want and keep that open borders lie going, but repeating it over and over won't make it true.  Your wishes do not reflect the will of the majority - and YOU have argued for democracy ever since you and I first tangled.  FWIW - I'm not a democrat like you and I know what it would take to rectify the current situation
> 
> 4)  On all the key issues Trump has lost his ass in court; he did not come up with a plan to make Mexico pay; Trump then tried to take away from the military AND seniors thereby creating even MORE opposition to his idea.  He did that on purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.a. I do not know what legal travesty  you are referring to, but a foreigner who entered here against our laws is breaking the laws by being here. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar or a fool.
> 
> 1b. The American people have a process by which to change the law if they want the Open Border you describe. They have not. YOur argument that they support the presence of people that are here illegally does not make any sense.
> 
> 
> 2. You made that point. I responded. That you ignored my response and reasserted your position is the logical fallacy of Proof by Assertion. You just admitted that you cannot refute my points, and that you know my point about the Right of Self Determination is correct.
> 
> 
> 3. My description of the behavior of you and others like you, is not an assumption, but a observation of your behavior.  Your denial of open border types is not credible.
> 
> 
> 4. Your speculation about what Trump is thinking is noted. My point about his platform being the most aggressive on this issue stands.
Click to expand...



1)  Correll, are you a fucking idiot?  A foreigner is *NOT* committing a crime by law by being here.  It is strictly a civil matter.  WTF?  Are you c*ompletely STUPID?  You are wrong and there is no argument here
*
2)  What?  That made even less sense the second time.  If you think you're in a formal debate, you lost that eons ago.  WTF are you saying?

3)  Denial of what you cannot prove exists?  You can't even give an example.  You want a militarized border and you want to make a blanket accusation your dumb ass cannot prove.  Like I said, if you like walls and fences so damn much, try prison... maybe a mental facility (that's probably where you belong)

4)  I don't speculate about Trump.  Past behavior is a good indicator of future performance.  Keep that duly noted.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nazis were the first to suggest the wall idea in America.  It's not just the wall, but the political rhetoric and the peripheral legislation that surrounds it.  We aren't just talking the wall, but various other things that accompany it.  For the benefit of others, here is an analogy:
> 
> When we came up with the interstate system, laws had to be agreed on.  Who would pay for the interstate?  Who would maintain it?  Would states and local governments be able to enforce the laws?  Who would get the money from fees and fines?  ALL of that went with it.
> 
> So, here comes Correll, the most uneducated wallist in America.  He wants a wall, but he doesn't understand the peripheral laws that were created in order to enforce the nutty wall idea.  He's oblivious to the Constitution Free Zone; he's in love with Hitler's tattoo idea on steroids... National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, along with the elimination of the concept of innocent until proven guilty.  The wall don't mean a damn thing without peripheral laws to enforce it.  How many Liberties do you lose before you say the wall isn't worth the losses?
> 
> What we're doing is to enforce unconstitutional laws, most of them forced into law by the Democrats (like Ted Kennedy) and to continue a power grab where the United States Supreme Court acted above their constitutional limits in 1875.  Those laws were incrementally put into place in order to destroy the stated reason our Constitution was created for in the first place.
> 
> What I want is a dramatic shift, but it will not happen overnight.  What I want *will work *because it is how America became the greatest nation in the annals of history.  There is not much of a chance that the wall will be built.  The Republicans lost the House (where funding bills originate) and they could lose the Senate in the next election cycle.  Correll, and those like him, have *NO* Plan B.  Not knowing history, they cannot return to a time when this wasn't the litmus test of your loyalty to this country and the issue did not exist.  IF / when Correll decides to get past the personality contest and learn a little history, the solution will become painfully obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What your policy of letting them in will get US, is more of California.
> 
> 
> By 2050, every city in the US, will be like fucking LA. and LA, will be like Mexico City.
> 
> 
> That is not a nation that will be America. YOu are not going to get them to adopt our culture or politics or policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You won't *READ* about history and the law, so you don't have a clue as to what I'd do to reverse the situation.  You are ignorant above any description and it would work to your advantage to* ASK QUESTIONS*, then take time to *READ* the answers before spewing horseshit.
> 
> I've tried to shame you into reading and learning what it is you're talking about.  That cannot be done.  I've tried nice, argumentative, and everything in between.  But, if you think for one minute that I back a plan that would make the U.S. look like L.A. you are a fucking idiot.  So, I'll be nice and presume that was pure fluff on your part.
> 
> You have not studied the concepts of state citizenship versus national citizenship; you know *NOTHING* about the separation of powers of the government; you have no concept of the limited role of the federal government in a de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic and, worse, you don't have a damn clue as to how many constitutional violations it took on the part of the government to get us where we are today.
> 
> Without a clear cut knowledge of that history along with what our laws really say, you are too deaf, dumb, and blind to understand how you reverse course, retain the Liberties of the people, and watch Nancy Pelosi and her ilk change course as opposed to playing you like a fine tuned fiddle.  The reality of your situation is that you are playing the part of a useful idiot (the left's terminology) for liberals; you refuse to educate yourself; your wall will never be completed; the peripheral laws / policies you are helping along will not only counteract your own lobbying, but will serve to stop future generations from seeking to be free from tyranny.  THAT makes you dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can watch a stream of millions of Mexicans flowing into America and see what it is doing to America.
> 
> 
> You can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing is worse.
> 
> we have no immigration clause.
> 
> and, we should have no illegal problem or any illegal underclass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that sided with the rapist instead of his child victim, because the rapist was a Mexican.
Click to expand...

I know how to read our Constitution.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You won't *READ* about history and the law, so you don't have a clue as to what I'd do to reverse the situation.  You are ignorant above any description and it would work to your advantage to* ASK QUESTIONS*, then take time to *READ* the answers before spewing horseshit.
> 
> I've tried to shame you into reading and learning what it is you're talking about.  That cannot be done.  I've tried nice, argumentative, and everything in between.  But, if you think for one minute that I back a plan that would make the U.S. look like L.A. you are a fucking idiot.  So, I'll be nice and presume that was pure fluff on your part.
> 
> You have not studied the concepts of state citizenship versus national citizenship; you know *NOTHING* about the separation of powers of the government; you have no concept of the limited role of the federal government in a de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic and, worse, you don't have a damn clue as to how many constitutional violations it took on the part of the government to get us where we are today.
> 
> Without a clear cut knowledge of that history along with what our laws really say, you are too deaf, dumb, and blind to understand how you reverse course, retain the Liberties of the people, and watch Nancy Pelosi and her ilk change course as opposed to playing you like a fine tuned fiddle.  The reality of your situation is that you are playing the part of a useful idiot (the left's terminology) for liberals; you refuse to educate yourself; your wall will never be completed; the peripheral laws / policies you are helping along will not only counteract your own lobbying, but will serve to stop future generations from seeking to be free from tyranny.  THAT makes you dangerous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can watch a stream of millions of Mexicans flowing into America and see what it is doing to America.
> 
> 
> You can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lying son of a bitch.  You've never manned the border.  I used to live in and around Los Angeles.  May still have relatives there.
> 
> If foreigners are flowing into America, it is due to our culture.  As long as our nation sees no harm in multiculturalism (and you have yet to denounce that yourself) then no wall is going to stop the situation.
> 
> The last I heard, Georgia was number four in the numbers of undocumented foreigners.  They're great for business, but the world is not just about what makes Donald Trump and his rich elite buddies happy.  We got lots of Hispanics here and lots and lots of jobs.
> 
> We also have local governments thinking they are Nazis.  We have high taxes and a white culture that has become an embarrassment.  We're losing our Freedoms and Liberties on a daily basis.  The foreigners are worming their way into government, making us the very kinds of cesspools they fled (so much for your "_legal_" immigration theories.)
> 
> The people best suited to resolve this are the ones sitting it out and letting the NEW WORLD ORDER / One World Government guys set us up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I did not literally mean I was standing there watching them walk across the border. My point stands. I see what it is doing to America. YOu seem not to.
> 
> 
> 2. It is not due to our culture.
> 
> 3. I denounce multiculturalism.
> 
> 4. There can be a gap between culture and law. Though attacking multiculturalism needs to be attacked too, and I do.
> 
> 5. The benefit to the employers of having unlimited cheap labor, is obvious. As it the negative effect to American workers having to compete with them.
> 
> 6. Nazis are an insignificant fringe.
> 
> 7. High taxes are a problem. High taxes is not nazi. Please do not tell me that you think that Nazis invented the idea of high taxes in America.
> 
> 8. Yes, our culture is taking a beating. You know what won't help? Siding with the Anti-Americans on any issues.
> 
> 9. Not sure what you mean by "legal immigration".
> 
> 10.  I don't know who you think is "best suited". I know what I want and why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  If you saw what was happening in America, you would educate yourself as to the facts
> 
> 2)  Yes, our problems *are* due to our culture.  You are a glowing example with your tens of thousands of posts and* NO* ability to give a sensible answer because you're like that entire generation of Americans:  clueless, uneducated, lazy, uninformed, and working for the enemy without knowing it.
> 
> Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply and have more people on drugs per capita than anywhere in the world.  We have more people in prisons than anywhere on the planet.  Half of the American people are dependent on the government for their daily bread and too lazy to look for a job... and IF they do, they are covered in tattoos and body piercings with no education, no job skills, no driver's license, and no common sense.  Yes, you have a culture problem
> 
> 3)  Since you denounce multiculturalism, you've represented that you understand the 14th Amendment.  Glad you won't be saying "_illegal"_ any longer
> 
> 4)  Nonresponsive
> 
> 5)  Competition is good for business.  Get your generation off drugs and give employers their Rights back.  Make our culture strong then tell the government to allow companies to hire who they want.  All you're saying is that you are too lazy, stupid and incompetent to compete with third worlders for entry level jobs
> 
> 6)  Nazis, regardless of their numbers, own and control your talking points on the immigration issue.  The CFR is a small group too, but look at their influence.  You need to get democracy out of your head
> 
> 7)  Straw man argument that is beneath even your dumb ass so no response is necessary
> 
> 8)  Since you've been siding with Nazis, the CFR and others working to destroy America I'm sure you will begin studying the issue and quit working for those who are destroying America... if you believe your own rhetoric
> 
> 9)  The Two United States and the Law
> 
> http://understandcontractlawandyouwin.com/state-citizenship-federal-citizenship/
> 
> 10)  Non responsive
> 
> You're an idiot Correll.  You bitch about the size of my posts and give me TEN things to respond to?  And then you aren't going to read the answers?  Then you're going to repeat the same bullshit as if that will change things?  What if someone else reads this AND DOES FOLLOW THE LINKS AND DOES THE RESEARCH????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. My point was that I can see the damage that illegal immigration is doing to this country and you seem not to, or not to care. That your response was nothing but snark, was a dodge, because you cannot refute what I said. My point stands. I can see the damage and you can't or don't care.
> 
> 
> 2. You complain about my style of posting, but you keep getting confused. You said illegal immigration is caused by our culture and I said it was not. My point stands.
> 
> 3. I denounced multiculturalism. You conclude, without explaining how, that that means I understand the 14th and also without explanation conclude that I won't be saying "illegal" any more.  Dude. You are terrible at guessing what I mean. Don't make ANY connections without asking me about them first. YOu SUCK at that. SUCK!
> 
> 
> 4. Foreigners are let into this country by a corrupt political class, not because of our culture.
> 
> 5. Calling me names, is not an argument. My point stands. Cheap labor is good for employers, not employees. Address that, and drop the shit.
> 
> 6. Nazis are an insignificant fringe. If you have a problem with an idea or a policy, explain the problem, don't play silly Kevin Bacon games.
> 
> 
> 7. You are the one that mentioned high taxes and Nazis next to each other, and you play conflating games ALL THE TIME.
> 
> 8.  Can you vague that up a bit? I almost followed your "logic" there for a second. Actually that was a lie. YOu went off the deep end, immediately.
> 
> 
> 9. Got it, you hoped I would not ask, and you don't want to explain.
> 
> 10.  Everything I posted was a response to a point your raised. You don't want 10 responses? Be more concise. Wander less. Avoid making wild leaps and assigning me blame based on stuff that only exists in your head.
Click to expand...



1)  I see the damage* MY own countrymen* are causing their own country by lowering their standards and taking a piss on their own culture.  I realize if they were off their sorry asses (as opposed to posting 50,000 posts on the Internet) we probably would have no problems with foreigners

2) You want scapegoats not solutions

3)  You suck because you are talking out both sides of your mouth.  IF you *support *the 14th Amendment, there are no "_illegal aliens_" as you mistakenly think because the 14th Amendment guarantees the equal protection of the laws to *ALL PERSONS*.  "All Persons" has been defined by the United States Supreme Court to include foreigners, regardless of immigration status

4)  Foreigners come here to work jobs willingly offered because of shitsacks that won't work, do drugs, have a criminal history, and friends like you that want their records preserved forever to the benefit of employers who then reject them and never give them a second chance

5)  I have responded to your point... what?  Fifty times since we've been arguing on this board???  When a foreigner takes a job, it creates *MORE* wealth.  Unlike you, the foreigner is working.  They work for less, creating more profits, and giving the employer more productivity.  That means they spend more money in the community.  a twenty something year old Hispanic is more likely to have 2 kids or more, a house, and other bills.  You probably live in mommy's house, don't work (you're here all the time) and don't contribute anything to the community

6)  Nazis control your talking points; own the think tanks from which you get your erroneous ideas; were the first to begin the talk that fences and walls would solve a deeper problem.  You can call them fringe all you like, but only a total fucking idiot would deny their influence and their position.  I've documented it for you how many times?

7)  I mentioned high taxes, but I did not blame the Nazis.  I BLAME YOU

8)  I have not lied to you and I'm not going to read mountains of text to figure out your allegation.  Spit it out or admit that you are covering yet another fallacy you got busted on

9)  I'm ready to explain anything to you.  But, after it's explained, you don't read the damn posts, then want to filibuster all day long.  WTF?  Do you want the explanation or not?  If you read it *one time,* you wouldn't have to post 100 posts denying that I have responded to you and explained it unequivocally

10)  I'm responding to you.  One minute you're bitching that I don't explain this stuff to you; then end with more bitching because the answer don't fit on a bumper sticker (only exposing your lack of reading and comprehension skills)


----------



## Porter Rockwell

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> What your policy of letting them in will get US, is more of California.
> 
> 
> By 2050, every city in the US, will be like fucking LA. and LA, will be like Mexico City.
> 
> 
> That is not a nation that will be America. YOu are not going to get them to adopt our culture or politics or policies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You won't *READ* about history and the law, so you don't have a clue as to what I'd do to reverse the situation.  You are ignorant above any description and it would work to your advantage to* ASK QUESTIONS*, then take time to *READ* the answers before spewing horseshit.
> 
> I've tried to shame you into reading and learning what it is you're talking about.  That cannot be done.  I've tried nice, argumentative, and everything in between.  But, if you think for one minute that I back a plan that would make the U.S. look like L.A. you are a fucking idiot.  So, I'll be nice and presume that was pure fluff on your part.
> 
> You have not studied the concepts of state citizenship versus national citizenship; you know *NOTHING* about the separation of powers of the government; you have no concept of the limited role of the federal government in a de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic and, worse, you don't have a damn clue as to how many constitutional violations it took on the part of the government to get us where we are today.
> 
> Without a clear cut knowledge of that history along with what our laws really say, you are too deaf, dumb, and blind to understand how you reverse course, retain the Liberties of the people, and watch Nancy Pelosi and her ilk change course as opposed to playing you like a fine tuned fiddle.  The reality of your situation is that you are playing the part of a useful idiot (the left's terminology) for liberals; you refuse to educate yourself; your wall will never be completed; the peripheral laws / policies you are helping along will not only counteract your own lobbying, but will serve to stop future generations from seeking to be free from tyranny.  THAT makes you dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can watch a stream of millions of Mexicans flowing into America and see what it is doing to America.
> 
> 
> You can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing is worse.
> 
> we have no immigration clause.
> 
> and, we should have no illegal problem or any illegal underclass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that sided with the rapist instead of his child victim, because the rapist was a Mexican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know how to read our Constitution.
Click to expand...


Correll has never read the damn thing and then has the gall to say silly stuff.  I've challenged him in the past to show where, in the Constitution, the government has the authority to do what he claims.  Thousands of posts later, I'm still waiting.

By contrast, I've done posts twenty five paragraphs at a time quoting laws and so forth refuting his position.


----------



## danielpalos

Porter Rockwell said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You won't *READ* about history and the law, so you don't have a clue as to what I'd do to reverse the situation.  You are ignorant above any description and it would work to your advantage to* ASK QUESTIONS*, then take time to *READ* the answers before spewing horseshit.
> 
> I've tried to shame you into reading and learning what it is you're talking about.  That cannot be done.  I've tried nice, argumentative, and everything in between.  But, if you think for one minute that I back a plan that would make the U.S. look like L.A. you are a fucking idiot.  So, I'll be nice and presume that was pure fluff on your part.
> 
> You have not studied the concepts of state citizenship versus national citizenship; you know *NOTHING* about the separation of powers of the government; you have no concept of the limited role of the federal government in a de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic and, worse, you don't have a damn clue as to how many constitutional violations it took on the part of the government to get us where we are today.
> 
> Without a clear cut knowledge of that history along with what our laws really say, you are too deaf, dumb, and blind to understand how you reverse course, retain the Liberties of the people, and watch Nancy Pelosi and her ilk change course as opposed to playing you like a fine tuned fiddle.  The reality of your situation is that you are playing the part of a useful idiot (the left's terminology) for liberals; you refuse to educate yourself; your wall will never be completed; the peripheral laws / policies you are helping along will not only counteract your own lobbying, but will serve to stop future generations from seeking to be free from tyranny.  THAT makes you dangerous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can watch a stream of millions of Mexicans flowing into America and see what it is doing to America.
> 
> 
> You can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing is worse.
> 
> we have no immigration clause.
> 
> and, we should have no illegal problem or any illegal underclass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that sided with the rapist instead of his child victim, because the rapist was a Mexican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know how to read our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll has never read the damn thing and then has the gall to say silly stuff.  I've challenged him in the past to show where, in the Constitution, the government has the authority to do what he claims.  Thousands of posts later, I'm still waiting.
> 
> By contrast, I've done posts twenty five paragraphs at a time quoting laws and so forth refuting his position.
Click to expand...

the right wing only knows how to Imply not Express.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

danielpalos said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can watch a stream of millions of Mexicans flowing into America and see what it is doing to America.
> 
> 
> You can't.
> 
> 
> 
> the right wing is worse.
> 
> we have no immigration clause.
> 
> and, we should have no illegal problem or any illegal underclass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that sided with the rapist instead of his child victim, because the rapist was a Mexican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know how to read our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll has never read the damn thing and then has the gall to say silly stuff.  I've challenged him in the past to show where, in the Constitution, the government has the authority to do what he claims.  Thousands of posts later, I'm still waiting.
> 
> By contrast, I've done posts twenty five paragraphs at a time quoting laws and so forth refuting his position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing only knows how to Imply not Express.
Click to expand...


Being on the outside, I have equal criticisms of the left and the right.  If Correll thinks he represents the right, we're all fucked.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You are wrong.  The United States Supreme Court* RULED* that being in the United States is not a crime.  Furthermore if the American people did not want them here, they would not hire to them, sell to them, buy from them, or do business with anyone that does.  We, do, however, and the majority of the American people have proven your statement to be an absolute *lie* and you can't accept it
> 
> 2)  Our Constitution cannot survive the repeal of the Bill of Rights
> 
> 3)  You can make all the presuppositions you want and keep that open borders lie going, but repeating it over and over won't make it true.  Your wishes do not reflect the will of the majority - and YOU have argued for democracy ever since you and I first tangled.  FWIW - I'm not a democrat like you and I know what it would take to rectify the current situation
> 
> 4)  On all the key issues Trump has lost his ass in court; he did not come up with a plan to make Mexico pay; Trump then tried to take away from the military AND seniors thereby creating even MORE opposition to his idea.  He did that on purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.a. I do not know what legal travesty  you are referring to, but a foreigner who entered here against our laws is breaking the laws by being here. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar or a fool.
> 
> 1b. The American people have a process by which to change the law if they want the Open Border you describe. They have not. YOur argument that they support the presence of people that are here illegally does not make any sense.
> 
> 
> 2. You made that point. I responded. That you ignored my response and reasserted your position is the logical fallacy of Proof by Assertion. You just admitted that you cannot refute my points, and that you know my point about the Right of Self Determination is correct.
> 
> 
> 3. My description of the behavior of you and others like you, is not an assumption, but a observation of your behavior.  Your denial of open border types is not credible.
> 
> 
> 4. Your speculation about what Trump is thinking is noted. My point about his platform being the most aggressive on this issue stands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Correll, are you a fucking idiot?  A foreigner is *NOT* committing a crime by law by being here.  It is strictly a civil matter.  WTF?  Are you c*ompletely STUPID?  You are wrong and there is no argument here
> *
> 2)  What?  That made even less sense the second time.  If you think you're in a formal debate, you lost that eons ago.  WTF are you saying?
> 
> 3)  Denial of what you cannot prove exists?  You can't even give an example.  You want a militarized border and you want to make a blanket accusation your dumb ass cannot prove.  Like I said, if you like walls and fences so damn much, try prison... maybe a mental facility (that's probably where you belong)
> 
> 4)  I don't speculate about Trump.  Past behavior is a good indicator of future performance.  Keep that duly noted.
Click to expand...




1. Your support of the illegals is noted. Why do you care more for their interests than the interests and rights of your fellow citizens?

2. You made a claim and when challenged, all you did was make the claim again. That is an admission that you cannot refute my counterpoints. That is true regardless of the level of formality.

3. Your desire to allow foreigners to flow into our nation unchecked and unvetted, while denying that there are open border people, is a sign of irrationality on your part.

4. Trump has been more aggressive on the issue of immigration, legal and illegal than anyone in living memory. That is current behavior, and you are attacking him for it.


----------



## Correll

danielpalos said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> What your policy of letting them in will get US, is more of California.
> 
> 
> By 2050, every city in the US, will be like fucking LA. and LA, will be like Mexico City.
> 
> 
> That is not a nation that will be America. YOu are not going to get them to adopt our culture or politics or policies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You won't *READ* about history and the law, so you don't have a clue as to what I'd do to reverse the situation.  You are ignorant above any description and it would work to your advantage to* ASK QUESTIONS*, then take time to *READ* the answers before spewing horseshit.
> 
> I've tried to shame you into reading and learning what it is you're talking about.  That cannot be done.  I've tried nice, argumentative, and everything in between.  But, if you think for one minute that I back a plan that would make the U.S. look like L.A. you are a fucking idiot.  So, I'll be nice and presume that was pure fluff on your part.
> 
> You have not studied the concepts of state citizenship versus national citizenship; you know *NOTHING* about the separation of powers of the government; you have no concept of the limited role of the federal government in a de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic and, worse, you don't have a damn clue as to how many constitutional violations it took on the part of the government to get us where we are today.
> 
> Without a clear cut knowledge of that history along with what our laws really say, you are too deaf, dumb, and blind to understand how you reverse course, retain the Liberties of the people, and watch Nancy Pelosi and her ilk change course as opposed to playing you like a fine tuned fiddle.  The reality of your situation is that you are playing the part of a useful idiot (the left's terminology) for liberals; you refuse to educate yourself; your wall will never be completed; the peripheral laws / policies you are helping along will not only counteract your own lobbying, but will serve to stop future generations from seeking to be free from tyranny.  THAT makes you dangerous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can watch a stream of millions of Mexicans flowing into America and see what it is doing to America.
> 
> 
> You can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing is worse.
> 
> we have no immigration clause.
> 
> and, we should have no illegal problem or any illegal underclass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that sided with the rapist instead of his child victim, because the rapist was a Mexican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know how to read our Constitution.
Click to expand...



And that is why you sided with the rapist instead of his child victim?


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can watch a stream of millions of Mexicans flowing into America and see what it is doing to America.
> 
> 
> You can't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lying son of a bitch.  You've never manned the border.  I used to live in and around Los Angeles.  May still have relatives there.
> 
> If foreigners are flowing into America, it is due to our culture.  As long as our nation sees no harm in multiculturalism (and you have yet to denounce that yourself) then no wall is going to stop the situation.
> 
> The last I heard, Georgia was number four in the numbers of undocumented foreigners.  They're great for business, but the world is not just about what makes Donald Trump and his rich elite buddies happy.  We got lots of Hispanics here and lots and lots of jobs.
> 
> We also have local governments thinking they are Nazis.  We have high taxes and a white culture that has become an embarrassment.  We're losing our Freedoms and Liberties on a daily basis.  The foreigners are worming their way into government, making us the very kinds of cesspools they fled (so much for your "_legal_" immigration theories.)
> 
> The people best suited to resolve this are the ones sitting it out and letting the NEW WORLD ORDER / One World Government guys set us up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I did not literally mean I was standing there watching them walk across the border. My point stands. I see what it is doing to America. YOu seem not to.
> 
> 
> 2. It is not due to our culture.
> 
> 3. I denounce multiculturalism.
> 
> 4. There can be a gap between culture and law. Though attacking multiculturalism needs to be attacked too, and I do.
> 
> 5. The benefit to the employers of having unlimited cheap labor, is obvious. As it the negative effect to American workers having to compete with them.
> 
> 6. Nazis are an insignificant fringe.
> 
> 7. High taxes are a problem. High taxes is not nazi. Please do not tell me that you think that Nazis invented the idea of high taxes in America.
> 
> 8. Yes, our culture is taking a beating. You know what won't help? Siding with the Anti-Americans on any issues.
> 
> 9. Not sure what you mean by "legal immigration".
> 
> 10.  I don't know who you think is "best suited". I know what I want and why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  If you saw what was happening in America, you would educate yourself as to the facts
> 
> 2)  Yes, our problems *are* due to our culture.  You are a glowing example with your tens of thousands of posts and* NO* ability to give a sensible answer because you're like that entire generation of Americans:  clueless, uneducated, lazy, uninformed, and working for the enemy without knowing it.
> 
> Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply and have more people on drugs per capita than anywhere in the world.  We have more people in prisons than anywhere on the planet.  Half of the American people are dependent on the government for their daily bread and too lazy to look for a job... and IF they do, they are covered in tattoos and body piercings with no education, no job skills, no driver's license, and no common sense.  Yes, you have a culture problem
> 
> 3)  Since you denounce multiculturalism, you've represented that you understand the 14th Amendment.  Glad you won't be saying "_illegal"_ any longer
> 
> 4)  Nonresponsive
> 
> 5)  Competition is good for business.  Get your generation off drugs and give employers their Rights back.  Make our culture strong then tell the government to allow companies to hire who they want.  All you're saying is that you are too lazy, stupid and incompetent to compete with third worlders for entry level jobs
> 
> 6)  Nazis, regardless of their numbers, own and control your talking points on the immigration issue.  The CFR is a small group too, but look at their influence.  You need to get democracy out of your head
> 
> 7)  Straw man argument that is beneath even your dumb ass so no response is necessary
> 
> 8)  Since you've been siding with Nazis, the CFR and others working to destroy America I'm sure you will begin studying the issue and quit working for those who are destroying America... if you believe your own rhetoric
> 
> 9)  The Two United States and the Law
> 
> http://understandcontractlawandyouwin.com/state-citizenship-federal-citizenship/
> 
> 10)  Non responsive
> 
> You're an idiot Correll.  You bitch about the size of my posts and give me TEN things to respond to?  And then you aren't going to read the answers?  Then you're going to repeat the same bullshit as if that will change things?  What if someone else reads this AND DOES FOLLOW THE LINKS AND DOES THE RESEARCH????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. My point was that I can see the damage that illegal immigration is doing to this country and you seem not to, or not to care. That your response was nothing but snark, was a dodge, because you cannot refute what I said. My point stands. I can see the damage and you can't or don't care.
> 
> 
> 2. You complain about my style of posting, but you keep getting confused. You said illegal immigration is caused by our culture and I said it was not. My point stands.
> 
> 3. I denounced multiculturalism. You conclude, without explaining how, that that means I understand the 14th and also without explanation conclude that I won't be saying "illegal" any more.  Dude. You are terrible at guessing what I mean. Don't make ANY connections without asking me about them first. YOu SUCK at that. SUCK!
> 
> 
> 4. Foreigners are let into this country by a corrupt political class, not because of our culture.
> 
> 5. Calling me names, is not an argument. My point stands. Cheap labor is good for employers, not employees. Address that, and drop the shit.
> 
> 6. Nazis are an insignificant fringe. If you have a problem with an idea or a policy, explain the problem, don't play silly Kevin Bacon games.
> 
> 
> 7. You are the one that mentioned high taxes and Nazis next to each other, and you play conflating games ALL THE TIME.
> 
> 8.  Can you vague that up a bit? I almost followed your "logic" there for a second. Actually that was a lie. YOu went off the deep end, immediately.
> 
> 
> 9. Got it, you hoped I would not ask, and you don't want to explain.
> 
> 10.  Everything I posted was a response to a point your raised. You don't want 10 responses? Be more concise. Wander less. Avoid making wild leaps and assigning me blame based on stuff that only exists in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  I see the damage* MY own countrymen* are causing their own country by lowering their standards and taking a piss on their own culture.  I realize if they were off their sorry asses (as opposed to posting 50,000 posts on the Internet) we probably would have no problems with foreigners
> 
> 2) You want scapegoats not solutions
> 
> 3)  You suck because you are talking out both sides of your mouth.  IF you *support *the 14th Amendment, there are no "_illegal aliens_" as you mistakenly think because the 14th Amendment guarantees the equal protection of the laws to *ALL PERSONS*.  "All Persons" has been defined by the United States Supreme Court to include foreigners, regardless of immigration status
> 
> 4)  Foreigners come here to work jobs willingly offered because of shitsacks that won't work, do drugs, have a criminal history, and friends like you that want their records preserved forever to the benefit of employers who then reject them and never give them a second chance
> 
> 5)  I have responded to your point... what?  Fifty times since we've been arguing on this board???  When a foreigner takes a job, it creates *MORE* wealth.  Unlike you, the foreigner is working.  They work for less, creating more profits, and giving the employer more productivity.  That means they spend more money in the community.  a twenty something year old Hispanic is more likely to have 2 kids or more, a house, and other bills.  You probably live in mommy's house, don't work (you're here all the time) and don't contribute anything to the community
> 
> 6)  Nazis control your talking points; own the think tanks from which you get your erroneous ideas; were the first to begin the talk that fences and walls would solve a deeper problem.  You can call them fringe all you like, but only a total fucking idiot would deny their influence and their position.  I've documented it for you how many times?
> 
> 7)  I mentioned high taxes, but I did not blame the Nazis.  I BLAME YOU
> 
> 8)  I have not lied to you and I'm not going to read mountains of text to figure out your allegation.  Spit it out or admit that you are covering yet another fallacy you got busted on
> 
> 9)  I'm ready to explain anything to you.  But, after it's explained, you don't read the damn posts, then want to filibuster all day long.  WTF?  Do you want the explanation or not?  If you read it *one time,* you wouldn't have to post 100 posts denying that I have responded to you and explained it unequivocally
> 
> 10)  I'm responding to you.  One minute you're bitching that I don't explain this stuff to you; then end with more bitching because the answer don't fit on a bumper sticker (only exposing your lack of reading and comprehension skills)
Click to expand...




1. My work ethic is fine and not the cause of millions of foreigners crossing the border is violation of our democratically enacted laws and our Right of Self Determination.


2. Nope. I want solutions. The scapegoat thing is something you made up out of whole cloth.

3. The Supreme Court was suicidality stupid in deciding that people who entered illegally and stay here illegally and have to falsify records and taxes in order to work here, are " subject to the jurisdiction" of our laws. That was an obvious mistake and in a sane world would have been reversed immediately.

4. My point stands.  Foreigners are let into this country by a corrupt political class, not because of our culture. Your contempt of your fellow Americans does not change that.

5. Lower work cost might be good for macro-economic numbers and employers. It is not good for employees, and the nation as a whole. It is the right of those employees and those that identify with them, to seek political representation for their interests. Your hostility to this has not been explained. 


6. Nazis are an irrelevant fringe. If a nazi is for good dental hygiene, it does not make me a nazi to brush my teeth. 

7. How so?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You are wrong.  The United States Supreme Court* RULED* that being in the United States is not a crime.  Furthermore if the American people did not want them here, they would not hire to them, sell to them, buy from them, or do business with anyone that does.  We, do, however, and the majority of the American people have proven your statement to be an absolute *lie* and you can't accept it
> 
> 2)  Our Constitution cannot survive the repeal of the Bill of Rights
> 
> 3)  You can make all the presuppositions you want and keep that open borders lie going, but repeating it over and over won't make it true.  Your wishes do not reflect the will of the majority - and YOU have argued for democracy ever since you and I first tangled.  FWIW - I'm not a democrat like you and I know what it would take to rectify the current situation
> 
> 4)  On all the key issues Trump has lost his ass in court; he did not come up with a plan to make Mexico pay; Trump then tried to take away from the military AND seniors thereby creating even MORE opposition to his idea.  He did that on purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.a. I do not know what legal travesty  you are referring to, but a foreigner who entered here against our laws is breaking the laws by being here. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar or a fool.
> 
> 1b. The American people have a process by which to change the law if they want the Open Border you describe. They have not. YOur argument that they support the presence of people that are here illegally does not make any sense.
> 
> 
> 2. You made that point. I responded. That you ignored my response and reasserted your position is the logical fallacy of Proof by Assertion. You just admitted that you cannot refute my points, and that you know my point about the Right of Self Determination is correct.
> 
> 
> 3. My description of the behavior of you and others like you, is not an assumption, but a observation of your behavior.  Your denial of open border types is not credible.
> 
> 
> 4. Your speculation about what Trump is thinking is noted. My point about his platform being the most aggressive on this issue stands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Correll, are you a fucking idiot?  A foreigner is *NOT* committing a crime by law by being here.  It is strictly a civil matter.  WTF?  Are you c*ompletely STUPID?  You are wrong and there is no argument here
> *
> 2)  What?  That made even less sense the second time.  If you think you're in a formal debate, you lost that eons ago.  WTF are you saying?
> 
> 3)  Denial of what you cannot prove exists?  You can't even give an example.  You want a militarized border and you want to make a blanket accusation your dumb ass cannot prove.  Like I said, if you like walls and fences so damn much, try prison... maybe a mental facility (that's probably where you belong)
> 
> 4)  I don't speculate about Trump.  Past behavior is a good indicator of future performance.  Keep that duly noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your support of the illegals is noted. Why do you care more for their interests than the interests and rights of your fellow citizens?
> 
> 2. You made a claim and when challenged, all you did was make the claim again. That is an admission that you cannot refute my counterpoints. That is true regardless of the level of formality.
> 
> 3. Your desire to allow foreigners to flow into our nation unchecked and unvetted, while denying that there are open border people, is a sign of irrationality on your part.
> 
> 4. Trump has been more aggressive on the issue of immigration, legal and illegal than anyone in living memory. That is current behavior, and you are attacking him for it.
Click to expand...


1)  Your inability to reason and the stupid shit you  say that only cowards will say and only when they don't have to be held accountable (as in with their real name or in a public setting) is duly noted.  As for me personally, I have a ministry where I try to find people that *want* a second chance and are *willing to work* for it.  It isn't a handout; they work and go to school and / or get job training.  We help.  *What are you doing in that regard?
*
2*)  *What claim do you allege that has not been addressed a dozen times?  If I have been asked and addressed it, you better hope that we don't address it again here lest you be branded a liar by your own words

3)  This absolute horseshit of "_unchecked and unvetted_" foreigners is nutcase neo-Nazi *HORSESHIT*.  If a foreign country wants to send you a bad apple, they sure as Hell aren't going to tell you.  Mexico has printed up comic books instructing their citizens how to avoid our border patrol.  Only an idiot would give their background check info any credibility.

*OTOH*, since we have the 14th Amendment, many Americans are kept out of jobs for doing things that *ARE NOT* recorded in foreign countries (i.e. domestic family problems, drug / alcohol convictions, etc.)  A lot of things that are felonies in the U.S. aren't crimes in many other countries.  The *ONLY* people you're hurting are Americans

4)  Trump has given you the* illusion* that he's doing something and each time his proposals get shot down, it sets a nasty precedent for our future (YOUR future and mine.)  A good example is legislative fiat.  Kamala Harris has already stated if elected she will use the same misuse of Executive Powers to confiscate firearms in the U.S.

You're never going to catch on to the way political psychology, political warfare, psychopolitics, and legal precedents are used so this is a waste of time.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lying son of a bitch.  You've never manned the border.  I used to live in and around Los Angeles.  May still have relatives there.
> 
> If foreigners are flowing into America, it is due to our culture.  As long as our nation sees no harm in multiculturalism (and you have yet to denounce that yourself) then no wall is going to stop the situation.
> 
> The last I heard, Georgia was number four in the numbers of undocumented foreigners.  They're great for business, but the world is not just about what makes Donald Trump and his rich elite buddies happy.  We got lots of Hispanics here and lots and lots of jobs.
> 
> We also have local governments thinking they are Nazis.  We have high taxes and a white culture that has become an embarrassment.  We're losing our Freedoms and Liberties on a daily basis.  The foreigners are worming their way into government, making us the very kinds of cesspools they fled (so much for your "_legal_" immigration theories.)
> 
> The people best suited to resolve this are the ones sitting it out and letting the NEW WORLD ORDER / One World Government guys set us up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I did not literally mean I was standing there watching them walk across the border. My point stands. I see what it is doing to America. YOu seem not to.
> 
> 
> 2. It is not due to our culture.
> 
> 3. I denounce multiculturalism.
> 
> 4. There can be a gap between culture and law. Though attacking multiculturalism needs to be attacked too, and I do.
> 
> 5. The benefit to the employers of having unlimited cheap labor, is obvious. As it the negative effect to American workers having to compete with them.
> 
> 6. Nazis are an insignificant fringe.
> 
> 7. High taxes are a problem. High taxes is not nazi. Please do not tell me that you think that Nazis invented the idea of high taxes in America.
> 
> 8. Yes, our culture is taking a beating. You know what won't help? Siding with the Anti-Americans on any issues.
> 
> 9. Not sure what you mean by "legal immigration".
> 
> 10.  I don't know who you think is "best suited". I know what I want and why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  If you saw what was happening in America, you would educate yourself as to the facts
> 
> 2)  Yes, our problems *are* due to our culture.  You are a glowing example with your tens of thousands of posts and* NO* ability to give a sensible answer because you're like that entire generation of Americans:  clueless, uneducated, lazy, uninformed, and working for the enemy without knowing it.
> 
> Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply and have more people on drugs per capita than anywhere in the world.  We have more people in prisons than anywhere on the planet.  Half of the American people are dependent on the government for their daily bread and too lazy to look for a job... and IF they do, they are covered in tattoos and body piercings with no education, no job skills, no driver's license, and no common sense.  Yes, you have a culture problem
> 
> 3)  Since you denounce multiculturalism, you've represented that you understand the 14th Amendment.  Glad you won't be saying "_illegal"_ any longer
> 
> 4)  Nonresponsive
> 
> 5)  Competition is good for business.  Get your generation off drugs and give employers their Rights back.  Make our culture strong then tell the government to allow companies to hire who they want.  All you're saying is that you are too lazy, stupid and incompetent to compete with third worlders for entry level jobs
> 
> 6)  Nazis, regardless of their numbers, own and control your talking points on the immigration issue.  The CFR is a small group too, but look at their influence.  You need to get democracy out of your head
> 
> 7)  Straw man argument that is beneath even your dumb ass so no response is necessary
> 
> 8)  Since you've been siding with Nazis, the CFR and others working to destroy America I'm sure you will begin studying the issue and quit working for those who are destroying America... if you believe your own rhetoric
> 
> 9)  The Two United States and the Law
> 
> http://understandcontractlawandyouwin.com/state-citizenship-federal-citizenship/
> 
> 10)  Non responsive
> 
> You're an idiot Correll.  You bitch about the size of my posts and give me TEN things to respond to?  And then you aren't going to read the answers?  Then you're going to repeat the same bullshit as if that will change things?  What if someone else reads this AND DOES FOLLOW THE LINKS AND DOES THE RESEARCH????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. My point was that I can see the damage that illegal immigration is doing to this country and you seem not to, or not to care. That your response was nothing but snark, was a dodge, because you cannot refute what I said. My point stands. I can see the damage and you can't or don't care.
> 
> 
> 2. You complain about my style of posting, but you keep getting confused. You said illegal immigration is caused by our culture and I said it was not. My point stands.
> 
> 3. I denounced multiculturalism. You conclude, without explaining how, that that means I understand the 14th and also without explanation conclude that I won't be saying "illegal" any more.  Dude. You are terrible at guessing what I mean. Don't make ANY connections without asking me about them first. YOu SUCK at that. SUCK!
> 
> 
> 4. Foreigners are let into this country by a corrupt political class, not because of our culture.
> 
> 5. Calling me names, is not an argument. My point stands. Cheap labor is good for employers, not employees. Address that, and drop the shit.
> 
> 6. Nazis are an insignificant fringe. If you have a problem with an idea or a policy, explain the problem, don't play silly Kevin Bacon games.
> 
> 
> 7. You are the one that mentioned high taxes and Nazis next to each other, and you play conflating games ALL THE TIME.
> 
> 8.  Can you vague that up a bit? I almost followed your "logic" there for a second. Actually that was a lie. YOu went off the deep end, immediately.
> 
> 
> 9. Got it, you hoped I would not ask, and you don't want to explain.
> 
> 10.  Everything I posted was a response to a point your raised. You don't want 10 responses? Be more concise. Wander less. Avoid making wild leaps and assigning me blame based on stuff that only exists in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  I see the damage* MY own countrymen* are causing their own country by lowering their standards and taking a piss on their own culture.  I realize if they were off their sorry asses (as opposed to posting 50,000 posts on the Internet) we probably would have no problems with foreigners
> 
> 2) You want scapegoats not solutions
> 
> 3)  You suck because you are talking out both sides of your mouth.  IF you *support *the 14th Amendment, there are no "_illegal aliens_" as you mistakenly think because the 14th Amendment guarantees the equal protection of the laws to *ALL PERSONS*.  "All Persons" has been defined by the United States Supreme Court to include foreigners, regardless of immigration status
> 
> 4)  Foreigners come here to work jobs willingly offered because of shitsacks that won't work, do drugs, have a criminal history, and friends like you that want their records preserved forever to the benefit of employers who then reject them and never give them a second chance
> 
> 5)  I have responded to your point... what?  Fifty times since we've been arguing on this board???  When a foreigner takes a job, it creates *MORE* wealth.  Unlike you, the foreigner is working.  They work for less, creating more profits, and giving the employer more productivity.  That means they spend more money in the community.  a twenty something year old Hispanic is more likely to have 2 kids or more, a house, and other bills.  You probably live in mommy's house, don't work (you're here all the time) and don't contribute anything to the community
> 
> 6)  Nazis control your talking points; own the think tanks from which you get your erroneous ideas; were the first to begin the talk that fences and walls would solve a deeper problem.  You can call them fringe all you like, but only a total fucking idiot would deny their influence and their position.  I've documented it for you how many times?
> 
> 7)  I mentioned high taxes, but I did not blame the Nazis.  I BLAME YOU
> 
> 8)  I have not lied to you and I'm not going to read mountains of text to figure out your allegation.  Spit it out or admit that you are covering yet another fallacy you got busted on
> 
> 9)  I'm ready to explain anything to you.  But, after it's explained, you don't read the damn posts, then want to filibuster all day long.  WTF?  Do you want the explanation or not?  If you read it *one time,* you wouldn't have to post 100 posts denying that I have responded to you and explained it unequivocally
> 
> 10)  I'm responding to you.  One minute you're bitching that I don't explain this stuff to you; then end with more bitching because the answer don't fit on a bumper sticker (only exposing your lack of reading and comprehension skills)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. My work ethic is fine and not the cause of millions of foreigners crossing the border is violation of our democratically enacted laws and our Right of Self Determination.
> 
> 
> 2. Nope. I want solutions. The scapegoat thing is something you made up out of whole cloth.
> 
> 3. The Supreme Court was suicidality stupid in deciding that people who entered illegally and stay here illegally and have to falsify records and taxes in order to work here, are " subject to the jurisdiction" of our laws. That was an obvious mistake and in a sane world would have been reversed immediately.
> 
> 4. My point stands.  Foreigners are let into this country by a corrupt political class, not because of our culture. Your contempt of your fellow Americans does not change that.
> 
> 5. Lower work cost might be good for macro-economic numbers and employers. It is not good for employees, and the nation as a whole. It is the right of those employees and those that identify with them, to seek political representation for their interests. Your hostility to this has not been explained.
> 
> 
> 6. Nazis are an irrelevant fringe. If a nazi is for good dental hygiene, it does not make me a nazi to brush my teeth.
> 
> 7. How so?
Click to expand...



1)  We are not a democracy.  So, you just exposed yourself as a social democrat

2)  You want scapegoats.  If a willing employer hires a willing worker, what Right are you denied?

3)  The United States Supreme Court did nothing you falsely accused them of.  According to the Chief Actuary of the Socialist Security Administration, about 75 percent of all undocumented foreigners get an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number and pay the same illegal / unconstitutional / immoral / indefensible/ federal tax that you do.  Nice to see you're still defending a plank from the Communist Manifesto AND lying about it with joy in your heart and a smile on your face

4)  Foreigners come here because the *Constitution so allows*.  The ONLY thing regulating the process is laws pushed by Ted Kennedy and an unconstitutional power grab by the United States Supreme Court

5) You do not understand basic economics much less macro economics and virtually every economist (including those on the far right admit that foreign labor is profitable.)  My case rests on the premise that money should not be the only factor.  My hostility is toward you because you are a pathological liar that has had this shit explained in detail and, on other threads, you did not read it NOR even formulate a responsive post on the points that you made which are in error

6)  Saying Nazis are a fringe group may make you happy, but you have your head so far up their asses, you don't get a breath of fresh air til one of the farts.  Perhaps that is why you don't understand

7)  How so?  How so what???  What are you asking?

Look, if you want me to rehash the same stuff I beat you up with on three other threads, we can go there.  You'll just get your ass stomped into the ground again.  You couldn't defend your crap on the other threads; have admitted you don't read the posts, so what... you think we might help someone understand what a poseur you really are if I post proof for a sixth time (at least that many times) that you have *FAILED* to answer???

I don't need 20 questions every exchange.  Tell us the truth.

Prior to David Duke, what American in all of U.S. history,  proposed the laws you support that would be put into place under the pretext of enforcing the wall?  *Can you name even ONE?*


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You are wrong.  The United States Supreme Court* RULED* that being in the United States is not a crime.  Furthermore if the American people did not want them here, they would not hire to them, sell to them, buy from them, or do business with anyone that does.  We, do, however, and the majority of the American people have proven your statement to be an absolute *lie* and you can't accept it
> 
> 2)  Our Constitution cannot survive the repeal of the Bill of Rights
> 
> 3)  You can make all the presuppositions you want and keep that open borders lie going, but repeating it over and over won't make it true.  Your wishes do not reflect the will of the majority - and YOU have argued for democracy ever since you and I first tangled.  FWIW - I'm not a democrat like you and I know what it would take to rectify the current situation
> 
> 4)  On all the key issues Trump has lost his ass in court; he did not come up with a plan to make Mexico pay; Trump then tried to take away from the military AND seniors thereby creating even MORE opposition to his idea.  He did that on purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.a. I do not know what legal travesty  you are referring to, but a foreigner who entered here against our laws is breaking the laws by being here. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar or a fool.
> 
> 1b. The American people have a process by which to change the law if they want the Open Border you describe. They have not. YOur argument that they support the presence of people that are here illegally does not make any sense.
> 
> 
> 2. You made that point. I responded. That you ignored my response and reasserted your position is the logical fallacy of Proof by Assertion. You just admitted that you cannot refute my points, and that you know my point about the Right of Self Determination is correct.
> 
> 
> 3. My description of the behavior of you and others like you, is not an assumption, but a observation of your behavior.  Your denial of open border types is not credible.
> 
> 
> 4. Your speculation about what Trump is thinking is noted. My point about his platform being the most aggressive on this issue stands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Correll, are you a fucking idiot?  A foreigner is *NOT* committing a crime by law by being here.  It is strictly a civil matter.  WTF?  Are you c*ompletely STUPID?  You are wrong and there is no argument here
> *
> 2)  What?  That made even less sense the second time.  If you think you're in a formal debate, you lost that eons ago.  WTF are you saying?
> 
> 3)  Denial of what you cannot prove exists?  You can't even give an example.  You want a militarized border and you want to make a blanket accusation your dumb ass cannot prove.  Like I said, if you like walls and fences so damn much, try prison... maybe a mental facility (that's probably where you belong)
> 
> 4)  I don't speculate about Trump.  Past behavior is a good indicator of future performance.  Keep that duly noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your support of the illegals is noted. Why do you care more for their interests than the interests and rights of your fellow citizens?
> 
> 2. You made a claim and when challenged, all you did was make the claim again. That is an admission that you cannot refute my counterpoints. That is true regardless of the level of formality.
> 
> 3. Your desire to allow foreigners to flow into our nation unchecked and unvetted, while denying that there are open border people, is a sign of irrationality on your part.
> 
> 4. Trump has been more aggressive on the issue of immigration, legal and illegal than anyone in living memory. That is current behavior, and you are attacking him for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  Your inability to reason and the stupid shit you  say that only cowards will say and only when they don't have to be held accountable (as in with their real name or in a public setting) is duly noted.  As for me personally, I have a ministry where I try to find people that *want* a second chance and are *willing to work* for it.  It isn't a handout; they work and go to school and / or get job training.  We help.  *What are you doing in that regard?
> *
> 2*)  *What claim do you allege that has not been addressed a dozen times?  If I have been asked and addressed it, you better hope that we don't address it again here lest you be branded a liar by your own words
> 
> 3)  This absolute horseshit of "_unchecked and unvetted_" foreigners is nutcase neo-Nazi *HORSESHIT*.  If a foreign country wants to send you a bad apple, they sure as Hell aren't going to tell you.  Mexico has printed up comic books instructing their citizens how to avoid our border patrol.  Only an idiot would give their background check info any credibility.
> 
> *OTOH*, since we have the 14th Amendment, many Americans are kept out of jobs for doing things that *ARE NOT* recorded in foreign countries (i.e. domestic family problems, drug / alcohol convictions, etc.)  A lot of things that are felonies in the U.S. aren't crimes in many other countries.  The *ONLY* people you're hurting are Americans
> 
> 4)  Trump has given you the* illusion* that he's doing something and each time his proposals get shot down, it sets a nasty precedent for our future (YOUR future and mine.)  A good example is legislative fiat.  Kamala Harris has already stated if elected she will use the same misuse of Executive Powers to confiscate firearms in the U.S.
> 
> You're never going to catch on to the way political psychology, political warfare, psychopolitics, and legal precedents are used so this is a waste of time.
Click to expand...




1. Supporting economic and immigration policies that serve the interests of the American workers is a valid political position. That you 
mis-characterize that as "not being willing to work" is just you not being able to defend YOUR political position on it's actual merits.


2. Don't recall now. YOu are the one that cut the previous posts, not me.

3. Your point about not trusting the information provided by hostile countries is quite valid. Which is why we should not be accepting ANY immigrants from hostile nations. And wanting to know if the people we are inviting into our communities are violent criminals or terrorists, is hardly "neo-nazi horseshit". 

4. I've been hearing plenty from employers that cant' find workers at the wage they are offering, and some interesting stats starting to come out about rising wages. Your concern about political posturing is valid but there does seem to be some real movement here.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I did not literally mean I was standing there watching them walk across the border. My point stands. I see what it is doing to America. YOu seem not to.
> 
> 
> 2. It is not due to our culture.
> 
> 3. I denounce multiculturalism.
> 
> 4. There can be a gap between culture and law. Though attacking multiculturalism needs to be attacked too, and I do.
> 
> 5. The benefit to the employers of having unlimited cheap labor, is obvious. As it the negative effect to American workers having to compete with them.
> 
> 6. Nazis are an insignificant fringe.
> 
> 7. High taxes are a problem. High taxes is not nazi. Please do not tell me that you think that Nazis invented the idea of high taxes in America.
> 
> 8. Yes, our culture is taking a beating. You know what won't help? Siding with the Anti-Americans on any issues.
> 
> 9. Not sure what you mean by "legal immigration".
> 
> 10.  I don't know who you think is "best suited". I know what I want and why.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  If you saw what was happening in America, you would educate yourself as to the facts
> 
> 2)  Yes, our problems *are* due to our culture.  You are a glowing example with your tens of thousands of posts and* NO* ability to give a sensible answer because you're like that entire generation of Americans:  clueless, uneducated, lazy, uninformed, and working for the enemy without knowing it.
> 
> Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply and have more people on drugs per capita than anywhere in the world.  We have more people in prisons than anywhere on the planet.  Half of the American people are dependent on the government for their daily bread and too lazy to look for a job... and IF they do, they are covered in tattoos and body piercings with no education, no job skills, no driver's license, and no common sense.  Yes, you have a culture problem
> 
> 3)  Since you denounce multiculturalism, you've represented that you understand the 14th Amendment.  Glad you won't be saying "_illegal"_ any longer
> 
> 4)  Nonresponsive
> 
> 5)  Competition is good for business.  Get your generation off drugs and give employers their Rights back.  Make our culture strong then tell the government to allow companies to hire who they want.  All you're saying is that you are too lazy, stupid and incompetent to compete with third worlders for entry level jobs
> 
> 6)  Nazis, regardless of their numbers, own and control your talking points on the immigration issue.  The CFR is a small group too, but look at their influence.  You need to get democracy out of your head
> 
> 7)  Straw man argument that is beneath even your dumb ass so no response is necessary
> 
> 8)  Since you've been siding with Nazis, the CFR and others working to destroy America I'm sure you will begin studying the issue and quit working for those who are destroying America... if you believe your own rhetoric
> 
> 9)  The Two United States and the Law
> 
> http://understandcontractlawandyouwin.com/state-citizenship-federal-citizenship/
> 
> 10)  Non responsive
> 
> You're an idiot Correll.  You bitch about the size of my posts and give me TEN things to respond to?  And then you aren't going to read the answers?  Then you're going to repeat the same bullshit as if that will change things?  What if someone else reads this AND DOES FOLLOW THE LINKS AND DOES THE RESEARCH????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. My point was that I can see the damage that illegal immigration is doing to this country and you seem not to, or not to care. That your response was nothing but snark, was a dodge, because you cannot refute what I said. My point stands. I can see the damage and you can't or don't care.
> 
> 
> 2. You complain about my style of posting, but you keep getting confused. You said illegal immigration is caused by our culture and I said it was not. My point stands.
> 
> 3. I denounced multiculturalism. You conclude, without explaining how, that that means I understand the 14th and also without explanation conclude that I won't be saying "illegal" any more.  Dude. You are terrible at guessing what I mean. Don't make ANY connections without asking me about them first. YOu SUCK at that. SUCK!
> 
> 
> 4. Foreigners are let into this country by a corrupt political class, not because of our culture.
> 
> 5. Calling me names, is not an argument. My point stands. Cheap labor is good for employers, not employees. Address that, and drop the shit.
> 
> 6. Nazis are an insignificant fringe. If you have a problem with an idea or a policy, explain the problem, don't play silly Kevin Bacon games.
> 
> 
> 7. You are the one that mentioned high taxes and Nazis next to each other, and you play conflating games ALL THE TIME.
> 
> 8.  Can you vague that up a bit? I almost followed your "logic" there for a second. Actually that was a lie. YOu went off the deep end, immediately.
> 
> 
> 9. Got it, you hoped I would not ask, and you don't want to explain.
> 
> 10.  Everything I posted was a response to a point your raised. You don't want 10 responses? Be more concise. Wander less. Avoid making wild leaps and assigning me blame based on stuff that only exists in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  I see the damage* MY own countrymen* are causing their own country by lowering their standards and taking a piss on their own culture.  I realize if they were off their sorry asses (as opposed to posting 50,000 posts on the Internet) we probably would have no problems with foreigners
> 
> 2) You want scapegoats not solutions
> 
> 3)  You suck because you are talking out both sides of your mouth.  IF you *support *the 14th Amendment, there are no "_illegal aliens_" as you mistakenly think because the 14th Amendment guarantees the equal protection of the laws to *ALL PERSONS*.  "All Persons" has been defined by the United States Supreme Court to include foreigners, regardless of immigration status
> 
> 4)  Foreigners come here to work jobs willingly offered because of shitsacks that won't work, do drugs, have a criminal history, and friends like you that want their records preserved forever to the benefit of employers who then reject them and never give them a second chance
> 
> 5)  I have responded to your point... what?  Fifty times since we've been arguing on this board???  When a foreigner takes a job, it creates *MORE* wealth.  Unlike you, the foreigner is working.  They work for less, creating more profits, and giving the employer more productivity.  That means they spend more money in the community.  a twenty something year old Hispanic is more likely to have 2 kids or more, a house, and other bills.  You probably live in mommy's house, don't work (you're here all the time) and don't contribute anything to the community
> 
> 6)  Nazis control your talking points; own the think tanks from which you get your erroneous ideas; were the first to begin the talk that fences and walls would solve a deeper problem.  You can call them fringe all you like, but only a total fucking idiot would deny their influence and their position.  I've documented it for you how many times?
> 
> 7)  I mentioned high taxes, but I did not blame the Nazis.  I BLAME YOU
> 
> 8)  I have not lied to you and I'm not going to read mountains of text to figure out your allegation.  Spit it out or admit that you are covering yet another fallacy you got busted on
> 
> 9)  I'm ready to explain anything to you.  But, after it's explained, you don't read the damn posts, then want to filibuster all day long.  WTF?  Do you want the explanation or not?  If you read it *one time,* you wouldn't have to post 100 posts denying that I have responded to you and explained it unequivocally
> 
> 10)  I'm responding to you.  One minute you're bitching that I don't explain this stuff to you; then end with more bitching because the answer don't fit on a bumper sticker (only exposing your lack of reading and comprehension skills)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. My work ethic is fine and not the cause of millions of foreigners crossing the border is violation of our democratically enacted laws and our Right of Self Determination.
> 
> 
> 2. Nope. I want solutions. The scapegoat thing is something you made up out of whole cloth.
> 
> 3. The Supreme Court was suicidality stupid in deciding that people who entered illegally and stay here illegally and have to falsify records and taxes in order to work here, are " subject to the jurisdiction" of our laws. That was an obvious mistake and in a sane world would have been reversed immediately.
> 
> 4. My point stands.  Foreigners are let into this country by a corrupt political class, not because of our culture. Your contempt of your fellow Americans does not change that.
> 
> 5. Lower work cost might be good for macro-economic numbers and employers. It is not good for employees, and the nation as a whole. It is the right of those employees and those that identify with them, to seek political representation for their interests. Your hostility to this has not been explained.
> 
> 
> 6. Nazis are an irrelevant fringe. If a nazi is for good dental hygiene, it does not make me a nazi to brush my teeth.
> 
> 7. How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  We are not a democracy.  So, you just exposed yourself as a social democrat
> 
> 2)  You want scapegoats.  If a willing employer hires a willing worker, what Right are you denied?
> 
> 3)  The United States Supreme Court did nothing you falsely accused them of.  According to the Chief Actuary of the Socialist Security Administration, about 75 percent of all undocumented foreigners get an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number and pay the same illegal / unconstitutional / immoral / indefensible/ federal tax that you do.  Nice to see you're still defending a plank from the Communist Manifesto AND lying about it with joy in your heart and a smile on your face
> 
> 4)  Foreigners come here because the *Constitution so allows*.  The ONLY thing regulating the process is laws pushed by Ted Kennedy and an unconstitutional power grab by the United States Supreme Court
> 
> 5) You do not understand basic economics much less macro economics and virtually every economist (including those on the far right admit that foreign labor is profitable.)  My case rests on the premise that money should not be the only factor.  My hostility is toward you because you are a pathological liar that has had this shit explained in detail and, on other threads, you did not read it NOR even formulate a responsive post on the points that you made which are in error
> 
> 6)  Saying Nazis are a fringe group may make you happy, but you have your head so far up their asses, you don't get a breath of fresh air til one of the farts.  Perhaps that is why you don't understand
> 
> 7)  How so?  How so what???  What are you asking?
> 
> Look, if you want me to rehash the same stuff I beat you up with on three other threads, we can go there.  You'll just get your ass stomped into the ground again.  You couldn't defend your crap on the other threads; have admitted you don't read the posts, so what... you think we might help someone understand what a poseur you really are if I post proof for a sixth time (at least that many times) that you have *FAILED* to answer???
> 
> I don't need 20 questions every exchange.  Tell us the truth.
> 
> Prior to David Duke, what American in all of U.S. history,  proposed the laws you support that would be put into place under the pretext of enforcing the wall?  *Can you name even ONE?*
Click to expand...




1. We are a Constitutional republic with our government's legitimacy based on the consent of the governed. Referencing the source of that legitimacy is not admitting that I am a social democrat.  Calling me a name, was just a dodge of my point about illegal immigration violating our Right to Self Determination, which still stands. And which you have not addressed though I have brought it up many times.


2. I am denied my right of self determination. We as a nation, have the right to define who we are and how we live. Being flooded by the Turd World is not how I want America to be. 

3. How do they legally get a number when they are here illegally? And don't think that I didn't notice that you ignore the other crimes I mentioned. They are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of our laws

4. Immigration was regulated and controlled WAY before Ted Kennedy. 

Ellis Island - Wikipedia

*"Ellis Island* is a museum and former immigration inspection station in New York Harbor, within the states of New York and New Jersey. It was the gateway for over 12 million immigrants to the United States as the nation's busiest immigrant inspection station from 1892 until 1954"

for one very limited example. Ted Kennedy, who I agree is a villain, was not born until 1932, 3O years after Ellis Island started inspecting and controlling immigration. I have know that your claims about who invented certain ideas in America was wrong, and this time I was able to easily and clearly show it.


My point stands. Foreigners are let into this country by a corrupt political class, not because of our culture. Your contempt of your fellow Americans does not change that.



5. I agree that economics should not be the only factor considered. My point about low wages being bad for American workers stands, and nothing in your post explains why you oppose higher wages, or why you consider it wrong of me to want that.


6. Saying the Nazis are a fringe group does make me happy. It is a good thing. And I like speaking the Truth to panic mongers who want to panic people for no good reason.


7. HOw do you blame me for high taxes?


8. I know that there were anti-immigration movements in the past. The specific tools would have been different because the times were different. Supporting a wall between US and Mexico, when the vast majority of immigration was coming from Europe, would have been senseless, but the idea of being anti-immigration was certainly there.


----------



## Correll

Mm, you say Trump "doesn't care" and it is all political posturing?

Check this one out.


Trump’s Message to Immigrant Sponsors: You Want ‘Em? You Pay for ‘Em!


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You are wrong.  The United States Supreme Court* RULED* that being in the United States is not a crime.  Furthermore if the American people did not want them here, they would not hire to them, sell to them, buy from them, or do business with anyone that does.  We, do, however, and the majority of the American people have proven your statement to be an absolute *lie* and you can't accept it
> 
> 2)  Our Constitution cannot survive the repeal of the Bill of Rights
> 
> 3)  You can make all the presuppositions you want and keep that open borders lie going, but repeating it over and over won't make it true.  Your wishes do not reflect the will of the majority - and YOU have argued for democracy ever since you and I first tangled.  FWIW - I'm not a democrat like you and I know what it would take to rectify the current situation
> 
> 4)  On all the key issues Trump has lost his ass in court; he did not come up with a plan to make Mexico pay; Trump then tried to take away from the military AND seniors thereby creating even MORE opposition to his idea.  He did that on purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.a. I do not know what legal travesty  you are referring to, but a foreigner who entered here against our laws is breaking the laws by being here. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar or a fool.
> 
> 1b. The American people have a process by which to change the law if they want the Open Border you describe. They have not. YOur argument that they support the presence of people that are here illegally does not make any sense.
> 
> 
> 2. You made that point. I responded. That you ignored my response and reasserted your position is the logical fallacy of Proof by Assertion. You just admitted that you cannot refute my points, and that you know my point about the Right of Self Determination is correct.
> 
> 
> 3. My description of the behavior of you and others like you, is not an assumption, but a observation of your behavior.  Your denial of open border types is not credible.
> 
> 
> 4. Your speculation about what Trump is thinking is noted. My point about his platform being the most aggressive on this issue stands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Correll, are you a fucking idiot?  A foreigner is *NOT* committing a crime by law by being here.  It is strictly a civil matter.  WTF?  Are you c*ompletely STUPID?  You are wrong and there is no argument here
> *
> 2)  What?  That made even less sense the second time.  If you think you're in a formal debate, you lost that eons ago.  WTF are you saying?
> 
> 3)  Denial of what you cannot prove exists?  You can't even give an example.  You want a militarized border and you want to make a blanket accusation your dumb ass cannot prove.  Like I said, if you like walls and fences so damn much, try prison... maybe a mental facility (that's probably where you belong)
> 
> 4)  I don't speculate about Trump.  Past behavior is a good indicator of future performance.  Keep that duly noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your support of the illegals is noted. Why do you care more for their interests than the interests and rights of your fellow citizens?
> 
> 2. You made a claim and when challenged, all you did was make the claim again. That is an admission that you cannot refute my counterpoints. That is true regardless of the level of formality.
> 
> 3. Your desire to allow foreigners to flow into our nation unchecked and unvetted, while denying that there are open border people, is a sign of irrationality on your part.
> 
> 4. Trump has been more aggressive on the issue of immigration, legal and illegal than anyone in living memory. That is current behavior, and you are attacking him for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  Your inability to reason and the stupid shit you  say that only cowards will say and only when they don't have to be held accountable (as in with their real name or in a public setting) is duly noted.  As for me personally, I have a ministry where I try to find people that *want* a second chance and are *willing to work* for it.  It isn't a handout; they work and go to school and / or get job training.  We help.  *What are you doing in that regard?
> *
> 2*)  *What claim do you allege that has not been addressed a dozen times?  If I have been asked and addressed it, you better hope that we don't address it again here lest you be branded a liar by your own words
> 
> 3)  This absolute horseshit of "_unchecked and unvetted_" foreigners is nutcase neo-Nazi *HORSESHIT*.  If a foreign country wants to send you a bad apple, they sure as Hell aren't going to tell you.  Mexico has printed up comic books instructing their citizens how to avoid our border patrol.  Only an idiot would give their background check info any credibility.
> 
> *OTOH*, since we have the 14th Amendment, many Americans are kept out of jobs for doing things that *ARE NOT* recorded in foreign countries (i.e. domestic family problems, drug / alcohol convictions, etc.)  A lot of things that are felonies in the U.S. aren't crimes in many other countries.  The *ONLY* people you're hurting are Americans
> 
> 4)  Trump has given you the* illusion* that he's doing something and each time his proposals get shot down, it sets a nasty precedent for our future (YOUR future and mine.)  A good example is legislative fiat.  Kamala Harris has already stated if elected she will use the same misuse of Executive Powers to confiscate firearms in the U.S.
> 
> You're never going to catch on to the way political psychology, political warfare, psychopolitics, and legal precedents are used so this is a waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Supporting economic and immigration policies that serve the interests of the American workers is a valid political position. That you
> mis-characterize that as "not being willing to work" is just you not being able to defend YOUR political position on it's actual merits.
> 
> 
> 2. Don't recall now. YOu are the one that cut the previous posts, not me.
> 
> 3. Your point about not trusting the information provided by hostile countries is quite valid. Which is why we should not be accepting ANY immigrants from hostile nations. And wanting to know if the people we are inviting into our communities are violent criminals or terrorists, is hardly "neo-nazi horseshit".
> 
> 4. I've been hearing plenty from employers that cant' find workers at the wage they are offering, and some interesting stats starting to come out about rising wages. Your concern about political posturing is valid but there does seem to be some real movement here.
Click to expand...


1)  Correll, I offer cash gigs for people to work AND I help people get a second chance in life.  The doors are always open and I'm always seeking people that want to work.  For you to continue implying that this isn't true destroys your argument if anyone is paying attention.

I am doing things to get Americans back on the payroll.  Other than denying reality and posting 51,395 posts on this board alone, what are you really doing to help your fellow man?  

2)  You bitched about the size of my posts.  Now, you want the multi-paragraph posts?  Fine.  Pick *A QUESTION*... any question - not your standard laundry list and I'll devote ten or twelve paragraphs to it.  You will get a full and complete answer of which you will not be able to factually refute

3)  Your allegation insofar as implying I'd let terrorists in is a straw man argument that negates the possibility of you ever being able to debate *ANYONE* who disagrees with you.  It is certainly an allegation that when I am making public appearances I want you to go in front of a mic and repeat

4)  My position is quite simple.  If we create incentives for employers to hire Americans, they will.  Then there is part 2 to this conversation... the part you and I have never had.  

If employers are left to hire whomever they choose - and they don't have to hire X number of black people, Y number of women or Z number of gays, lesbians, transgender, etc. how many do you think would prefer employees that looked and thought like the owners of the company?

The proper way to conduct a job interview and background check is to look someone in the eye, face to face.  All this Internet stuff is pure B.S. since you can hire some jackass to make you look good on screen.  Then you have an application with places for previous employers and personal references.  This is a lot more relevant than pulling someone's criminal record and denying them a job over a single 25 year old misdemeanor (and I see it happen all the time.)  What the people who know you right now and over the last 5 to 7 years is more important than what a lying government has to say.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.a. I do not know what legal travesty  you are referring to, but a foreigner who entered here against our laws is breaking the laws by being here. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar or a fool.
> 
> 1b. The American people have a process by which to change the law if they want the Open Border you describe. They have not. YOur argument that they support the presence of people that are here illegally does not make any sense.
> 
> 
> 2. You made that point. I responded. That you ignored my response and reasserted your position is the logical fallacy of Proof by Assertion. You just admitted that you cannot refute my points, and that you know my point about the Right of Self Determination is correct.
> 
> 
> 3. My description of the behavior of you and others like you, is not an assumption, but a observation of your behavior.  Your denial of open border types is not credible.
> 
> 
> 4. Your speculation about what Trump is thinking is noted. My point about his platform being the most aggressive on this issue stands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Correll, are you a fucking idiot?  A foreigner is *NOT* committing a crime by law by being here.  It is strictly a civil matter.  WTF?  Are you c*ompletely STUPID?  You are wrong and there is no argument here
> *
> 2)  What?  That made even less sense the second time.  If you think you're in a formal debate, you lost that eons ago.  WTF are you saying?
> 
> 3)  Denial of what you cannot prove exists?  You can't even give an example.  You want a militarized border and you want to make a blanket accusation your dumb ass cannot prove.  Like I said, if you like walls and fences so damn much, try prison... maybe a mental facility (that's probably where you belong)
> 
> 4)  I don't speculate about Trump.  Past behavior is a good indicator of future performance.  Keep that duly noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your support of the illegals is noted. Why do you care more for their interests than the interests and rights of your fellow citizens?
> 
> 2. You made a claim and when challenged, all you did was make the claim again. That is an admission that you cannot refute my counterpoints. That is true regardless of the level of formality.
> 
> 3. Your desire to allow foreigners to flow into our nation unchecked and unvetted, while denying that there are open border people, is a sign of irrationality on your part.
> 
> 4. Trump has been more aggressive on the issue of immigration, legal and illegal than anyone in living memory. That is current behavior, and you are attacking him for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  Your inability to reason and the stupid shit you  say that only cowards will say and only when they don't have to be held accountable (as in with their real name or in a public setting) is duly noted.  As for me personally, I have a ministry where I try to find people that *want* a second chance and are *willing to work* for it.  It isn't a handout; they work and go to school and / or get job training.  We help.  *What are you doing in that regard?
> *
> 2*)  *What claim do you allege that has not been addressed a dozen times?  If I have been asked and addressed it, you better hope that we don't address it again here lest you be branded a liar by your own words
> 
> 3)  This absolute horseshit of "_unchecked and unvetted_" foreigners is nutcase neo-Nazi *HORSESHIT*.  If a foreign country wants to send you a bad apple, they sure as Hell aren't going to tell you.  Mexico has printed up comic books instructing their citizens how to avoid our border patrol.  Only an idiot would give their background check info any credibility.
> 
> *OTOH*, since we have the 14th Amendment, many Americans are kept out of jobs for doing things that *ARE NOT* recorded in foreign countries (i.e. domestic family problems, drug / alcohol convictions, etc.)  A lot of things that are felonies in the U.S. aren't crimes in many other countries.  The *ONLY* people you're hurting are Americans
> 
> 4)  Trump has given you the* illusion* that he's doing something and each time his proposals get shot down, it sets a nasty precedent for our future (YOUR future and mine.)  A good example is legislative fiat.  Kamala Harris has already stated if elected she will use the same misuse of Executive Powers to confiscate firearms in the U.S.
> 
> You're never going to catch on to the way political psychology, political warfare, psychopolitics, and legal precedents are used so this is a waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Supporting economic and immigration policies that serve the interests of the American workers is a valid political position. That you
> mis-characterize that as "not being willing to work" is just you not being able to defend YOUR political position on it's actual merits.
> 
> 
> 2. Don't recall now. YOu are the one that cut the previous posts, not me.
> 
> 3. Your point about not trusting the information provided by hostile countries is quite valid. Which is why we should not be accepting ANY immigrants from hostile nations. And wanting to know if the people we are inviting into our communities are violent criminals or terrorists, is hardly "neo-nazi horseshit".
> 
> 4. I've been hearing plenty from employers that cant' find workers at the wage they are offering, and some interesting stats starting to come out about rising wages. Your concern about political posturing is valid but there does seem to be some real movement here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  Correll, I offer cash gigs for people to work AND I help people get a second chance in life.  The doors are always open and I'm always seeking people that want to work.  For you to continue implying that this isn't true destroys your argument if anyone is paying attention.
> 
> I am doing things to get Americans back on the payroll.  Other than denying reality and posting 51,395 posts on this board alone, what are you really doing to help your fellow man?
> 
> 2)  You bitched about the size of my posts.  Now, you want the multi-paragraph posts?  Fine.  Pick *A QUESTION*... any question - not your standard laundry list and I'll devote ten or twelve paragraphs to it.  You will get a full and complete answer of which you will not be able to factually refute
> 
> 3)  Your allegation insofar as implying I'd let terrorists in is a straw man argument that negates the possibility of you ever being able to debate *ANYONE* who disagrees with you.  It is certainly an allegation that when I am making public appearances I want you to go in front of a mic and repeat
> 
> 4)  My position is quite simple.  If we create incentives for employers to hire Americans, they will.  Then there is part 2 to this conversation... the part you and I have never had.
> 
> If employers are left to hire whomever they choose - and they don't have to hire X number of black people, Y number of women or Z number of gays, lesbians, transgender, etc. how many do you think would prefer employees that looked and thought like the owners of the company?
> 
> The proper way to conduct a job interview and background check is to look someone in the eye, face to face.  All this Internet stuff is pure B.S. since you can hire some jackass to make you look good on screen.  Then you have an application with places for previous employers and personal references.  This is a lot more relevant than pulling someone's criminal record and denying them a job over a single 25 year old misdemeanor (and I see it happen all the time.)  What the people who know you right now and over the last 5 to 7 years is more important than what a lying government has to say.
Click to expand...





1. If the labor market is flooded with cheap immigrant labor, the America worker is never going to get ahead. It is that simple.

2. Cutting pasts post and then asking what we were talking about, is not the opposite of 12 paragraph posts. I don't do either of them, and I have no problem making my points.

3. If you support letting people walk into the country, unchecked and unvetted, then you are letting in whoever can afford to get to the southern border. 

4. Why incentives? Just create a labor market that gives the power to the American worker. 


5. I agree the hiring process is screwed up. I do not think that most employers would discriminate like you think.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  If you saw what was happening in America, you would educate yourself as to the facts
> 
> 2)  Yes, our problems *are* due to our culture.  You are a glowing example with your tens of thousands of posts and* NO* ability to give a sensible answer because you're like that entire generation of Americans:  clueless, uneducated, lazy, uninformed, and working for the enemy without knowing it.
> 
> Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply and have more people on drugs per capita than anywhere in the world.  We have more people in prisons than anywhere on the planet.  Half of the American people are dependent on the government for their daily bread and too lazy to look for a job... and IF they do, they are covered in tattoos and body piercings with no education, no job skills, no driver's license, and no common sense.  Yes, you have a culture problem
> 
> 3)  Since you denounce multiculturalism, you've represented that you understand the 14th Amendment.  Glad you won't be saying "_illegal"_ any longer
> 
> 4)  Nonresponsive
> 
> 5)  Competition is good for business.  Get your generation off drugs and give employers their Rights back.  Make our culture strong then tell the government to allow companies to hire who they want.  All you're saying is that you are too lazy, stupid and incompetent to compete with third worlders for entry level jobs
> 
> 6)  Nazis, regardless of their numbers, own and control your talking points on the immigration issue.  The CFR is a small group too, but look at their influence.  You need to get democracy out of your head
> 
> 7)  Straw man argument that is beneath even your dumb ass so no response is necessary
> 
> 8)  Since you've been siding with Nazis, the CFR and others working to destroy America I'm sure you will begin studying the issue and quit working for those who are destroying America... if you believe your own rhetoric
> 
> 9)  The Two United States and the Law
> 
> http://understandcontractlawandyouwin.com/state-citizenship-federal-citizenship/
> 
> 10)  Non responsive
> 
> You're an idiot Correll.  You bitch about the size of my posts and give me TEN things to respond to?  And then you aren't going to read the answers?  Then you're going to repeat the same bullshit as if that will change things?  What if someone else reads this AND DOES FOLLOW THE LINKS AND DOES THE RESEARCH????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. My point was that I can see the damage that illegal immigration is doing to this country and you seem not to, or not to care. That your response was nothing but snark, was a dodge, because you cannot refute what I said. My point stands. I can see the damage and you can't or don't care.
> 
> 
> 2. You complain about my style of posting, but you keep getting confused. You said illegal immigration is caused by our culture and I said it was not. My point stands.
> 
> 3. I denounced multiculturalism. You conclude, without explaining how, that that means I understand the 14th and also without explanation conclude that I won't be saying "illegal" any more.  Dude. You are terrible at guessing what I mean. Don't make ANY connections without asking me about them first. YOu SUCK at that. SUCK!
> 
> 
> 4. Foreigners are let into this country by a corrupt political class, not because of our culture.
> 
> 5. Calling me names, is not an argument. My point stands. Cheap labor is good for employers, not employees. Address that, and drop the shit.
> 
> 6. Nazis are an insignificant fringe. If you have a problem with an idea or a policy, explain the problem, don't play silly Kevin Bacon games.
> 
> 
> 7. You are the one that mentioned high taxes and Nazis next to each other, and you play conflating games ALL THE TIME.
> 
> 8.  Can you vague that up a bit? I almost followed your "logic" there for a second. Actually that was a lie. YOu went off the deep end, immediately.
> 
> 
> 9. Got it, you hoped I would not ask, and you don't want to explain.
> 
> 10.  Everything I posted was a response to a point your raised. You don't want 10 responses? Be more concise. Wander less. Avoid making wild leaps and assigning me blame based on stuff that only exists in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  I see the damage* MY own countrymen* are causing their own country by lowering their standards and taking a piss on their own culture.  I realize if they were off their sorry asses (as opposed to posting 50,000 posts on the Internet) we probably would have no problems with foreigners
> 
> 2) You want scapegoats not solutions
> 
> 3)  You suck because you are talking out both sides of your mouth.  IF you *support *the 14th Amendment, there are no "_illegal aliens_" as you mistakenly think because the 14th Amendment guarantees the equal protection of the laws to *ALL PERSONS*.  "All Persons" has been defined by the United States Supreme Court to include foreigners, regardless of immigration status
> 
> 4)  Foreigners come here to work jobs willingly offered because of shitsacks that won't work, do drugs, have a criminal history, and friends like you that want their records preserved forever to the benefit of employers who then reject them and never give them a second chance
> 
> 5)  I have responded to your point... what?  Fifty times since we've been arguing on this board???  When a foreigner takes a job, it creates *MORE* wealth.  Unlike you, the foreigner is working.  They work for less, creating more profits, and giving the employer more productivity.  That means they spend more money in the community.  a twenty something year old Hispanic is more likely to have 2 kids or more, a house, and other bills.  You probably live in mommy's house, don't work (you're here all the time) and don't contribute anything to the community
> 
> 6)  Nazis control your talking points; own the think tanks from which you get your erroneous ideas; were the first to begin the talk that fences and walls would solve a deeper problem.  You can call them fringe all you like, but only a total fucking idiot would deny their influence and their position.  I've documented it for you how many times?
> 
> 7)  I mentioned high taxes, but I did not blame the Nazis.  I BLAME YOU
> 
> 8)  I have not lied to you and I'm not going to read mountains of text to figure out your allegation.  Spit it out or admit that you are covering yet another fallacy you got busted on
> 
> 9)  I'm ready to explain anything to you.  But, after it's explained, you don't read the damn posts, then want to filibuster all day long.  WTF?  Do you want the explanation or not?  If you read it *one time,* you wouldn't have to post 100 posts denying that I have responded to you and explained it unequivocally
> 
> 10)  I'm responding to you.  One minute you're bitching that I don't explain this stuff to you; then end with more bitching because the answer don't fit on a bumper sticker (only exposing your lack of reading and comprehension skills)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. My work ethic is fine and not the cause of millions of foreigners crossing the border is violation of our democratically enacted laws and our Right of Self Determination.
> 
> 
> 2. Nope. I want solutions. The scapegoat thing is something you made up out of whole cloth.
> 
> 3. The Supreme Court was suicidality stupid in deciding that people who entered illegally and stay here illegally and have to falsify records and taxes in order to work here, are " subject to the jurisdiction" of our laws. That was an obvious mistake and in a sane world would have been reversed immediately.
> 
> 4. My point stands.  Foreigners are let into this country by a corrupt political class, not because of our culture. Your contempt of your fellow Americans does not change that.
> 
> 5. Lower work cost might be good for macro-economic numbers and employers. It is not good for employees, and the nation as a whole. It is the right of those employees and those that identify with them, to seek political representation for their interests. Your hostility to this has not been explained.
> 
> 
> 6. Nazis are an irrelevant fringe. If a nazi is for good dental hygiene, it does not make me a nazi to brush my teeth.
> 
> 7. How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  We are not a democracy.  So, you just exposed yourself as a social democrat
> 
> 2)  You want scapegoats.  If a willing employer hires a willing worker, what Right are you denied?
> 
> 3)  The United States Supreme Court did nothing you falsely accused them of.  According to the Chief Actuary of the Socialist Security Administration, about 75 percent of all undocumented foreigners get an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number and pay the same illegal / unconstitutional / immoral / indefensible/ federal tax that you do.  Nice to see you're still defending a plank from the Communist Manifesto AND lying about it with joy in your heart and a smile on your face
> 
> 4)  Foreigners come here because the *Constitution so allows*.  The ONLY thing regulating the process is laws pushed by Ted Kennedy and an unconstitutional power grab by the United States Supreme Court
> 
> 5) You do not understand basic economics much less macro economics and virtually every economist (including those on the far right admit that foreign labor is profitable.)  My case rests on the premise that money should not be the only factor.  My hostility is toward you because you are a pathological liar that has had this shit explained in detail and, on other threads, you did not read it NOR even formulate a responsive post on the points that you made which are in error
> 
> 6)  Saying Nazis are a fringe group may make you happy, but you have your head so far up their asses, you don't get a breath of fresh air til one of the farts.  Perhaps that is why you don't understand
> 
> 7)  How so?  How so what???  What are you asking?
> 
> Look, if you want me to rehash the same stuff I beat you up with on three other threads, we can go there.  You'll just get your ass stomped into the ground again.  You couldn't defend your crap on the other threads; have admitted you don't read the posts, so what... you think we might help someone understand what a poseur you really are if I post proof for a sixth time (at least that many times) that you have *FAILED* to answer???
> 
> I don't need 20 questions every exchange.  Tell us the truth.
> 
> Prior to David Duke, what American in all of U.S. history,  proposed the laws you support that would be put into place under the pretext of enforcing the wall?  *Can you name even ONE?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. We are a Constitutional republic with our government's legitimacy based on the consent of the governed. Referencing the source of that legitimacy is not admitting that I am a social democrat.  Calling me a name, was just a dodge of my point about illegal immigration violating our Right to Self Determination, which still stands. And which you have not addressed though I have brought it up many times.
> 
> 
> 2. I am denied my right of self determination. We as a nation, have the right to define who we are and how we live. Being flooded by the Turd World is not how I want America to be.
> 
> 3. How do they legally get a number when they are here illegally? And don't think that I didn't notice that you ignore the other crimes I mentioned. They are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of our laws
> 
> 4. Immigration was regulated and controlled WAY before Ted Kennedy.
> 
> Ellis Island - Wikipedia
> 
> *"Ellis Island* is a museum and former immigration inspection station in New York Harbor, within the states of New York and New Jersey. It was the gateway for over 12 million immigrants to the United States as the nation's busiest immigrant inspection station from 1892 until 1954"
> 
> for one very limited example. Ted Kennedy, who I agree is a villain, was not born until 1932, 3O years after Ellis Island started inspecting and controlling immigration. I have know that your claims about who invented certain ideas in America was wrong, and this time I was able to easily and clearly show it.
> 
> 
> My point stands. Foreigners are let into this country by a corrupt political class, not because of our culture. Your contempt of your fellow Americans does not change that.
> 
> 
> 
> 5. I agree that economics should not be the only factor considered. My point about low wages being bad for American workers stands, and nothing in your post explains why you oppose higher wages, or why you consider it wrong of me to want that.
> 
> 
> 6. Saying the Nazis are a fringe group does make me happy. It is a good thing. And I like speaking the Truth to panic mongers who want to panic people for no good reason.
> 
> 
> 7. HOw do you blame me for high taxes?
> 
> 
> 8. I know that there were anti-immigration movements in the past. The specific tools would have been different because the times were different. Supporting a wall between US and Mexico, when the vast majority of immigration was coming from Europe, would have been senseless, but the idea of being anti-immigration was certainly there.
Click to expand...



1)  I don't know what point you're alleging I'm dodging, but spit it out.  What does that even mean that _"illegal immigration"_ violates your Right to Self Determination (sic?)

2)  I realize that this is going to come as a great big fucking surprise to you since you don't pay attention, but in many of my long posts I have stated many many times that America cannot be all things to all people and what America is about is stated in the Preamble to the Constitution:

"_We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and *secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity*_..."

Can you read that bolded portion?  Where do you see me advocating for turning America into a third world country?  Take a look at this country's FIRST naturalization law (I've posted it over 20 times.)  Where does it allow for the third world to gain equal political status with you or I?

3)  If people were not subject to the jurisdiction of our laws, we would have no jurisdiction to deport them.  As for taxes, the IRS is a quasi private corporation and they don't give a shit who you are or where you come from.  If money passes hands, they want their piece of the pie.  So again, Individual Taxpayer Identification Number.  Immigration status is no bar to owing the tax according to the IRS.  

If / when people commit crimes, they are prosecuted regardless of their immigration status.  OTOH, they also have the Right to a presumption of innocence due to the 14th Amendment (which, BTW, I believe to have been illegally ratified)

4)  America has had foreigners regulated since the Mayflower hit the shores of the New World in 1620.  However, this process has been done by different levels of government at different times.  From your own article:

"_The federal government assumed control of immigration on April 18, 1890_"

Here are the serious questions for you Correll:

A)  Where, in the Constitution, does the federal government have the authority to tell the states who can and cannot come to that respective state?

B)  PRIOR to 1890 the federal government *did not* have control over immigration.  Obviously if someone were regulating the flow of foreigners and it was not the federal government, somebody did it for that period between 1789 and 1890  *A FULL CENTURY OF REGULATION WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY YOUR OWN LINK!
*
C)  HOW did the federal government, after a century end up controlling the flow of foreigners?  Which Amendment changed that?

5)  Aside from your bold assertions that you've done stuff you most assuredly have not, you have added to your abject stupidity by saying I'm against paying Americans high wages.  In fact, I drafted legislation that I propose to my congresscritters twice each year to give strong incentives to employers to hire Americans and pay higher wages.  You continue to lie about proving me wrong - YOU NEVER HAVE AND NEVER WILL and you lie to yourself about me.  NOBODY is buying your bullshit.  Not even you...

6)  Whether you are a "_fringe_" group or just one of their bitches is irrelevant.  National Socialist solutions prevail and you are all in.  You won't even consider anything else - which is why you are spreading the horseshit thick as you can on this thread and LYING like a New York politician.  Real change *NEVER* happens among the masses

7)  I blame you for high taxes because you *lie like Hell* about me and YOU propose a government so big that the average person could never resist a tyrannical government.  You endorse a plank out of the Communist Manifesto by falsely accusing foreigners of not paying that unconstitutional tax.  You sabotaged our efforts to get rid of the income tax, the IRS, and make the tax burden equal on all (regardless of immigration status, income level, etc.)  YOU are part of that bunch that want Orwellian National ID tied to your Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_."  That is two points you are, by your own admission, advocating socialism on

8)  Did you realize that in 1953 we had the lowest unemployment rates in U.S. history and people, like you, wanted a mass deportation - and so we did... and by the end of 1954 our unemployment rate DOUBLED in under five years and stayed above that 1953 level until recently???


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Mm, you say Trump "doesn't care" and it is all political posturing?
> 
> Check this one out.
> 
> 
> Trump’s Message to Immigrant Sponsors: You Want ‘Em? You Pay for ‘Em!



What Trump does is not relevant.  His record is in his losses in court.  If you're losing more times than you're winning, you are not accomplishing your goal... which is how he has you hoodwinked.

On that specific issue, he might win and I'd support that portion.  THAT is a *start *toward the solution.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You won't *READ* about history and the law, so you don't have a clue as to what I'd do to reverse the situation.  You are ignorant above any description and it would work to your advantage to* ASK QUESTIONS*, then take time to *READ* the answers before spewing horseshit.
> 
> I've tried to shame you into reading and learning what it is you're talking about.  That cannot be done.  I've tried nice, argumentative, and everything in between.  But, if you think for one minute that I back a plan that would make the U.S. look like L.A. you are a fucking idiot.  So, I'll be nice and presume that was pure fluff on your part.
> 
> You have not studied the concepts of state citizenship versus national citizenship; you know *NOTHING* about the separation of powers of the government; you have no concept of the limited role of the federal government in a de jure / lawful / constitutional Republic and, worse, you don't have a damn clue as to how many constitutional violations it took on the part of the government to get us where we are today.
> 
> Without a clear cut knowledge of that history along with what our laws really say, you are too deaf, dumb, and blind to understand how you reverse course, retain the Liberties of the people, and watch Nancy Pelosi and her ilk change course as opposed to playing you like a fine tuned fiddle.  The reality of your situation is that you are playing the part of a useful idiot (the left's terminology) for liberals; you refuse to educate yourself; your wall will never be completed; the peripheral laws / policies you are helping along will not only counteract your own lobbying, but will serve to stop future generations from seeking to be free from tyranny.  THAT makes you dangerous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can watch a stream of millions of Mexicans flowing into America and see what it is doing to America.
> 
> 
> You can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the right wing is worse.
> 
> we have no immigration clause.
> 
> and, we should have no illegal problem or any illegal underclass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that sided with the rapist instead of his child victim, because the rapist was a Mexican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know how to read our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why you sided with the rapist instead of his child victim?
Click to expand...

we have no immigration clause.

and, we should have no illegal problem or any illegal underclass.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Correll, are you a fucking idiot?  A foreigner is *NOT* committing a crime by law by being here.  It is strictly a civil matter.  WTF?  Are you c*ompletely STUPID?  You are wrong and there is no argument here
> *
> 2)  What?  That made even less sense the second time.  If you think you're in a formal debate, you lost that eons ago.  WTF are you saying?
> 
> 3)  Denial of what you cannot prove exists?  You can't even give an example.  You want a militarized border and you want to make a blanket accusation your dumb ass cannot prove.  Like I said, if you like walls and fences so damn much, try prison... maybe a mental facility (that's probably where you belong)
> 
> 4)  I don't speculate about Trump.  Past behavior is a good indicator of future performance.  Keep that duly noted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your support of the illegals is noted. Why do you care more for their interests than the interests and rights of your fellow citizens?
> 
> 2. You made a claim and when challenged, all you did was make the claim again. That is an admission that you cannot refute my counterpoints. That is true regardless of the level of formality.
> 
> 3. Your desire to allow foreigners to flow into our nation unchecked and unvetted, while denying that there are open border people, is a sign of irrationality on your part.
> 
> 4. Trump has been more aggressive on the issue of immigration, legal and illegal than anyone in living memory. That is current behavior, and you are attacking him for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  Your inability to reason and the stupid shit you  say that only cowards will say and only when they don't have to be held accountable (as in with their real name or in a public setting) is duly noted.  As for me personally, I have a ministry where I try to find people that *want* a second chance and are *willing to work* for it.  It isn't a handout; they work and go to school and / or get job training.  We help.  *What are you doing in that regard?
> *
> 2*)  *What claim do you allege that has not been addressed a dozen times?  If I have been asked and addressed it, you better hope that we don't address it again here lest you be branded a liar by your own words
> 
> 3)  This absolute horseshit of "_unchecked and unvetted_" foreigners is nutcase neo-Nazi *HORSESHIT*.  If a foreign country wants to send you a bad apple, they sure as Hell aren't going to tell you.  Mexico has printed up comic books instructing their citizens how to avoid our border patrol.  Only an idiot would give their background check info any credibility.
> 
> *OTOH*, since we have the 14th Amendment, many Americans are kept out of jobs for doing things that *ARE NOT* recorded in foreign countries (i.e. domestic family problems, drug / alcohol convictions, etc.)  A lot of things that are felonies in the U.S. aren't crimes in many other countries.  The *ONLY* people you're hurting are Americans
> 
> 4)  Trump has given you the* illusion* that he's doing something and each time his proposals get shot down, it sets a nasty precedent for our future (YOUR future and mine.)  A good example is legislative fiat.  Kamala Harris has already stated if elected she will use the same misuse of Executive Powers to confiscate firearms in the U.S.
> 
> You're never going to catch on to the way political psychology, political warfare, psychopolitics, and legal precedents are used so this is a waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Supporting economic and immigration policies that serve the interests of the American workers is a valid political position. That you
> mis-characterize that as "not being willing to work" is just you not being able to defend YOUR political position on it's actual merits.
> 
> 
> 2. Don't recall now. YOu are the one that cut the previous posts, not me.
> 
> 3. Your point about not trusting the information provided by hostile countries is quite valid. Which is why we should not be accepting ANY immigrants from hostile nations. And wanting to know if the people we are inviting into our communities are violent criminals or terrorists, is hardly "neo-nazi horseshit".
> 
> 4. I've been hearing plenty from employers that cant' find workers at the wage they are offering, and some interesting stats starting to come out about rising wages. Your concern about political posturing is valid but there does seem to be some real movement here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  Correll, I offer cash gigs for people to work AND I help people get a second chance in life.  The doors are always open and I'm always seeking people that want to work.  For you to continue implying that this isn't true destroys your argument if anyone is paying attention.
> 
> I am doing things to get Americans back on the payroll.  Other than denying reality and posting 51,395 posts on this board alone, what are you really doing to help your fellow man?
> 
> 2)  You bitched about the size of my posts.  Now, you want the multi-paragraph posts?  Fine.  Pick *A QUESTION*... any question - not your standard laundry list and I'll devote ten or twelve paragraphs to it.  You will get a full and complete answer of which you will not be able to factually refute
> 
> 3)  Your allegation insofar as implying I'd let terrorists in is a straw man argument that negates the possibility of you ever being able to debate *ANYONE* who disagrees with you.  It is certainly an allegation that when I am making public appearances I want you to go in front of a mic and repeat
> 
> 4)  My position is quite simple.  If we create incentives for employers to hire Americans, they will.  Then there is part 2 to this conversation... the part you and I have never had.
> 
> If employers are left to hire whomever they choose - and they don't have to hire X number of black people, Y number of women or Z number of gays, lesbians, transgender, etc. how many do you think would prefer employees that looked and thought like the owners of the company?
> 
> The proper way to conduct a job interview and background check is to look someone in the eye, face to face.  All this Internet stuff is pure B.S. since you can hire some jackass to make you look good on screen.  Then you have an application with places for previous employers and personal references.  This is a lot more relevant than pulling someone's criminal record and denying them a job over a single 25 year old misdemeanor (and I see it happen all the time.)  What the people who know you right now and over the last 5 to 7 years is more important than what a lying government has to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If the labor market is flooded with cheap immigrant labor, the America worker is never going to get ahead. It is that simple.
> 
> 2. Cutting pasts post and then asking what we were talking about, is not the opposite of 12 paragraph posts. I don't do either of them, and I have no problem making my points.
> 
> 3. If you support letting people walk into the country, unchecked and unvetted, then you are letting in whoever can afford to get to the southern border.
> 
> 4. Why incentives? Just create a labor market that gives the power to the American worker.
> 
> 
> 5. I agree the hiring process is screwed up. I do not think that most employers would discriminate like you think.
Click to expand...



Correll, I don't know what world you live in, but I have a Mexican working for me today.  He will be paid in cash.  For six hours work he will be paid $275.  He will be responsible for whatever taxes you would be.  Do you honest to God think that he's being underpaid and his highest level of education is a high school diploma?

In your walls of text you have not made a point.  You've lied about me, repeated erroneous information over and over, made straw man arguments, and made bold assertions your ass can't back up.  That's it.

How do you define Liberty, Correll?  Can you answer that?

Why would I give incentives to employers?  It's because they own the jobs they create and are not (in our constitutional Republic) bound to hire any specific individual.  But, we have tools at our disposal.  We can deny business licenses OR we can incentivize people by cutting their taxes if they agree to pay higher wages and an all American workforce.  If they want el cheapo labor and you can't find a job, then stay at home and get a check from Uncle Scam.  The tax burden will then change the minds of employers.

If employers would not hire - say an all white staff, how come we have laws to prevent it?  Do we owe the transgender jobs?  Do we owe the Muslim a job?  Should I be forced to hire you when you don't have any work ethic?  When employers cannot hire the employees of their choice, they leave.  Ever wonder how China got to be so powerful in recent years?


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. My point was that I can see the damage that illegal immigration is doing to this country and you seem not to, or not to care. That your response was nothing but snark, was a dodge, because you cannot refute what I said. My point stands. I can see the damage and you can't or don't care.
> 
> 
> 2. You complain about my style of posting, but you keep getting confused. You said illegal immigration is caused by our culture and I said it was not. My point stands.
> 
> 3. I denounced multiculturalism. You conclude, without explaining how, that that means I understand the 14th and also without explanation conclude that I won't be saying "illegal" any more.  Dude. You are terrible at guessing what I mean. Don't make ANY connections without asking me about them first. YOu SUCK at that. SUCK!
> 
> 
> 4. Foreigners are let into this country by a corrupt political class, not because of our culture.
> 
> 5. Calling me names, is not an argument. My point stands. Cheap labor is good for employers, not employees. Address that, and drop the shit.
> 
> 6. Nazis are an insignificant fringe. If you have a problem with an idea or a policy, explain the problem, don't play silly Kevin Bacon games.
> 
> 
> 7. You are the one that mentioned high taxes and Nazis next to each other, and you play conflating games ALL THE TIME.
> 
> 8.  Can you vague that up a bit? I almost followed your "logic" there for a second. Actually that was a lie. YOu went off the deep end, immediately.
> 
> 
> 9. Got it, you hoped I would not ask, and you don't want to explain.
> 
> 10.  Everything I posted was a response to a point your raised. You don't want 10 responses? Be more concise. Wander less. Avoid making wild leaps and assigning me blame based on stuff that only exists in your head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  I see the damage* MY own countrymen* are causing their own country by lowering their standards and taking a piss on their own culture.  I realize if they were off their sorry asses (as opposed to posting 50,000 posts on the Internet) we probably would have no problems with foreigners
> 
> 2) You want scapegoats not solutions
> 
> 3)  You suck because you are talking out both sides of your mouth.  IF you *support *the 14th Amendment, there are no "_illegal aliens_" as you mistakenly think because the 14th Amendment guarantees the equal protection of the laws to *ALL PERSONS*.  "All Persons" has been defined by the United States Supreme Court to include foreigners, regardless of immigration status
> 
> 4)  Foreigners come here to work jobs willingly offered because of shitsacks that won't work, do drugs, have a criminal history, and friends like you that want their records preserved forever to the benefit of employers who then reject them and never give them a second chance
> 
> 5)  I have responded to your point... what?  Fifty times since we've been arguing on this board???  When a foreigner takes a job, it creates *MORE* wealth.  Unlike you, the foreigner is working.  They work for less, creating more profits, and giving the employer more productivity.  That means they spend more money in the community.  a twenty something year old Hispanic is more likely to have 2 kids or more, a house, and other bills.  You probably live in mommy's house, don't work (you're here all the time) and don't contribute anything to the community
> 
> 6)  Nazis control your talking points; own the think tanks from which you get your erroneous ideas; were the first to begin the talk that fences and walls would solve a deeper problem.  You can call them fringe all you like, but only a total fucking idiot would deny their influence and their position.  I've documented it for you how many times?
> 
> 7)  I mentioned high taxes, but I did not blame the Nazis.  I BLAME YOU
> 
> 8)  I have not lied to you and I'm not going to read mountains of text to figure out your allegation.  Spit it out or admit that you are covering yet another fallacy you got busted on
> 
> 9)  I'm ready to explain anything to you.  But, after it's explained, you don't read the damn posts, then want to filibuster all day long.  WTF?  Do you want the explanation or not?  If you read it *one time,* you wouldn't have to post 100 posts denying that I have responded to you and explained it unequivocally
> 
> 10)  I'm responding to you.  One minute you're bitching that I don't explain this stuff to you; then end with more bitching because the answer don't fit on a bumper sticker (only exposing your lack of reading and comprehension skills)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. My work ethic is fine and not the cause of millions of foreigners crossing the border is violation of our democratically enacted laws and our Right of Self Determination.
> 
> 
> 2. Nope. I want solutions. The scapegoat thing is something you made up out of whole cloth.
> 
> 3. The Supreme Court was suicidality stupid in deciding that people who entered illegally and stay here illegally and have to falsify records and taxes in order to work here, are " subject to the jurisdiction" of our laws. That was an obvious mistake and in a sane world would have been reversed immediately.
> 
> 4. My point stands.  Foreigners are let into this country by a corrupt political class, not because of our culture. Your contempt of your fellow Americans does not change that.
> 
> 5. Lower work cost might be good for macro-economic numbers and employers. It is not good for employees, and the nation as a whole. It is the right of those employees and those that identify with them, to seek political representation for their interests. Your hostility to this has not been explained.
> 
> 
> 6. Nazis are an irrelevant fringe. If a nazi is for good dental hygiene, it does not make me a nazi to brush my teeth.
> 
> 7. How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  We are not a democracy.  So, you just exposed yourself as a social democrat
> 
> 2)  You want scapegoats.  If a willing employer hires a willing worker, what Right are you denied?
> 
> 3)  The United States Supreme Court did nothing you falsely accused them of.  According to the Chief Actuary of the Socialist Security Administration, about 75 percent of all undocumented foreigners get an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number and pay the same illegal / unconstitutional / immoral / indefensible/ federal tax that you do.  Nice to see you're still defending a plank from the Communist Manifesto AND lying about it with joy in your heart and a smile on your face
> 
> 4)  Foreigners come here because the *Constitution so allows*.  The ONLY thing regulating the process is laws pushed by Ted Kennedy and an unconstitutional power grab by the United States Supreme Court
> 
> 5) You do not understand basic economics much less macro economics and virtually every economist (including those on the far right admit that foreign labor is profitable.)  My case rests on the premise that money should not be the only factor.  My hostility is toward you because you are a pathological liar that has had this shit explained in detail and, on other threads, you did not read it NOR even formulate a responsive post on the points that you made which are in error
> 
> 6)  Saying Nazis are a fringe group may make you happy, but you have your head so far up their asses, you don't get a breath of fresh air til one of the farts.  Perhaps that is why you don't understand
> 
> 7)  How so?  How so what???  What are you asking?
> 
> Look, if you want me to rehash the same stuff I beat you up with on three other threads, we can go there.  You'll just get your ass stomped into the ground again.  You couldn't defend your crap on the other threads; have admitted you don't read the posts, so what... you think we might help someone understand what a poseur you really are if I post proof for a sixth time (at least that many times) that you have *FAILED* to answer???
> 
> I don't need 20 questions every exchange.  Tell us the truth.
> 
> Prior to David Duke, what American in all of U.S. history,  proposed the laws you support that would be put into place under the pretext of enforcing the wall?  *Can you name even ONE?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. We are a Constitutional republic with our government's legitimacy based on the consent of the governed. Referencing the source of that legitimacy is not admitting that I am a social democrat.  Calling me a name, was just a dodge of my point about illegal immigration violating our Right to Self Determination, which still stands. And which you have not addressed though I have brought it up many times.
> 
> 
> 2. I am denied my right of self determination. We as a nation, have the right to define who we are and how we live. Being flooded by the Turd World is not how I want America to be.
> 
> 3. How do they legally get a number when they are here illegally? And don't think that I didn't notice that you ignore the other crimes I mentioned. They are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of our laws
> 
> 4. Immigration was regulated and controlled WAY before Ted Kennedy.
> 
> Ellis Island - Wikipedia
> 
> *"Ellis Island* is a museum and former immigration inspection station in New York Harbor, within the states of New York and New Jersey. It was the gateway for over 12 million immigrants to the United States as the nation's busiest immigrant inspection station from 1892 until 1954"
> 
> for one very limited example. Ted Kennedy, who I agree is a villain, was not born until 1932, 3O years after Ellis Island started inspecting and controlling immigration. I have know that your claims about who invented certain ideas in America was wrong, and this time I was able to easily and clearly show it.
> 
> 
> My point stands. Foreigners are let into this country by a corrupt political class, not because of our culture. Your contempt of your fellow Americans does not change that.
> 
> 
> 
> 5. I agree that economics should not be the only factor considered. My point about low wages being bad for American workers stands, and nothing in your post explains why you oppose higher wages, or why you consider it wrong of me to want that.
> 
> 
> 6. Saying the Nazis are a fringe group does make me happy. It is a good thing. And I like speaking the Truth to panic mongers who want to panic people for no good reason.
> 
> 
> 7. HOw do you blame me for high taxes?
> 
> 
> 8. I know that there were anti-immigration movements in the past. The specific tools would have been different because the times were different. Supporting a wall between US and Mexico, when the vast majority of immigration was coming from Europe, would have been senseless, but the idea of being anti-immigration was certainly there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  I don't know what point you're alleging I'm dodging, but spit it out.  What does that even mean that _"illegal immigration"_ violates your Right to Self Determination (sic?)
> 
> 2)  I realize that this is going to come as a great big fucking surprise to you since you don't pay attention, but in many of my long posts I have stated many many times that America cannot be all things to all people and what America is about is stated in the Preamble to the Constitution:
> 
> "_We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and *secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity*_..."
> 
> Can you read that bolded portion?  Where do you see me advocating for turning America into a third world country?  Take a look at this country's FIRST naturalization law (I've posted it over 20 times.)  Where does it allow for the third world to gain equal political status with you or I?
> 
> 3)  If people were not subject to the jurisdiction of our laws, we would have no jurisdiction to deport them.  As for taxes, the IRS is a quasi private corporation and they don't give a shit who you are or where you come from.  If money passes hands, they want their piece of the pie.  So again, Individual Taxpayer Identification Number.  Immigration status is no bar to owing the tax according to the IRS.
> 
> If / when people commit crimes, they are prosecuted regardless of their immigration status.  OTOH, they also have the Right to a presumption of innocence due to the 14th Amendment (which, BTW, I believe to have been illegally ratified)
> 
> 4)  America has had foreigners regulated since the Mayflower hit the shores of the New World in 1620.  However, this process has been done by different levels of government at different times.  From your own article:
> 
> "_The federal government assumed control of immigration on April 18, 1890_"
> 
> Here are the serious questions for you Correll:
> 
> A)  Where, in the Constitution, does the federal government have the authority to tell the states who can and cannot come to that respective state?
> 
> B)  PRIOR to 1890 the federal government *did not* have control over immigration.  Obviously if someone were regulating the flow of foreigners and it was not the federal government, somebody did it for that period between 1789 and 1890  *A FULL CENTURY OF REGULATION WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY YOUR OWN LINK!
> *
> C)  HOW did the federal government, after a century end up controlling the flow of foreigners?  Which Amendment changed that?
> 
> 5)  Aside from your bold assertions that you've done stuff you most assuredly have not, you have added to your abject stupidity by saying I'm against paying Americans high wages.  In fact, I drafted legislation that I propose to my congresscritters twice each year to give strong incentives to employers to hire Americans and pay higher wages.  You continue to lie about proving me wrong - YOU NEVER HAVE AND NEVER WILL and you lie to yourself about me.  NOBODY is buying your bullshit.  Not even you...
> 
> 6)  Whether you are a "_fringe_" group or just one of their bitches is irrelevant.  National Socialist solutions prevail and you are all in.  You won't even consider anything else - which is why you are spreading the horseshit thick as you can on this thread and LYING like a New York politician.  Real change *NEVER* happens among the masses
> 
> 7)  I blame you for high taxes because you *lie like Hell* about me and YOU propose a government so big that the average person could never resist a tyrannical government.  You endorse a plank out of the Communist Manifesto by falsely accusing foreigners of not paying that unconstitutional tax.  You sabotaged our efforts to get rid of the income tax, the IRS, and make the tax burden equal on all (regardless of immigration status, income level, etc.)  YOU are part of that bunch that want Orwellian National ID tied to your Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_."  That is two points you are, by your own admission, advocating socialism on
> 
> 8)  Did you realize that in 1953 we had the lowest unemployment rates in U.S. history and people, like you, wanted a mass deportation - and so we did... and by the end of 1954 our unemployment rate DOUBLED in under five years and stayed above that 1953 level until recently???
Click to expand...





1.  We, as Americans have the right to self determination. A big part of that is having the right to decide who joins our community. When people enter illegally and stay, that right is violated.   You support that.


2. When you want to let people (mostly third world) walk across the border, against our wishes and join our society, you are supporting this nation being turned into a Third World shithole.

3. That we have the power to send some one home, maybe if we catch them, does not mean they are under our jurisdiction, and I've heard of quite a lot of those illegals ILLEGALLY copying someone ELSE'S numbers, often messing with their lives, a lot. They are here illegally, send their asses home.


4.  And just like that, you dropped your claim about Ted Kennedy coming up with the idea of immigration control. You don't like Federal control? Interesting. Let's talk about that a lot. AFTER WE SEND THE ILLEGALS HOME.

5. You support having Americans compete against unlimited, cheap and/or illegal labor. That has and will guarantee low wages for American workers.


6. Your desire to smear ideas, with the logical fallacy of attacking the messenger, is just a way to avoid dealing with the actual pros and cons of the issue.

7. The government was big way before I was born. NOT deporting the illegals, nor NOT building a Wall, is not going to make it smaller. 


8.  And now you just dropped the claim that David Duke invented it, thanks. DEPORT THEM ALL.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your support of the illegals is noted. Why do you care more for their interests than the interests and rights of your fellow citizens?
> 
> 2. You made a claim and when challenged, all you did was make the claim again. That is an admission that you cannot refute my counterpoints. That is true regardless of the level of formality.
> 
> 3. Your desire to allow foreigners to flow into our nation unchecked and unvetted, while denying that there are open border people, is a sign of irrationality on your part.
> 
> 4. Trump has been more aggressive on the issue of immigration, legal and illegal than anyone in living memory. That is current behavior, and you are attacking him for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Your inability to reason and the stupid shit you  say that only cowards will say and only when they don't have to be held accountable (as in with their real name or in a public setting) is duly noted.  As for me personally, I have a ministry where I try to find people that *want* a second chance and are *willing to work* for it.  It isn't a handout; they work and go to school and / or get job training.  We help.  *What are you doing in that regard?
> *
> 2*)  *What claim do you allege that has not been addressed a dozen times?  If I have been asked and addressed it, you better hope that we don't address it again here lest you be branded a liar by your own words
> 
> 3)  This absolute horseshit of "_unchecked and unvetted_" foreigners is nutcase neo-Nazi *HORSESHIT*.  If a foreign country wants to send you a bad apple, they sure as Hell aren't going to tell you.  Mexico has printed up comic books instructing their citizens how to avoid our border patrol.  Only an idiot would give their background check info any credibility.
> 
> *OTOH*, since we have the 14th Amendment, many Americans are kept out of jobs for doing things that *ARE NOT* recorded in foreign countries (i.e. domestic family problems, drug / alcohol convictions, etc.)  A lot of things that are felonies in the U.S. aren't crimes in many other countries.  The *ONLY* people you're hurting are Americans
> 
> 4)  Trump has given you the* illusion* that he's doing something and each time his proposals get shot down, it sets a nasty precedent for our future (YOUR future and mine.)  A good example is legislative fiat.  Kamala Harris has already stated if elected she will use the same misuse of Executive Powers to confiscate firearms in the U.S.
> 
> You're never going to catch on to the way political psychology, political warfare, psychopolitics, and legal precedents are used so this is a waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Supporting economic and immigration policies that serve the interests of the American workers is a valid political position. That you
> mis-characterize that as "not being willing to work" is just you not being able to defend YOUR political position on it's actual merits.
> 
> 
> 2. Don't recall now. YOu are the one that cut the previous posts, not me.
> 
> 3. Your point about not trusting the information provided by hostile countries is quite valid. Which is why we should not be accepting ANY immigrants from hostile nations. And wanting to know if the people we are inviting into our communities are violent criminals or terrorists, is hardly "neo-nazi horseshit".
> 
> 4. I've been hearing plenty from employers that cant' find workers at the wage they are offering, and some interesting stats starting to come out about rising wages. Your concern about political posturing is valid but there does seem to be some real movement here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  Correll, I offer cash gigs for people to work AND I help people get a second chance in life.  The doors are always open and I'm always seeking people that want to work.  For you to continue implying that this isn't true destroys your argument if anyone is paying attention.
> 
> I am doing things to get Americans back on the payroll.  Other than denying reality and posting 51,395 posts on this board alone, what are you really doing to help your fellow man?
> 
> 2)  You bitched about the size of my posts.  Now, you want the multi-paragraph posts?  Fine.  Pick *A QUESTION*... any question - not your standard laundry list and I'll devote ten or twelve paragraphs to it.  You will get a full and complete answer of which you will not be able to factually refute
> 
> 3)  Your allegation insofar as implying I'd let terrorists in is a straw man argument that negates the possibility of you ever being able to debate *ANYONE* who disagrees with you.  It is certainly an allegation that when I am making public appearances I want you to go in front of a mic and repeat
> 
> 4)  My position is quite simple.  If we create incentives for employers to hire Americans, they will.  Then there is part 2 to this conversation... the part you and I have never had.
> 
> If employers are left to hire whomever they choose - and they don't have to hire X number of black people, Y number of women or Z number of gays, lesbians, transgender, etc. how many do you think would prefer employees that looked and thought like the owners of the company?
> 
> The proper way to conduct a job interview and background check is to look someone in the eye, face to face.  All this Internet stuff is pure B.S. since you can hire some jackass to make you look good on screen.  Then you have an application with places for previous employers and personal references.  This is a lot more relevant than pulling someone's criminal record and denying them a job over a single 25 year old misdemeanor (and I see it happen all the time.)  What the people who know you right now and over the last 5 to 7 years is more important than what a lying government has to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If the labor market is flooded with cheap immigrant labor, the America worker is never going to get ahead. It is that simple.
> 
> 2. Cutting pasts post and then asking what we were talking about, is not the opposite of 12 paragraph posts. I don't do either of them, and I have no problem making my points.
> 
> 3. If you support letting people walk into the country, unchecked and unvetted, then you are letting in whoever can afford to get to the southern border.
> 
> 4. Why incentives? Just create a labor market that gives the power to the American worker.
> 
> 
> 5. I agree the hiring process is screwed up. I do not think that most employers would discriminate like you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correll, I don't know what world you live in, but I have a Mexican working for me today.  He will be paid in cash.  For six hours work he will be paid $275.  He will be responsible for whatever taxes you would be.  Do you honest to God think that he's being underpaid and his highest level of education is a high school diploma?
> 
> In your walls of text you have not made a point.  You've lied about me, repeated erroneous information over and over, made straw man arguments, and made bold assertions your ass can't back up.  That's it.
> 
> How do you define Liberty, Correll?  Can you answer that?
> 
> Why would I give incentives to employers?  It's because they own the jobs they create and are not (in our constitutional Republic) bound to hire any specific individual.  But, we have tools at our disposal.  We can deny business licenses OR we can incentivize people by cutting their taxes if they agree to pay higher wages and an all American workforce.  If they want el cheapo labor and you can't find a job, then stay at home and get a check from Uncle Scam.  The tax burden will then change the minds of employers.
> 
> If employers would not hire - say an all white staff, how come we have laws to prevent it?  Do we owe the transgender jobs?  Do we owe the Muslim a job?  Should I be forced to hire you when you don't have any work ethic?  When employers cannot hire the employees of their choice, they leave.  Ever wonder how China got to be so powerful in recent years?
Click to expand...




I want national polices to serve the interests of the majority of Americans. 


That does not conflict with the concept of Liberty. 


We have those laws, because liberals are pretending that this nation is a racist evul hellhole and that only the power of government can save the poor black man.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  I see the damage* MY own countrymen* are causing their own country by lowering their standards and taking a piss on their own culture.  I realize if they were off their sorry asses (as opposed to posting 50,000 posts on the Internet) we probably would have no problems with foreigners
> 
> 2) You want scapegoats not solutions
> 
> 3)  You suck because you are talking out both sides of your mouth.  IF you *support *the 14th Amendment, there are no "_illegal aliens_" as you mistakenly think because the 14th Amendment guarantees the equal protection of the laws to *ALL PERSONS*.  "All Persons" has been defined by the United States Supreme Court to include foreigners, regardless of immigration status
> 
> 4)  Foreigners come here to work jobs willingly offered because of shitsacks that won't work, do drugs, have a criminal history, and friends like you that want their records preserved forever to the benefit of employers who then reject them and never give them a second chance
> 
> 5)  I have responded to your point... what?  Fifty times since we've been arguing on this board???  When a foreigner takes a job, it creates *MORE* wealth.  Unlike you, the foreigner is working.  They work for less, creating more profits, and giving the employer more productivity.  That means they spend more money in the community.  a twenty something year old Hispanic is more likely to have 2 kids or more, a house, and other bills.  You probably live in mommy's house, don't work (you're here all the time) and don't contribute anything to the community
> 
> 6)  Nazis control your talking points; own the think tanks from which you get your erroneous ideas; were the first to begin the talk that fences and walls would solve a deeper problem.  You can call them fringe all you like, but only a total fucking idiot would deny their influence and their position.  I've documented it for you how many times?
> 
> 7)  I mentioned high taxes, but I did not blame the Nazis.  I BLAME YOU
> 
> 8)  I have not lied to you and I'm not going to read mountains of text to figure out your allegation.  Spit it out or admit that you are covering yet another fallacy you got busted on
> 
> 9)  I'm ready to explain anything to you.  But, after it's explained, you don't read the damn posts, then want to filibuster all day long.  WTF?  Do you want the explanation or not?  If you read it *one time,* you wouldn't have to post 100 posts denying that I have responded to you and explained it unequivocally
> 
> 10)  I'm responding to you.  One minute you're bitching that I don't explain this stuff to you; then end with more bitching because the answer don't fit on a bumper sticker (only exposing your lack of reading and comprehension skills)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. My work ethic is fine and not the cause of millions of foreigners crossing the border is violation of our democratically enacted laws and our Right of Self Determination.
> 
> 
> 2. Nope. I want solutions. The scapegoat thing is something you made up out of whole cloth.
> 
> 3. The Supreme Court was suicidality stupid in deciding that people who entered illegally and stay here illegally and have to falsify records and taxes in order to work here, are " subject to the jurisdiction" of our laws. That was an obvious mistake and in a sane world would have been reversed immediately.
> 
> 4. My point stands.  Foreigners are let into this country by a corrupt political class, not because of our culture. Your contempt of your fellow Americans does not change that.
> 
> 5. Lower work cost might be good for macro-economic numbers and employers. It is not good for employees, and the nation as a whole. It is the right of those employees and those that identify with them, to seek political representation for their interests. Your hostility to this has not been explained.
> 
> 
> 6. Nazis are an irrelevant fringe. If a nazi is for good dental hygiene, it does not make me a nazi to brush my teeth.
> 
> 7. How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  We are not a democracy.  So, you just exposed yourself as a social democrat
> 
> 2)  You want scapegoats.  If a willing employer hires a willing worker, what Right are you denied?
> 
> 3)  The United States Supreme Court did nothing you falsely accused them of.  According to the Chief Actuary of the Socialist Security Administration, about 75 percent of all undocumented foreigners get an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number and pay the same illegal / unconstitutional / immoral / indefensible/ federal tax that you do.  Nice to see you're still defending a plank from the Communist Manifesto AND lying about it with joy in your heart and a smile on your face
> 
> 4)  Foreigners come here because the *Constitution so allows*.  The ONLY thing regulating the process is laws pushed by Ted Kennedy and an unconstitutional power grab by the United States Supreme Court
> 
> 5) You do not understand basic economics much less macro economics and virtually every economist (including those on the far right admit that foreign labor is profitable.)  My case rests on the premise that money should not be the only factor.  My hostility is toward you because you are a pathological liar that has had this shit explained in detail and, on other threads, you did not read it NOR even formulate a responsive post on the points that you made which are in error
> 
> 6)  Saying Nazis are a fringe group may make you happy, but you have your head so far up their asses, you don't get a breath of fresh air til one of the farts.  Perhaps that is why you don't understand
> 
> 7)  How so?  How so what???  What are you asking?
> 
> Look, if you want me to rehash the same stuff I beat you up with on three other threads, we can go there.  You'll just get your ass stomped into the ground again.  You couldn't defend your crap on the other threads; have admitted you don't read the posts, so what... you think we might help someone understand what a poseur you really are if I post proof for a sixth time (at least that many times) that you have *FAILED* to answer???
> 
> I don't need 20 questions every exchange.  Tell us the truth.
> 
> Prior to David Duke, what American in all of U.S. history,  proposed the laws you support that would be put into place under the pretext of enforcing the wall?  *Can you name even ONE?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. We are a Constitutional republic with our government's legitimacy based on the consent of the governed. Referencing the source of that legitimacy is not admitting that I am a social democrat.  Calling me a name, was just a dodge of my point about illegal immigration violating our Right to Self Determination, which still stands. And which you have not addressed though I have brought it up many times.
> 
> 
> 2. I am denied my right of self determination. We as a nation, have the right to define who we are and how we live. Being flooded by the Turd World is not how I want America to be.
> 
> 3. How do they legally get a number when they are here illegally? And don't think that I didn't notice that you ignore the other crimes I mentioned. They are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of our laws
> 
> 4. Immigration was regulated and controlled WAY before Ted Kennedy.
> 
> Ellis Island - Wikipedia
> 
> *"Ellis Island* is a museum and former immigration inspection station in New York Harbor, within the states of New York and New Jersey. It was the gateway for over 12 million immigrants to the United States as the nation's busiest immigrant inspection station from 1892 until 1954"
> 
> for one very limited example. Ted Kennedy, who I agree is a villain, was not born until 1932, 3O years after Ellis Island started inspecting and controlling immigration. I have know that your claims about who invented certain ideas in America was wrong, and this time I was able to easily and clearly show it.
> 
> 
> My point stands. Foreigners are let into this country by a corrupt political class, not because of our culture. Your contempt of your fellow Americans does not change that.
> 
> 
> 
> 5. I agree that economics should not be the only factor considered. My point about low wages being bad for American workers stands, and nothing in your post explains why you oppose higher wages, or why you consider it wrong of me to want that.
> 
> 
> 6. Saying the Nazis are a fringe group does make me happy. It is a good thing. And I like speaking the Truth to panic mongers who want to panic people for no good reason.
> 
> 
> 7. HOw do you blame me for high taxes?
> 
> 
> 8. I know that there were anti-immigration movements in the past. The specific tools would have been different because the times were different. Supporting a wall between US and Mexico, when the vast majority of immigration was coming from Europe, would have been senseless, but the idea of being anti-immigration was certainly there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  I don't know what point you're alleging I'm dodging, but spit it out.  What does that even mean that _"illegal immigration"_ violates your Right to Self Determination (sic?)
> 
> 2)  I realize that this is going to come as a great big fucking surprise to you since you don't pay attention, but in many of my long posts I have stated many many times that America cannot be all things to all people and what America is about is stated in the Preamble to the Constitution:
> 
> "_We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and *secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity*_..."
> 
> Can you read that bolded portion?  Where do you see me advocating for turning America into a third world country?  Take a look at this country's FIRST naturalization law (I've posted it over 20 times.)  Where does it allow for the third world to gain equal political status with you or I?
> 
> 3)  If people were not subject to the jurisdiction of our laws, we would have no jurisdiction to deport them.  As for taxes, the IRS is a quasi private corporation and they don't give a shit who you are or where you come from.  If money passes hands, they want their piece of the pie.  So again, Individual Taxpayer Identification Number.  Immigration status is no bar to owing the tax according to the IRS.
> 
> If / when people commit crimes, they are prosecuted regardless of their immigration status.  OTOH, they also have the Right to a presumption of innocence due to the 14th Amendment (which, BTW, I believe to have been illegally ratified)
> 
> 4)  America has had foreigners regulated since the Mayflower hit the shores of the New World in 1620.  However, this process has been done by different levels of government at different times.  From your own article:
> 
> "_The federal government assumed control of immigration on April 18, 1890_"
> 
> Here are the serious questions for you Correll:
> 
> A)  Where, in the Constitution, does the federal government have the authority to tell the states who can and cannot come to that respective state?
> 
> B)  PRIOR to 1890 the federal government *did not* have control over immigration.  Obviously if someone were regulating the flow of foreigners and it was not the federal government, somebody did it for that period between 1789 and 1890  *A FULL CENTURY OF REGULATION WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY YOUR OWN LINK!
> *
> C)  HOW did the federal government, after a century end up controlling the flow of foreigners?  Which Amendment changed that?
> 
> 5)  Aside from your bold assertions that you've done stuff you most assuredly have not, you have added to your abject stupidity by saying I'm against paying Americans high wages.  In fact, I drafted legislation that I propose to my congresscritters twice each year to give strong incentives to employers to hire Americans and pay higher wages.  You continue to lie about proving me wrong - YOU NEVER HAVE AND NEVER WILL and you lie to yourself about me.  NOBODY is buying your bullshit.  Not even you...
> 
> 6)  Whether you are a "_fringe_" group or just one of their bitches is irrelevant.  National Socialist solutions prevail and you are all in.  You won't even consider anything else - which is why you are spreading the horseshit thick as you can on this thread and LYING like a New York politician.  Real change *NEVER* happens among the masses
> 
> 7)  I blame you for high taxes because you *lie like Hell* about me and YOU propose a government so big that the average person could never resist a tyrannical government.  You endorse a plank out of the Communist Manifesto by falsely accusing foreigners of not paying that unconstitutional tax.  You sabotaged our efforts to get rid of the income tax, the IRS, and make the tax burden equal on all (regardless of immigration status, income level, etc.)  YOU are part of that bunch that want Orwellian National ID tied to your Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_."  That is two points you are, by your own admission, advocating socialism on
> 
> 8)  Did you realize that in 1953 we had the lowest unemployment rates in U.S. history and people, like you, wanted a mass deportation - and so we did... and by the end of 1954 our unemployment rate DOUBLED in under five years and stayed above that 1953 level until recently???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  We, as Americans have the right to self determination. A big part of that is having the right to decide who joins our community. When people enter illegally and stay, that right is violated.   You support that.
> 
> 
> 2. When you want to let people (mostly third world) walk across the border, against our wishes and join our society, you are supporting this nation being turned into a Third World shithole.
> 
> 3. That we have the power to send some one home, maybe if we catch them, does not mean they are under our jurisdiction, and I've heard of quite a lot of those illegals ILLEGALLY copying someone ELSE'S numbers, often messing with their lives, a lot. They are here illegally, send their asses home.
> 
> 
> 4.  And just like that, you dropped your claim about Ted Kennedy coming up with the idea of immigration control. You don't like Federal control? Interesting. Let's talk about that a lot. AFTER WE SEND THE ILLEGALS HOME.
> 
> 5. You support having Americans compete against unlimited, cheap and/or illegal labor. That has and will guarantee low wages for American workers.
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Your desire to smear ideas, with the logical fallacy of attacking the messenger, is just a way to avoid dealing with the actual pros and cons of the issue.
> 
> 7. The government was big way before I was born. NOT deporting the illegals, nor NOT building a Wall, is not going to make it smaller.
> 
> 
> 8.  And now you just dropped the claim that David Duke invented it, thanks. DEPORT THEM ALL.
Click to expand...


1)  You are right.  I do think that each community and each state makes their own decisions.  So, if Californication wants 75 percent undocumented foreigners, have at it.  Don't expect me to pay for it

2)  Just because someone comes here does not and should not make them a part of our society.  THAT is one of your major weaknesses

3)  The United States Supreme Court has said you are wrong on jurisdiction:

Plyler v. Doe

4)  You are lying out your ass again.  You show me where I said that Ted Kennedy _"came up with the idea of immigration control_" and I'll kiss your ass on the main street of America and give you two weeks to draw a crowd.  You are acting like a moron and lying out your ever loving ass.  Kennedy forced through the current laws that were designed to take away from the posterity and then implode.  

5)  Another lie and I'm not going to respond to that.  You would not make that allegation with your real name attached and that allegation destroys your credibility and is an admission on your part that you cannot sustain your arguments

6)  I've dealt with the pros and cons of the issue without smearing a single soul.  I've not said anything about you that *YOU* did not say about yourself.  You've tried lying, deflecting and making the most idiotic allegations ever heard.  Quite frankly, since you cannot make an honest statement, you've pretty well displayed how low your intelligence is

7)  Your side has already spent over *TWO TRILLION DOLLARS* on your idiotic fantasy.  You, by your own admission, have nothing to show for it.  Cry me a river

8)  I have dropped no such claim about David Duke.  You lie like HELL.  I challenged you to name an American who advocated it and lobbied for it in the United States and you could not come up with a single solitary name.  You are fucked up and a liar.  I accept your concession of defeat.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Your inability to reason and the stupid shit you  say that only cowards will say and only when they don't have to be held accountable (as in with their real name or in a public setting) is duly noted.  As for me personally, I have a ministry where I try to find people that *want* a second chance and are *willing to work* for it.  It isn't a handout; they work and go to school and / or get job training.  We help.  *What are you doing in that regard?
> *
> 2*)  *What claim do you allege that has not been addressed a dozen times?  If I have been asked and addressed it, you better hope that we don't address it again here lest you be branded a liar by your own words
> 
> 3)  This absolute horseshit of "_unchecked and unvetted_" foreigners is nutcase neo-Nazi *HORSESHIT*.  If a foreign country wants to send you a bad apple, they sure as Hell aren't going to tell you.  Mexico has printed up comic books instructing their citizens how to avoid our border patrol.  Only an idiot would give their background check info any credibility.
> 
> *OTOH*, since we have the 14th Amendment, many Americans are kept out of jobs for doing things that *ARE NOT* recorded in foreign countries (i.e. domestic family problems, drug / alcohol convictions, etc.)  A lot of things that are felonies in the U.S. aren't crimes in many other countries.  The *ONLY* people you're hurting are Americans
> 
> 4)  Trump has given you the* illusion* that he's doing something and each time his proposals get shot down, it sets a nasty precedent for our future (YOUR future and mine.)  A good example is legislative fiat.  Kamala Harris has already stated if elected she will use the same misuse of Executive Powers to confiscate firearms in the U.S.
> 
> You're never going to catch on to the way political psychology, political warfare, psychopolitics, and legal precedents are used so this is a waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Supporting economic and immigration policies that serve the interests of the American workers is a valid political position. That you
> mis-characterize that as "not being willing to work" is just you not being able to defend YOUR political position on it's actual merits.
> 
> 
> 2. Don't recall now. YOu are the one that cut the previous posts, not me.
> 
> 3. Your point about not trusting the information provided by hostile countries is quite valid. Which is why we should not be accepting ANY immigrants from hostile nations. And wanting to know if the people we are inviting into our communities are violent criminals or terrorists, is hardly "neo-nazi horseshit".
> 
> 4. I've been hearing plenty from employers that cant' find workers at the wage they are offering, and some interesting stats starting to come out about rising wages. Your concern about political posturing is valid but there does seem to be some real movement here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  Correll, I offer cash gigs for people to work AND I help people get a second chance in life.  The doors are always open and I'm always seeking people that want to work.  For you to continue implying that this isn't true destroys your argument if anyone is paying attention.
> 
> I am doing things to get Americans back on the payroll.  Other than denying reality and posting 51,395 posts on this board alone, what are you really doing to help your fellow man?
> 
> 2)  You bitched about the size of my posts.  Now, you want the multi-paragraph posts?  Fine.  Pick *A QUESTION*... any question - not your standard laundry list and I'll devote ten or twelve paragraphs to it.  You will get a full and complete answer of which you will not be able to factually refute
> 
> 3)  Your allegation insofar as implying I'd let terrorists in is a straw man argument that negates the possibility of you ever being able to debate *ANYONE* who disagrees with you.  It is certainly an allegation that when I am making public appearances I want you to go in front of a mic and repeat
> 
> 4)  My position is quite simple.  If we create incentives for employers to hire Americans, they will.  Then there is part 2 to this conversation... the part you and I have never had.
> 
> If employers are left to hire whomever they choose - and they don't have to hire X number of black people, Y number of women or Z number of gays, lesbians, transgender, etc. how many do you think would prefer employees that looked and thought like the owners of the company?
> 
> The proper way to conduct a job interview and background check is to look someone in the eye, face to face.  All this Internet stuff is pure B.S. since you can hire some jackass to make you look good on screen.  Then you have an application with places for previous employers and personal references.  This is a lot more relevant than pulling someone's criminal record and denying them a job over a single 25 year old misdemeanor (and I see it happen all the time.)  What the people who know you right now and over the last 5 to 7 years is more important than what a lying government has to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If the labor market is flooded with cheap immigrant labor, the America worker is never going to get ahead. It is that simple.
> 
> 2. Cutting pasts post and then asking what we were talking about, is not the opposite of 12 paragraph posts. I don't do either of them, and I have no problem making my points.
> 
> 3. If you support letting people walk into the country, unchecked and unvetted, then you are letting in whoever can afford to get to the southern border.
> 
> 4. Why incentives? Just create a labor market that gives the power to the American worker.
> 
> 
> 5. I agree the hiring process is screwed up. I do not think that most employers would discriminate like you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correll, I don't know what world you live in, but I have a Mexican working for me today.  He will be paid in cash.  For six hours work he will be paid $275.  He will be responsible for whatever taxes you would be.  Do you honest to God think that he's being underpaid and his highest level of education is a high school diploma?
> 
> In your walls of text you have not made a point.  You've lied about me, repeated erroneous information over and over, made straw man arguments, and made bold assertions your ass can't back up.  That's it.
> 
> How do you define Liberty, Correll?  Can you answer that?
> 
> Why would I give incentives to employers?  It's because they own the jobs they create and are not (in our constitutional Republic) bound to hire any specific individual.  But, we have tools at our disposal.  We can deny business licenses OR we can incentivize people by cutting their taxes if they agree to pay higher wages and an all American workforce.  If they want el cheapo labor and you can't find a job, then stay at home and get a check from Uncle Scam.  The tax burden will then change the minds of employers.
> 
> If employers would not hire - say an all white staff, how come we have laws to prevent it?  Do we owe the transgender jobs?  Do we owe the Muslim a job?  Should I be forced to hire you when you don't have any work ethic?  When employers cannot hire the employees of their choice, they leave.  Ever wonder how China got to be so powerful in recent years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want national polices to serve the interests of the majority of Americans.
> 
> 
> That does not conflict with the concept of Liberty.
> 
> 
> We have those laws, because liberals are pretending that this nation is a racist evul hellhole and that only the power of government can save the poor black man.
Click to expand...



You have made your concession speech. I accept your concession of defeat.  If you cannot post honest sentences, then there is little more to do than challenge you on them and stand moot.


----------



## koshergrl

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You are wrong.  The United States Supreme Court* RULED* that being in the United States is not a crime.  Furthermore if the American people did not want them here, they would not hire to them, sell to them, buy from them, or do business with anyone that does.  We, do, however, and the majority of the American people have proven your statement to be an absolute *lie* and you can't accept it
> 
> 2)  Our Constitution cannot survive the repeal of the Bill of Rights
> 
> 3)  You can make all the presuppositions you want and keep that open borders lie going, but repeating it over and over won't make it true.  Your wishes do not reflect the will of the majority - and YOU have argued for democracy ever since you and I first tangled.  FWIW - I'm not a democrat like you and I know what it would take to rectify the current situation
> 
> 4)  On all the key issues Trump has lost his ass in court; he did not come up with a plan to make Mexico pay; Trump then tried to take away from the military AND seniors thereby creating even MORE opposition to his idea.  He did that on purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.a. I do not know what legal travesty  you are referring to, but a foreigner who entered here against our laws is breaking the laws by being here. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar or a fool.
> 
> 1b. The American people have a process by which to change the law if they want the Open Border you describe. They have not. YOur argument that they support the presence of people that are here illegally does not make any sense.
> 
> 
> 2. You made that point. I responded. That you ignored my response and reasserted your position is the logical fallacy of Proof by Assertion. You just admitted that you cannot refute my points, and that you know my point about the Right of Self Determination is correct.
> 
> 
> 3. My description of the behavior of you and others like you, is not an assumption, but a observation of your behavior.  Your denial of open border types is not credible.
> 
> 
> 4. Your speculation about what Trump is thinking is noted. My point about his platform being the most aggressive on this issue stands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Correll, are you a fucking idiot?  A foreigner is *NOT* committing a crime by law by being here.  It is strictly a civil matter.  WTF?  Are you c*ompletely STUPID?  You are wrong and there is no argument here
> *
> 2)  What?  That made even less sense the second time.  If you think you're in a formal debate, you lost that eons ago.  WTF are you saying?
> 
> 3)  Denial of what you cannot prove exists?  You can't even give an example.  You want a militarized border and you want to make a blanket accusation your dumb ass cannot prove.  Like I said, if you like walls and fences so damn much, try prison... maybe a mental facility (that's probably where you belong)
> 
> 4)  I don't speculate about Trump.  Past behavior is a good indicator of future performance.  Keep that duly noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your support of the illegals is noted. Why do you care more for their interests than the interests and rights of your fellow citizens?
> 
> 2. You made a claim and when challenged, all you did was make the claim again. That is an admission that you cannot refute my counterpoints. That is true regardless of the level of formality.
> 
> 3. Your desire to allow foreigners to flow into our nation unchecked and unvetted, while denying that there are open border people, is a sign of irrationality on your part.
> 
> 4. Trump has been more aggressive on the issue of immigration, legal and illegal than anyone in living memory. That is current behavior, and you are attacking him for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  Your inability to reason and the stupid shit you  say that only cowards will say and only when they don't have to be held accountable (as in with their real name or in a public setting) is duly noted.  As for me personally, I have a ministry where I try to find people that *want* a second chance and are *willing to work* for it.  It isn't a handout; they work and go to school and / or get job training.  We help.  *What are you doing in that regard?
> *
> 2*)  *What claim do you allege that has not been addressed a dozen times?  If I have been asked and addressed it, you better hope that we don't address it again here lest you be branded a liar by your own words
> 
> 3)  This absolute horseshit of "_unchecked and unvetted_" foreigners is nutcase neo-Nazi *HORSESHIT*.  If a foreign country wants to send you a bad apple, they sure as Hell aren't going to tell you.  Mexico has printed up comic books instructing their citizens how to avoid our border patrol.  Only an idiot would give their background check info any credibility.
> 
> *OTOH*, since we have the 14th Amendment, many Americans are kept out of jobs for doing things that *ARE NOT* recorded in foreign countries (i.e. domestic family problems, drug / alcohol convictions, etc.)  A lot of things that are felonies in the U.S. aren't crimes in many other countries.  The *ONLY* people you're hurting are Americans
> 
> 4)  Trump has given you the* illusion* that he's doing something and each time his proposals get shot down, it sets a nasty precedent for our future (YOUR future and mine.)  A good example is legislative fiat.  Kamala Harris has already stated if elected she will use the same misuse of Executive Powers to confiscate firearms in the U.S.
> 
> You're never going to catch on to the way political psychology, political warfare, psychopolitics, and legal precedents are used so this is a waste of time.
Click to expand...

It's a waste of time for you, this is true. Because you're a brainwashed leftist dolt. 

I want to see infrastructure, we all do, specifically because we need prisons and nuthouses to lodge you and your buddies.


----------



## koshergrl

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Supporting economic and immigration policies that serve the interests of the American workers is a valid political position. That you
> mis-characterize that as "not being willing to work" is just you not being able to defend YOUR political position on it's actual merits.
> 
> 
> 2. Don't recall now. YOu are the one that cut the previous posts, not me.
> 
> 3. Your point about not trusting the information provided by hostile countries is quite valid. Which is why we should not be accepting ANY immigrants from hostile nations. And wanting to know if the people we are inviting into our communities are violent criminals or terrorists, is hardly "neo-nazi horseshit".
> 
> 4. I've been hearing plenty from employers that cant' find workers at the wage they are offering, and some interesting stats starting to come out about rising wages. Your concern about political posturing is valid but there does seem to be some real movement here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Correll, I offer cash gigs for people to work AND I help people get a second chance in life.  The doors are always open and I'm always seeking people that want to work.  For you to continue implying that this isn't true destroys your argument if anyone is paying attention.
> 
> I am doing things to get Americans back on the payroll.  Other than denying reality and posting 51,395 posts on this board alone, what are you really doing to help your fellow man?
> 
> 2)  You bitched about the size of my posts.  Now, you want the multi-paragraph posts?  Fine.  Pick *A QUESTION*... any question - not your standard laundry list and I'll devote ten or twelve paragraphs to it.  You will get a full and complete answer of which you will not be able to factually refute
> 
> 3)  Your allegation insofar as implying I'd let terrorists in is a straw man argument that negates the possibility of you ever being able to debate *ANYONE* who disagrees with you.  It is certainly an allegation that when I am making public appearances I want you to go in front of a mic and repeat
> 
> 4)  My position is quite simple.  If we create incentives for employers to hire Americans, they will.  Then there is part 2 to this conversation... the part you and I have never had.
> 
> If employers are left to hire whomever they choose - and they don't have to hire X number of black people, Y number of women or Z number of gays, lesbians, transgender, etc. how many do you think would prefer employees that looked and thought like the owners of the company?
> 
> The proper way to conduct a job interview and background check is to look someone in the eye, face to face.  All this Internet stuff is pure B.S. since you can hire some jackass to make you look good on screen.  Then you have an application with places for previous employers and personal references.  This is a lot more relevant than pulling someone's criminal record and denying them a job over a single 25 year old misdemeanor (and I see it happen all the time.)  What the people who know you right now and over the last 5 to 7 years is more important than what a lying government has to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If the labor market is flooded with cheap immigrant labor, the America worker is never going to get ahead. It is that simple.
> 
> 2. Cutting pasts post and then asking what we were talking about, is not the opposite of 12 paragraph posts. I don't do either of them, and I have no problem making my points.
> 
> 3. If you support letting people walk into the country, unchecked and unvetted, then you are letting in whoever can afford to get to the southern border.
> 
> 4. Why incentives? Just create a labor market that gives the power to the American worker.
> 
> 
> 5. I agree the hiring process is screwed up. I do not think that most employers would discriminate like you think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correll, I don't know what world you live in, but I have a Mexican working for me today.  He will be paid in cash.  For six hours work he will be paid $275.  He will be responsible for whatever taxes you would be.  Do you honest to God think that he's being underpaid and his highest level of education is a high school diploma?
> 
> In your walls of text you have not made a point.  You've lied about me, repeated erroneous information over and over, made straw man arguments, and made bold assertions your ass can't back up.  That's it.
> 
> How do you define Liberty, Correll?  Can you answer that?
> 
> Why would I give incentives to employers?  It's because they own the jobs they create and are not (in our constitutional Republic) bound to hire any specific individual.  But, we have tools at our disposal.  We can deny business licenses OR we can incentivize people by cutting their taxes if they agree to pay higher wages and an all American workforce.  If they want el cheapo labor and you can't find a job, then stay at home and get a check from Uncle Scam.  The tax burden will then change the minds of employers.
> 
> If employers would not hire - say an all white staff, how come we have laws to prevent it?  Do we owe the transgender jobs?  Do we owe the Muslim a job?  Should I be forced to hire you when you don't have any work ethic?  When employers cannot hire the employees of their choice, they leave.  Ever wonder how China got to be so powerful in recent years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want national polices to serve the interests of the majority of Americans.
> 
> 
> That does not conflict with the concept of Liberty.
> 
> 
> We have those laws, because liberals are pretending that this nation is a racist evul hellhole and that only the power of government can save the poor black man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have made your concession speech. I accept your concession of defeat.  If you cannot post honest sentences, then there is little more to do than challenge you on them and stand moot.
Click to expand...


I think it's funny that you retards think that telling bald faced lies makes you clever...and will distract people from the level of fail you attain.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Since Correll keeps typing and ignoring my challenges, I will keep repeating them:

 America has had foreigners regulated since the Mayflower hit the shores of the New World in 1620. However, this process has been done by different levels of government at different times. From your own article:

"_The federal government assumed control of immigration on April 18, 1890_"

Here are the serious questions for you Correll:

A) Where, in the Constitution, does the federal government have the authority to tell the states who can and cannot come to that respective state?

B) PRIOR to 1890 the federal government *did not* have control over immigration. Obviously if someone were regulating the flow of foreigners and it was not the federal government, somebody did it for that period between 1789 and 1890 *A FULL CENTURY OF REGULATION WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY YOUR OWN LINK!*

C) HOW did the federal government, after a century end up controlling the flow of foreigners? Which Amendment changed that?


----------



## koshergrl

Porter Rockwell said:


> Since Correll keeps typing and ignoring my challenges, I will keep repeating them:
> 
> America has had foreigners regulated since the Mayflower hit the shores of the New World in 1620. However, this process has been done by different levels of government at different times. From your own article:
> 
> "_The federal government assumed control of immigration on April 18, 1890_"
> 
> Here are the serious questions for you Correll:
> 
> A) Where, in the Constitution, does the federal government have the authority to tell the states who can and cannot come to that respective state?
> 
> B) PRIOR to 1890 the federal government *did not* have control over immigration. Obviously if someone were regulating the flow of foreigners and it was not the federal government, somebody did it for that period between 1789 and 1890 *A FULL CENTURY OF REGULATION WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY YOUR OWN LINK!*
> 
> C) HOW did the federal government, after a century end up controlling the flow of foreigners? Which Amendment changed that?


Shut the hell up, you're just a brainwashed, lying dupe.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

koshergrl said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You are wrong.  The United States Supreme Court* RULED* that being in the United States is not a crime.  Furthermore if the American people did not want them here, they would not hire to them, sell to them, buy from them, or do business with anyone that does.  We, do, however, and the majority of the American people have proven your statement to be an absolute *lie* and you can't accept it
> 
> 2)  Our Constitution cannot survive the repeal of the Bill of Rights
> 
> 3)  You can make all the presuppositions you want and keep that open borders lie going, but repeating it over and over won't make it true.  Your wishes do not reflect the will of the majority - and YOU have argued for democracy ever since you and I first tangled.  FWIW - I'm not a democrat like you and I know what it would take to rectify the current situation
> 
> 4)  On all the key issues Trump has lost his ass in court; he did not come up with a plan to make Mexico pay; Trump then tried to take away from the military AND seniors thereby creating even MORE opposition to his idea.  He did that on purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.a. I do not know what legal travesty  you are referring to, but a foreigner who entered here against our laws is breaking the laws by being here. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar or a fool.
> 
> 1b. The American people have a process by which to change the law if they want the Open Border you describe. They have not. YOur argument that they support the presence of people that are here illegally does not make any sense.
> 
> 
> 2. You made that point. I responded. That you ignored my response and reasserted your position is the logical fallacy of Proof by Assertion. You just admitted that you cannot refute my points, and that you know my point about the Right of Self Determination is correct.
> 
> 
> 3. My description of the behavior of you and others like you, is not an assumption, but a observation of your behavior.  Your denial of open border types is not credible.
> 
> 
> 4. Your speculation about what Trump is thinking is noted. My point about his platform being the most aggressive on this issue stands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Correll, are you a fucking idiot?  A foreigner is *NOT* committing a crime by law by being here.  It is strictly a civil matter.  WTF?  Are you c*ompletely STUPID?  You are wrong and there is no argument here
> *
> 2)  What?  That made even less sense the second time.  If you think you're in a formal debate, you lost that eons ago.  WTF are you saying?
> 
> 3)  Denial of what you cannot prove exists?  You can't even give an example.  You want a militarized border and you want to make a blanket accusation your dumb ass cannot prove.  Like I said, if you like walls and fences so damn much, try prison... maybe a mental facility (that's probably where you belong)
> 
> 4)  I don't speculate about Trump.  Past behavior is a good indicator of future performance.  Keep that duly noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your support of the illegals is noted. Why do you care more for their interests than the interests and rights of your fellow citizens?
> 
> 2. You made a claim and when challenged, all you did was make the claim again. That is an admission that you cannot refute my counterpoints. That is true regardless of the level of formality.
> 
> 3. Your desire to allow foreigners to flow into our nation unchecked and unvetted, while denying that there are open border people, is a sign of irrationality on your part.
> 
> 4. Trump has been more aggressive on the issue of immigration, legal and illegal than anyone in living memory. That is current behavior, and you are attacking him for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  Your inability to reason and the stupid shit you  say that only cowards will say and only when they don't have to be held accountable (as in with their real name or in a public setting) is duly noted.  As for me personally, I have a ministry where I try to find people that *want* a second chance and are *willing to work* for it.  It isn't a handout; they work and go to school and / or get job training.  We help.  *What are you doing in that regard?
> *
> 2*)  *What claim do you allege that has not been addressed a dozen times?  If I have been asked and addressed it, you better hope that we don't address it again here lest you be branded a liar by your own words
> 
> 3)  This absolute horseshit of "_unchecked and unvetted_" foreigners is nutcase neo-Nazi *HORSESHIT*.  If a foreign country wants to send you a bad apple, they sure as Hell aren't going to tell you.  Mexico has printed up comic books instructing their citizens how to avoid our border patrol.  Only an idiot would give their background check info any credibility.
> 
> *OTOH*, since we have the 14th Amendment, many Americans are kept out of jobs for doing things that *ARE NOT* recorded in foreign countries (i.e. domestic family problems, drug / alcohol convictions, etc.)  A lot of things that are felonies in the U.S. aren't crimes in many other countries.  The *ONLY* people you're hurting are Americans
> 
> 4)  Trump has given you the* illusion* that he's doing something and each time his proposals get shot down, it sets a nasty precedent for our future (YOUR future and mine.)  A good example is legislative fiat.  Kamala Harris has already stated if elected she will use the same misuse of Executive Powers to confiscate firearms in the U.S.
> 
> You're never going to catch on to the way political psychology, political warfare, psychopolitics, and legal precedents are used so this is a waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a waste of time for you, this is true. Because you're a brainwashed leftist dolt.
> 
> I want to see infrastructure, we all do, specifically because we need prisons and nuthouses to lodge you and your buddies.
Click to expand...



Correll under another name.  I'm no leftist and nobody's dolt.  You can create as many profiles as you deem necessary.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

David Duke organizes Border Watch in 1977:

That time David Duke and KKK patrolled the Mexican border…

David Duke and Donald Trump both belonged to the Reform Party at the same time, which demonstrates a unity of ideology:

“_Duke joined the __Reform__ Party in 1999 while working for __Pat Buchanan__'s 2000 presidential campaign_”

David Duke - Wikipedia

“_Donald Trump's presidential campaign of 2000 for the nomination of the __Reform Party__ began when __real estate__ magnate __Donald Trump__ of __New York__ announced the creation of a presidential __exploratory committee__ on the October 8, 1999 edition of_ _Larry King Live__”_

Donald Trump 2000 presidential campaign - Wikipedia

The Real David Duke  This info will become very important to the subject



Trump plays stupid and tries to deny his ideological ties to white supremacy:

Trump dodges on David Duke question: ' I know nothing about white supremacists'Trump dodges on David Duke question: ' I know nothing about white supremacists'

*Jim Gilchrist*, a former newsman and *Chris Simcox* become the fathers of the “Secure the border / monitor (sic) the flow of Undocumented immigrants effort:

“*The Minuteman Project*_ was a __vigilante__ organization started in August 2004__[1]__ by a group of private individuals in the __United States__ to extrajudicially monitor the __United States – Mexico border__'s flow of __Undocumented immigrants__.__[2]__ Founded by __Jim Gilchrist__ and __Chris Simcox_,..”

Minuteman Project - Wikipedia


Today, the *founder* of the wallist religion is proudly displaying his ties to the Tea Party publicly:


Jim Gilchrist's Page


So, who is Jim Gilchrist?

Jim Gilchrist is a former newsman, left of center, who is politically a National Socialist.  His views are palatable enough so that Bernie Sanders once voted to Gilchrist’s benefit:

Julian Castro claims Bernie Sanders voted with Republicans to protect a hate group

The top lieutenants of his “Minuteman Project” were exposed as being neo – Nazis and even murderers.

Co-founder *Chris Simcox* Gilchrist’s most trusted friend)  was proven to be both a pedophile as well as a nazi:


Ex-Minuteman Chris Simcox sentenced to 19.5 years in child sex-abuse case


*Chris Simcox* befriended *J.T. Ready* who was also mainstream Republican that, on the surface only wanted to fight so – called “_illegal immigration_,” but was, in reality, a neo-nazi that ended up committing a mass murder before committing suicide:

“*Jason Todd "J. T." Ready* (February 17, 1973[1][2] – May 2, 2012) was a former American Marine, founder and leader of a border militia group[3] and a former member of the *neo-Nazi* *National Socialist Movement*

J. T. Ready - Wikipedia


Gilchrist was a very cunning politician type  (learning lessons from his newsman days) so he would deny knowing his own officers when they got into trouble.  An article I read had this to say in response to one of Gilchrist’s false claims that he knew one of his own top officers “briefly”:

“_Well, one of those "brief meetings" with *{Shawna}Forde* involved __a big public Minuteman rally organized by Forde__ in Everett, Washington, back in 2006, about the same time Forde was appearing onstage representing the Minutemen in public-TV forums, too. Gilchrist was __the star attraction at the Everett rally__, and he and Forde praised each other onstage.

In an __earlier report,__ moreover, Steller pointed out that Gilchrist was up to his ankles in communicating with Forde right up to the point of her arrest -- and in fact appears to have tried to tip her off that federal authorities were looking for her_:_
_

_
Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project and an early leader of the movement, said last week that he donated $200 to a member of Forde's group, t*hat he called Forde a few days after the murders as investigators closed in,* and that his group removed postings by and about Forde from its Web site after the arrests. But he called Forde and her associates "rogues," and denied that he or his group had a formal relationship with her_.”

Orcinus: Minuteman leader Jim Gilchrist's ties to Shawna Forde's gang of killers finally catch up with him


“Formal relationship?”  *Shawna Forde* was one of his top organizers!  And he had a lot of faith in her:

Jim Gilchrist Speaks on Shawna - Justice for Shawna Forde

Evidently, Minutemen Founder Gilchrist Doesn't Like Us

*Shawna Forde* was convicted of the murder of a nine year old and her father:

Shawna Forde Guilty of Murder: Exclusive Interview with Arizona Minuteman

Also see this:

5 of Arizona's Most Notorious  Racists and Their Crimes

Shawna Forde’s co-conspirator, Jason Bush,  was a carbon copy of the kinds of people Gilchrist attracted:

_“… Bush was also __charged__ for the murder of a Latino man in Washington state in 1997, and in the murder of an Aryan Nations member he considered to be a “race-traitor_”…”

The meltdown of the anti-immigration Minuteman militia


Gilchrist knows how to hide the National Socialist trimmings and then deny those who embarrass the effort.  Make no mistake.  Jim Gilchrist and Chris Simcox are the founding fathers of the wallist religion – where the wall and so – called “_illegal immigration_” are the ONLY topics they have any concern with.  What are the odds that all the founders of the wallist religion *ARE proven* Nazis and their followers are not?  Then again, that might not be a rhetorical question as I’ve been reading that right now is the first time in history where more people without an education are supporting the Republicans than are supporting them.


Be that as it may, the DADDY of the wallist religion IS a Tea Party member:

Jim Gilchrist's Page

Jim Gilchrist: Illegal Alien Children Being Used As Political Human Shields - Tea Party News


*THE IDEOLOGY*

The major organizations / think tanks were founded and funded by a single individual by the name of John Tanton. According to Wikipedia:

*John H. Tanton*_ (born February 23, 1934)[1] is an American retired __ophthalmologist__ and activist in efforts aimed at __reducing immigration levels__ in the United States. He was the founder and first chairman of the _*Federation for American Immigration Reform** (FAIR)*_, an anti-immigration organization. He was chairman of _*U.S. English*_ and ProEnglish. He is the founder of _*The Social Contract Press**, *_which *publishes the quarterly journal The Social Contract*. *He founded the pro-*_*eugenics** organization Society for Genetic Education*.

“*FAIR, CIS and NumbersUSA*_ are all part of a network of restrictionist organizations conceived and created by John Tanton, the "puppeteer" of the nativist movement and a man with deep racist roots. As the first article in this report shows, Tanton has for decades been at the heart of the white nationalist scene. He has met with leading white supremacists and associated closely with the leaders of a eugenicist foundation once described by a leading newspaper as a "neo-Nazi organization." He has made a series of racist statements about Latinos and worried that they were outbreeding whites. At one point, he wrote candidly that to maintain American culture, "a European-American majority" is required_.”[25]

John Tanton - Wikipedia


So, here is the man responsible for the think tanks and the rhetoric that is generated relative to the wallist religion.  But what, exactly is eugenics?  I’d be a long time explaining it, but Wikipedia did a balanced article on it, so check it out:

Eugenics in the United States - Wikipedia


I only want to point out that the Rockefellers helped finance eugenics research… and the Rockefellers were all about the NEW WORLD ORDER / One World Government.    It’s kind of hard to connect the dots until you figure out how the NEW WORLD ORDER types help finance both sides so that they can take each other out  liberals v conservatives, right v left, Constitutionalists v National Socialists, etc.  But, I digress.  Now that I’ve spent over 15 years spreading my research about the David Duke – John Tanton ideologies (and Tanton supplied Duke his talking points back in the 1970s) other researchers have taken note:

Calling Former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke's Bluff


A Look at the Forces Behind the Anti-Immigrant Movement | Democracy Now!

A John Tanton Connect the Dots « American Border Patrol « Immigration « The Pink Flamingo

Team Trump's ties to white supremacy are even deeper than you imagined

https://splinternews.com/the-eugenicist-doctor-and-the-vast-fortune-behind-trump-1827322435


NOTE:  It is unfortunate that I have to cite the left, but the Tea Party is never going to admit to who pioneered their political rhetoric.  They also make the links to Nazism.  Again, I am not getting into the fray over racial issues.  I disagree with the current power structure because I oppose  National Socialism.  And the fact that the right’s think tanks are owned by a guy into eugenics and is pro-abortion signal significant differences of opinion between he and I.


The proposed solutions to the immigration debacle as adopted by those in the Tea Party are National Socialist NOT those of a constitutionalist group


----------



## koshergrl

Porter Rockwell said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.a. I do not know what legal travesty  you are referring to, but a foreigner who entered here against our laws is breaking the laws by being here. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar or a fool.
> 
> 1b. The American people have a process by which to change the law if they want the Open Border you describe. They have not. YOur argument that they support the presence of people that are here illegally does not make any sense.
> 
> 
> 2. You made that point. I responded. That you ignored my response and reasserted your position is the logical fallacy of Proof by Assertion. You just admitted that you cannot refute my points, and that you know my point about the Right of Self Determination is correct.
> 
> 
> 3. My description of the behavior of you and others like you, is not an assumption, but a observation of your behavior.  Your denial of open border types is not credible.
> 
> 
> 4. Your speculation about what Trump is thinking is noted. My point about his platform being the most aggressive on this issue stands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Correll, are you a fucking idiot?  A foreigner is *NOT* committing a crime by law by being here.  It is strictly a civil matter.  WTF?  Are you c*ompletely STUPID?  You are wrong and there is no argument here
> *
> 2)  What?  That made even less sense the second time.  If you think you're in a formal debate, you lost that eons ago.  WTF are you saying?
> 
> 3)  Denial of what you cannot prove exists?  You can't even give an example.  You want a militarized border and you want to make a blanket accusation your dumb ass cannot prove.  Like I said, if you like walls and fences so damn much, try prison... maybe a mental facility (that's probably where you belong)
> 
> 4)  I don't speculate about Trump.  Past behavior is a good indicator of future performance.  Keep that duly noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your support of the illegals is noted. Why do you care more for their interests than the interests and rights of your fellow citizens?
> 
> 2. You made a claim and when challenged, all you did was make the claim again. That is an admission that you cannot refute my counterpoints. That is true regardless of the level of formality.
> 
> 3. Your desire to allow foreigners to flow into our nation unchecked and unvetted, while denying that there are open border people, is a sign of irrationality on your part.
> 
> 4. Trump has been more aggressive on the issue of immigration, legal and illegal than anyone in living memory. That is current behavior, and you are attacking him for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  Your inability to reason and the stupid shit you  say that only cowards will say and only when they don't have to be held accountable (as in with their real name or in a public setting) is duly noted.  As for me personally, I have a ministry where I try to find people that *want* a second chance and are *willing to work* for it.  It isn't a handout; they work and go to school and / or get job training.  We help.  *What are you doing in that regard?
> *
> 2*)  *What claim do you allege that has not been addressed a dozen times?  If I have been asked and addressed it, you better hope that we don't address it again here lest you be branded a liar by your own words
> 
> 3)  This absolute horseshit of "_unchecked and unvetted_" foreigners is nutcase neo-Nazi *HORSESHIT*.  If a foreign country wants to send you a bad apple, they sure as Hell aren't going to tell you.  Mexico has printed up comic books instructing their citizens how to avoid our border patrol.  Only an idiot would give their background check info any credibility.
> 
> *OTOH*, since we have the 14th Amendment, many Americans are kept out of jobs for doing things that *ARE NOT* recorded in foreign countries (i.e. domestic family problems, drug / alcohol convictions, etc.)  A lot of things that are felonies in the U.S. aren't crimes in many other countries.  The *ONLY* people you're hurting are Americans
> 
> 4)  Trump has given you the* illusion* that he's doing something and each time his proposals get shot down, it sets a nasty precedent for our future (YOUR future and mine.)  A good example is legislative fiat.  Kamala Harris has already stated if elected she will use the same misuse of Executive Powers to confiscate firearms in the U.S.
> 
> You're never going to catch on to the way political psychology, political warfare, psychopolitics, and legal precedents are used so this is a waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a waste of time for you, this is true. Because you're a brainwashed leftist dolt.
> 
> I want to see infrastructure, we all do, specifically because we need prisons and nuthouses to lodge you and your buddies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correll under another name.  I'm no leftist and nobody's dolt.  You can create as many profiles as you deem necessary.
Click to expand...

Still lying, lol. 

Nope I'm not correll, you liar. I'm just another person who has your number, you pos, anti American scumbag.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Kosher girl and Correll are one and the same.  More proof that Correll and his alter ego (Kosher girl) are lying:

Make no mistake. The wall, most likely will not be built. Since you're asking the wrong questions predicated on the wrong presuppositions, let's examine this very closely. The entire talk about walls, fences, etc. started with National Socialists like David Duke. Remember him and Border Watch?

Hat Thief: David Duke Wanted to Secure the Border Before It Was Cool

The issue was hot throughout the late 1970s and into the 1980s. Where was "_conservative_" thinking back then?



And, when the liberals wanted to gain power, where was their thinking on the issue?


So, between 1977 and the 1980s this border wall talk was started by National Socialists, opposed by conservatives, and by 1995 the rhetoric was adopted by the Democrats. Have you ever asked yourself what happened? What changed?

In 2003, a right wing border patrol group lost a case that set the precedent for what would follow. Seizing on the court losses and the fear generated by 9 / 11, all of a sudden Jim Gilchrist, a former newsman enlisted real life Nazis and began his self proclaimed "_Minutemen_." Gilchrist only rehashed David Duke's rhetoric, using the same think tanks, financed by the same financier, and still misleading the people. Only now, it is supported by "_conservatives_."

While I realize that an issue exists, I'm banished from the right wing. Most of the time, I see those who follow Trump (who is parroting the propaganda coming from real life Nazi organizations) trying the same discredited and refuted talking points. The way I see it, the people following Trump are the left wing National Socialists. We have a problem with foreigners; however, Trump, preaching the Gilchrist / Duke gospel that they learned from organizations financed by John Tanton is not any kind of solution.

In the first place, these people cannot decide whether they want to complain about a National Emergency issue OR a problem with people they have mislabeled _"illegal aliens_." No matter how many times you explain that, the wallists try to use their irrelevant arguing points. Whether we like it or not; agree with it or not; believe it or not, the federal government is prohibited by law from enforcing domestic policies. If the wallists continue with the "i_llegal alien_" rhetoric, they cannot make a case for a National Emergency since the rhetoric makes it a legal issue, NOT a military one. This is especially true when the affected states governors say NO National Emergency exists.

Again, like it or not; believe it or not, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that "_being in_" the United States without documentation is NOT a crime. Period. It's not up for debate. Then, to answer their rhetorical question, YES, the United States government is tasked with protecting the borders. The problem is, the majority of the American people disagree with the SOLUTIONS to the point that a majority don't want the wall. Or so they say.

The real questions should be: How did the right end up on the left of this issue? What happened that the leadership of the left abandoned their own fight and allowed the right to co-opt it? What are the real costs (not only monetary costs) are going to be involved? Does the possibility exist that people like Rupert Murdoch (whom we've talked about in other recent threads) has figured out how to use the right's momentum against the right? Could the possibility exist, to use an analogy, that rather than try to duke it out with a bigger guy in the fight, the power brokers simply grabbed the arms of their opponents and pulled it, using the momentum to make the right fall flat on their asses? Your questions would require some in depth posting. Do you really want an answer OR an opportunity to repeat the swill we've heard for over a decade and half? BTW, if I told you the truth, you'd begin to realize how much you've really lost over that period.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

koshergrl said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Correll keeps typing and ignoring my challenges, I will keep repeating them:
> 
> America has had foreigners regulated since the Mayflower hit the shores of the New World in 1620. However, this process has been done by different levels of government at different times. From your own article:
> 
> "_The federal government assumed control of immigration on April 18, 1890_"
> 
> Here are the serious questions for you Correll:
> 
> A) Where, in the Constitution, does the federal government have the authority to tell the states who can and cannot come to that respective state?
> 
> B) PRIOR to 1890 the federal government *did not* have control over immigration. Obviously if someone were regulating the flow of foreigners and it was not the federal government, somebody did it for that period between 1789 and 1890 *A FULL CENTURY OF REGULATION WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY YOUR OWN LINK!*
> 
> C) HOW did the federal government, after a century end up controlling the flow of foreigners? Which Amendment changed that?
> 
> 
> 
> Shut the hell up, you're just a brainwashed, lying dupe.
Click to expand...


Can you make me shut up, Correll?  Or are you full of shit?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

To begin with, the build the wall guys say if you are not for a wall, you are a liberal, lefty, etc. That is absolutely idiotic as we shall see.

The way I view the topic is best described in an analogy. In this analogy a man is stuck in a burning apartment on the third floor of a building (this part of the analogy describes our situation in America.) If this man stays in his current position, he dies. If the man goes out the door, there is a 100 percent chance that he will be killed (that part of the analogy refers to the nutty wall idea.) If he jumps out the window, the fall might kill him, but then again, he might live. That part of the analogy refers to a solution *OTHER THAN* the nutty wall idea.

I am neither pro-open borders *NOR* am I anti – closed borders. So, let’s get that understood and make an attempt to be honest. It’s just that a militarized border with a wall around it will not work in the United States.

The REAL cost of the wall is Liberty. So far, no build the wall guy has addressed the issue of Liberty. In the Declaration of Independence, we find these words:

*“WE *hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”

Of this document, the Declaration of Independence, the SCOTUS ruled:

The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government." _Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79_ (1901)

The Bible is clear about this subject as well:

“Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land Unto *All the Inhabitants thereof*” Leviticus 25: 10 and this Bible verse can be found on the Liberty Bell at Independence Hall. This Old Testament verse refers to the "Jubilee", or the instructions to the Israelites to return property and free slaves.every 50 years.

In II Timothy 3: 16 we read that “*All* scripture _is_ given by inspiration of God, and _is_ profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”

Finally, in II Corinthians 3 : 17 we read that:

“Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord _is_, there _is_Liberty.”

But what is Liberty? Well in a *biblical *sense, liberty means freedom (see # 1865 in the Greek Dictionary of Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. In *law*, Liberty means Freedom; exemption *from* extraneous control. …freedom regulated by law. (Black’s Law Dictionary Fifth Edition)

My take on it is very simple:

In New Jersey, they passed a law requiring people to turn in high capacity magazines… this included even off duty police. Nobody complied? Why? People think the law is unconstitutional. The Right to Life and Liberty are unalienable Rights. The Right to keep and bear Arms is an unalienable Right. It is an extension of both a Right to Life AND a Right to Liberty. So, no matter how many laws are passed, the majority of gun owners will not forfeit that Right. On that issue, they understand the concept. 

Those same people would, however, deny to *me* my Rights and punish me for hiring undocumented foreigners. The sad truth is, just as the feds are usurping the Second Amendment, they are waging a war against your Liberty. Those wanting a wall cannot find *any* biblical precedent for *CONTROLLING* people (which was one the first reasons cited to me in favor of a wall) and that was followed up by Ray – falsely believing we can keep people out. What a crock! (Continued in part II)


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Part II of my response to you:

In Jesus Time, there were *THREE* walls that surrounded Jerusalem, 90 towers stood in the first wall, 14 in the second, and 60 in the third. The third wall was built by Herod Agrippa I. These walls dated back to the time the first one was built in 130 B.C. Yet, very clearly these walls did not work. They did not keep the moneychangers out of the Temple (It didn’t even keep them outside the outer walls) Furthermore, the walls *did not *keep out the poseurs who claimed to be Israelites, but were in fact, half breed Canaanites that Jesus referred to as the Children of Hell.

America, being a cut above the third world is not Mexico, Canada, etc. *NOR *are we at war (which is the primary purpose of a wall …* OTHER THAN*preserving a culture.)

Those who want a wall cite they mythical stories that these foreigners steal jobs – impossible unless you live in a socialist country… and Ray wants to debate the meaning of socialism. Since he previously rejected the dictionary definition*, I went directly to the socialists themselves*. These are THEIR words, not mine:

“we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.

Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. *We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them*”

What is Democratic Socialism? - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

These are Ray’s EXACT sentiments. Ray advocates for that very kind of control as do those who have bothered to answer my questions.

I think it’s time for the build the wall guys, the right, the left, etc. to cut the crap and get real. From where do your Rights come from? If the government give you your rights via your citizenship, then government is your Creator and your God. It’s time to read the Declaration of Independence and the Court cases related thereto.

Under that scenario, you have NO Right to keep and bear Arms, NO Right to Freedom of the Press or Freedom of Speech, No Right to Freedom of Religion, etc. This is NOT multiple choice; it’s either / or.

IF you believe in the foundational principles upon which America was founded, then you accept the fact that unalienable Rights pre-existed before the Constitution was written. Man cannot take them from you. And so, rather than spew this idiotic charge that I’m “pro-open borders,” you have to ask yourself the REAL question:

Is your Liberty a gift from your Creator OR is it bestowed upon you by government? IF you believe in God, you have to find the biblical justification for denying to people their Liberty. Securing the border, protecting America from an invasion, regulating the flow of people are all legal, moral and constitutional. Using the laws to control or keep people out is a violation of their unalienable Rights – unless you think that only Americans have a Right to be in the United States. We don’t have to hire those people; nobody has to do business with them; we don’t have to interact with them and it is OUR politicians that allow them to partake of the privileges of citizenship without becoming citizens. Your real beef is with the politicians.


Either you believe in Liberty or you do not. The build the wall guys understand this so they’ve created this talking point: you’re either for the wall or you are whatever insult they can conjure up. I’m not going to bother calling them names. I pointed out what socialists say and what the word of God says. IF Liberty only applies to Americans, somebody refer me to that section of the Constitution, the Bible, the Declaration of Independence or something (other that post 14th Amendment swill) that will give credence to the talking point.

Are you keeping up Correll or should I slow down?  Using two different profiles is also not cool.  But, if that is the way you roll...  BTW, the socialists I've quoted are saying the same things as you are.  Would you like me to quote you and then quote their words so you can compare?  Or are you capable of reading this?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Simple question, Correll:

How do YOU define Liberty?

Somebody might actually READ what I wrote and figure out you are a pathological liar with two accounts on this board (maybe more.)  You have no answers?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Since Correll keeps typing and ignoring my challenges, I will keep repeating them:

America has had foreigners regulated since the Mayflower hit the shores of the New World in 1620. However, this process has been done by different levels of government at different times. From your own article:

"_The federal government assumed control of immigration on April 18, 1890_"

Here are the serious questions for you Correll:

A) Where, in the Constitution, does the federal government have the authority to tell the states who can and cannot come to that respective state?

B) PRIOR to 1890 the federal government *did not* have control over immigration. Obviously if someone were regulating the flow of foreigners and it was not the federal government, somebody did it for that period between 1789 and 1890 *A FULL CENTURY OF REGULATION WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY YOUR OWN LINK!*

C) HOW did the federal government, after a century end up controlling the flow of foreigners? Which Amendment changed that?


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. My work ethic is fine and not the cause of millions of foreigners crossing the border is violation of our democratically enacted laws and our Right of Self Determination.
> 
> 
> 2. Nope. I want solutions. The scapegoat thing is something you made up out of whole cloth.
> 
> 3. The Supreme Court was suicidality stupid in deciding that people who entered illegally and stay here illegally and have to falsify records and taxes in order to work here, are " subject to the jurisdiction" of our laws. That was an obvious mistake and in a sane world would have been reversed immediately.
> 
> 4. My point stands.  Foreigners are let into this country by a corrupt political class, not because of our culture. Your contempt of your fellow Americans does not change that.
> 
> 5. Lower work cost might be good for macro-economic numbers and employers. It is not good for employees, and the nation as a whole. It is the right of those employees and those that identify with them, to seek political representation for their interests. Your hostility to this has not been explained.
> 
> 
> 6. Nazis are an irrelevant fringe. If a nazi is for good dental hygiene, it does not make me a nazi to brush my teeth.
> 
> 7. How so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  We are not a democracy.  So, you just exposed yourself as a social democrat
> 
> 2)  You want scapegoats.  If a willing employer hires a willing worker, what Right are you denied?
> 
> 3)  The United States Supreme Court did nothing you falsely accused them of.  According to the Chief Actuary of the Socialist Security Administration, about 75 percent of all undocumented foreigners get an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number and pay the same illegal / unconstitutional / immoral / indefensible/ federal tax that you do.  Nice to see you're still defending a plank from the Communist Manifesto AND lying about it with joy in your heart and a smile on your face
> 
> 4)  Foreigners come here because the *Constitution so allows*.  The ONLY thing regulating the process is laws pushed by Ted Kennedy and an unconstitutional power grab by the United States Supreme Court
> 
> 5) You do not understand basic economics much less macro economics and virtually every economist (including those on the far right admit that foreign labor is profitable.)  My case rests on the premise that money should not be the only factor.  My hostility is toward you because you are a pathological liar that has had this shit explained in detail and, on other threads, you did not read it NOR even formulate a responsive post on the points that you made which are in error
> 
> 6)  Saying Nazis are a fringe group may make you happy, but you have your head so far up their asses, you don't get a breath of fresh air til one of the farts.  Perhaps that is why you don't understand
> 
> 7)  How so?  How so what???  What are you asking?
> 
> Look, if you want me to rehash the same stuff I beat you up with on three other threads, we can go there.  You'll just get your ass stomped into the ground again.  You couldn't defend your crap on the other threads; have admitted you don't read the posts, so what... you think we might help someone understand what a poseur you really are if I post proof for a sixth time (at least that many times) that you have *FAILED* to answer???
> 
> I don't need 20 questions every exchange.  Tell us the truth.
> 
> Prior to David Duke, what American in all of U.S. history,  proposed the laws you support that would be put into place under the pretext of enforcing the wall?  *Can you name even ONE?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. We are a Constitutional republic with our government's legitimacy based on the consent of the governed. Referencing the source of that legitimacy is not admitting that I am a social democrat.  Calling me a name, was just a dodge of my point about illegal immigration violating our Right to Self Determination, which still stands. And which you have not addressed though I have brought it up many times.
> 
> 
> 2. I am denied my right of self determination. We as a nation, have the right to define who we are and how we live. Being flooded by the Turd World is not how I want America to be.
> 
> 3. How do they legally get a number when they are here illegally? And don't think that I didn't notice that you ignore the other crimes I mentioned. They are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of our laws
> 
> 4. Immigration was regulated and controlled WAY before Ted Kennedy.
> 
> Ellis Island - Wikipedia
> 
> *"Ellis Island* is a museum and former immigration inspection station in New York Harbor, within the states of New York and New Jersey. It was the gateway for over 12 million immigrants to the United States as the nation's busiest immigrant inspection station from 1892 until 1954"
> 
> for one very limited example. Ted Kennedy, who I agree is a villain, was not born until 1932, 3O years after Ellis Island started inspecting and controlling immigration. I have know that your claims about who invented certain ideas in America was wrong, and this time I was able to easily and clearly show it.
> 
> 
> My point stands. Foreigners are let into this country by a corrupt political class, not because of our culture. Your contempt of your fellow Americans does not change that.
> 
> 
> 
> 5. I agree that economics should not be the only factor considered. My point about low wages being bad for American workers stands, and nothing in your post explains why you oppose higher wages, or why you consider it wrong of me to want that.
> 
> 
> 6. Saying the Nazis are a fringe group does make me happy. It is a good thing. And I like speaking the Truth to panic mongers who want to panic people for no good reason.
> 
> 
> 7. HOw do you blame me for high taxes?
> 
> 
> 8. I know that there were anti-immigration movements in the past. The specific tools would have been different because the times were different. Supporting a wall between US and Mexico, when the vast majority of immigration was coming from Europe, would have been senseless, but the idea of being anti-immigration was certainly there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  I don't know what point you're alleging I'm dodging, but spit it out.  What does that even mean that _"illegal immigration"_ violates your Right to Self Determination (sic?)
> 
> 2)  I realize that this is going to come as a great big fucking surprise to you since you don't pay attention, but in many of my long posts I have stated many many times that America cannot be all things to all people and what America is about is stated in the Preamble to the Constitution:
> 
> "_We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and *secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity*_..."
> 
> Can you read that bolded portion?  Where do you see me advocating for turning America into a third world country?  Take a look at this country's FIRST naturalization law (I've posted it over 20 times.)  Where does it allow for the third world to gain equal political status with you or I?
> 
> 3)  If people were not subject to the jurisdiction of our laws, we would have no jurisdiction to deport them.  As for taxes, the IRS is a quasi private corporation and they don't give a shit who you are or where you come from.  If money passes hands, they want their piece of the pie.  So again, Individual Taxpayer Identification Number.  Immigration status is no bar to owing the tax according to the IRS.
> 
> If / when people commit crimes, they are prosecuted regardless of their immigration status.  OTOH, they also have the Right to a presumption of innocence due to the 14th Amendment (which, BTW, I believe to have been illegally ratified)
> 
> 4)  America has had foreigners regulated since the Mayflower hit the shores of the New World in 1620.  However, this process has been done by different levels of government at different times.  From your own article:
> 
> "_The federal government assumed control of immigration on April 18, 1890_"
> 
> Here are the serious questions for you Correll:
> 
> A)  Where, in the Constitution, does the federal government have the authority to tell the states who can and cannot come to that respective state?
> 
> B)  PRIOR to 1890 the federal government *did not* have control over immigration.  Obviously if someone were regulating the flow of foreigners and it was not the federal government, somebody did it for that period between 1789 and 1890  *A FULL CENTURY OF REGULATION WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY YOUR OWN LINK!
> *
> C)  HOW did the federal government, after a century end up controlling the flow of foreigners?  Which Amendment changed that?
> 
> 5)  Aside from your bold assertions that you've done stuff you most assuredly have not, you have added to your abject stupidity by saying I'm against paying Americans high wages.  In fact, I drafted legislation that I propose to my congresscritters twice each year to give strong incentives to employers to hire Americans and pay higher wages.  You continue to lie about proving me wrong - YOU NEVER HAVE AND NEVER WILL and you lie to yourself about me.  NOBODY is buying your bullshit.  Not even you...
> 
> 6)  Whether you are a "_fringe_" group or just one of their bitches is irrelevant.  National Socialist solutions prevail and you are all in.  You won't even consider anything else - which is why you are spreading the horseshit thick as you can on this thread and LYING like a New York politician.  Real change *NEVER* happens among the masses
> 
> 7)  I blame you for high taxes because you *lie like Hell* about me and YOU propose a government so big that the average person could never resist a tyrannical government.  You endorse a plank out of the Communist Manifesto by falsely accusing foreigners of not paying that unconstitutional tax.  You sabotaged our efforts to get rid of the income tax, the IRS, and make the tax burden equal on all (regardless of immigration status, income level, etc.)  YOU are part of that bunch that want Orwellian National ID tied to your Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_."  That is two points you are, by your own admission, advocating socialism on
> 
> 8)  Did you realize that in 1953 we had the lowest unemployment rates in U.S. history and people, like you, wanted a mass deportation - and so we did... and by the end of 1954 our unemployment rate DOUBLED in under five years and stayed above that 1953 level until recently???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  We, as Americans have the right to self determination. A big part of that is having the right to decide who joins our community. When people enter illegally and stay, that right is violated.   You support that.
> 
> 
> 2. When you want to let people (mostly third world) walk across the border, against our wishes and join our society, you are supporting this nation being turned into a Third World shithole.
> 
> 3. That we have the power to send some one home, maybe if we catch them, does not mean they are under our jurisdiction, and I've heard of quite a lot of those illegals ILLEGALLY copying someone ELSE'S numbers, often messing with their lives, a lot. They are here illegally, send their asses home.
> 
> 
> 4.  And just like that, you dropped your claim about Ted Kennedy coming up with the idea of immigration control. You don't like Federal control? Interesting. Let's talk about that a lot. AFTER WE SEND THE ILLEGALS HOME.
> 
> 5. You support having Americans compete against unlimited, cheap and/or illegal labor. That has and will guarantee low wages for American workers.
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Your desire to smear ideas, with the logical fallacy of attacking the messenger, is just a way to avoid dealing with the actual pros and cons of the issue.
> 
> 7. The government was big way before I was born. NOT deporting the illegals, nor NOT building a Wall, is not going to make it smaller.
> 
> 
> 8.  And now you just dropped the claim that David Duke invented it, thanks. DEPORT THEM ALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  You are right.  I do think that each community and each state makes their own decisions.  So, if Californication wants 75 percent undocumented foreigners, have at it.  Don't expect me to pay for it
> 
> 2)  Just because someone comes here does not and should not make them a part of our society.  THAT is one of your major weaknesses
> 
> 3)  The United States Supreme Court has said you are wrong on jurisdiction:
> 
> Plyler v. Doe
> 
> 4)  You are lying out your ass again.  You show me where I said that Ted Kennedy _"came up with the idea of immigration control_" and I'll kiss your ass on the main street of America and give you two weeks to draw a crowd.  You are acting like a moron and lying out your ever loving ass.  Kennedy forced through the current laws that were designed to take away from the posterity and then implode.
> 
> 5)  Another lie and I'm not going to respond to that.  You would not make that allegation with your real name attached and that allegation destroys your credibility and is an admission on your part that you cannot sustain your arguments
> 
> 6)  I've dealt with the pros and cons of the issue without smearing a single soul.  I've not said anything about you that *YOU* did not say about yourself.  You've tried lying, deflecting and making the most idiotic allegations ever heard.  Quite frankly, since you cannot make an honest statement, you've pretty well displayed how low your intelligence is
> 
> 7)  Your side has already spent over *TWO TRILLION DOLLARS* on your idiotic fantasy.  You, by your own admission, have nothing to show for it.  Cry me a river
> 
> 8)  I have dropped no such claim about David Duke.  You lie like HELL.  I challenged you to name an American who advocated it and lobbied for it in the United States and you could not come up with a single solitary name.  You are fucked up and a liar.  I accept your concession of defeat.
Click to expand...





1. California's illegals are not staying in California. They are changing this nation, without our consent.

2. I agree completely, but by current rules that is what happens, so send the fuckers home.

3. Supreme Court has been wrong before. Send the fuckers home.

4. Your words from above,  "The ONLY thing regulating the process is laws pushed by Ted Kennedy and " 

5. You support letting the illegals waltz into California, as though they stay there. Once they are here, they compete with Americans for jobs. 

6. In our culture calling someone a nazi is the greatest smear and you have done that over and over again, based on nothing.

7. I assume the two trillion number includes all border security over a long period of time. It is dishonest to put that all on me. 

8. My position is not based on how else was for border security and/or a wall.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> David Duke organizes Border Watch in 1977:
> 
> That time David Duke and KKK patrolled the Mexican border…
> 
> David Duke and Donald Trump both belonged to the Reform Party at the same time, which demonstrates a unity of ideology:
> ....




No, it does not.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  We are not a democracy.  So, you just exposed yourself as a social democrat
> 
> 2)  You want scapegoats.  If a willing employer hires a willing worker, what Right are you denied?
> 
> 3)  The United States Supreme Court did nothing you falsely accused them of.  According to the Chief Actuary of the Socialist Security Administration, about 75 percent of all undocumented foreigners get an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number and pay the same illegal / unconstitutional / immoral / indefensible/ federal tax that you do.  Nice to see you're still defending a plank from the Communist Manifesto AND lying about it with joy in your heart and a smile on your face
> 
> 4)  Foreigners come here because the *Constitution so allows*.  The ONLY thing regulating the process is laws pushed by Ted Kennedy and an unconstitutional power grab by the United States Supreme Court
> 
> 5) You do not understand basic economics much less macro economics and virtually every economist (including those on the far right admit that foreign labor is profitable.)  My case rests on the premise that money should not be the only factor.  My hostility is toward you because you are a pathological liar that has had this shit explained in detail and, on other threads, you did not read it NOR even formulate a responsive post on the points that you made which are in error
> 
> 6)  Saying Nazis are a fringe group may make you happy, but you have your head so far up their asses, you don't get a breath of fresh air til one of the farts.  Perhaps that is why you don't understand
> 
> 7)  How so?  How so what???  What are you asking?
> 
> Look, if you want me to rehash the same stuff I beat you up with on three other threads, we can go there.  You'll just get your ass stomped into the ground again.  You couldn't defend your crap on the other threads; have admitted you don't read the posts, so what... you think we might help someone understand what a poseur you really are if I post proof for a sixth time (at least that many times) that you have *FAILED* to answer???
> 
> I don't need 20 questions every exchange.  Tell us the truth.
> 
> Prior to David Duke, what American in all of U.S. history,  proposed the laws you support that would be put into place under the pretext of enforcing the wall?  *Can you name even ONE?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. We are a Constitutional republic with our government's legitimacy based on the consent of the governed. Referencing the source of that legitimacy is not admitting that I am a social democrat.  Calling me a name, was just a dodge of my point about illegal immigration violating our Right to Self Determination, which still stands. And which you have not addressed though I have brought it up many times.
> 
> 
> 2. I am denied my right of self determination. We as a nation, have the right to define who we are and how we live. Being flooded by the Turd World is not how I want America to be.
> 
> 3. How do they legally get a number when they are here illegally? And don't think that I didn't notice that you ignore the other crimes I mentioned. They are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of our laws
> 
> 4. Immigration was regulated and controlled WAY before Ted Kennedy.
> 
> Ellis Island - Wikipedia
> 
> *"Ellis Island* is a museum and former immigration inspection station in New York Harbor, within the states of New York and New Jersey. It was the gateway for over 12 million immigrants to the United States as the nation's busiest immigrant inspection station from 1892 until 1954"
> 
> for one very limited example. Ted Kennedy, who I agree is a villain, was not born until 1932, 3O years after Ellis Island started inspecting and controlling immigration. I have know that your claims about who invented certain ideas in America was wrong, and this time I was able to easily and clearly show it.
> 
> 
> My point stands. Foreigners are let into this country by a corrupt political class, not because of our culture. Your contempt of your fellow Americans does not change that.
> 
> 
> 
> 5. I agree that economics should not be the only factor considered. My point about low wages being bad for American workers stands, and nothing in your post explains why you oppose higher wages, or why you consider it wrong of me to want that.
> 
> 
> 6. Saying the Nazis are a fringe group does make me happy. It is a good thing. And I like speaking the Truth to panic mongers who want to panic people for no good reason.
> 
> 
> 7. HOw do you blame me for high taxes?
> 
> 
> 8. I know that there were anti-immigration movements in the past. The specific tools would have been different because the times were different. Supporting a wall between US and Mexico, when the vast majority of immigration was coming from Europe, would have been senseless, but the idea of being anti-immigration was certainly there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  I don't know what point you're alleging I'm dodging, but spit it out.  What does that even mean that _"illegal immigration"_ violates your Right to Self Determination (sic?)
> 
> 2)  I realize that this is going to come as a great big fucking surprise to you since you don't pay attention, but in many of my long posts I have stated many many times that America cannot be all things to all people and what America is about is stated in the Preamble to the Constitution:
> 
> "_We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and *secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity*_..."
> 
> Can you read that bolded portion?  Where do you see me advocating for turning America into a third world country?  Take a look at this country's FIRST naturalization law (I've posted it over 20 times.)  Where does it allow for the third world to gain equal political status with you or I?
> 
> 3)  If people were not subject to the jurisdiction of our laws, we would have no jurisdiction to deport them.  As for taxes, the IRS is a quasi private corporation and they don't give a shit who you are or where you come from.  If money passes hands, they want their piece of the pie.  So again, Individual Taxpayer Identification Number.  Immigration status is no bar to owing the tax according to the IRS.
> 
> If / when people commit crimes, they are prosecuted regardless of their immigration status.  OTOH, they also have the Right to a presumption of innocence due to the 14th Amendment (which, BTW, I believe to have been illegally ratified)
> 
> 4)  America has had foreigners regulated since the Mayflower hit the shores of the New World in 1620.  However, this process has been done by different levels of government at different times.  From your own article:
> 
> "_The federal government assumed control of immigration on April 18, 1890_"
> 
> Here are the serious questions for you Correll:
> 
> A)  Where, in the Constitution, does the federal government have the authority to tell the states who can and cannot come to that respective state?
> 
> B)  PRIOR to 1890 the federal government *did not* have control over immigration.  Obviously if someone were regulating the flow of foreigners and it was not the federal government, somebody did it for that period between 1789 and 1890  *A FULL CENTURY OF REGULATION WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY YOUR OWN LINK!
> *
> C)  HOW did the federal government, after a century end up controlling the flow of foreigners?  Which Amendment changed that?
> 
> 5)  Aside from your bold assertions that you've done stuff you most assuredly have not, you have added to your abject stupidity by saying I'm against paying Americans high wages.  In fact, I drafted legislation that I propose to my congresscritters twice each year to give strong incentives to employers to hire Americans and pay higher wages.  You continue to lie about proving me wrong - YOU NEVER HAVE AND NEVER WILL and you lie to yourself about me.  NOBODY is buying your bullshit.  Not even you...
> 
> 6)  Whether you are a "_fringe_" group or just one of their bitches is irrelevant.  National Socialist solutions prevail and you are all in.  You won't even consider anything else - which is why you are spreading the horseshit thick as you can on this thread and LYING like a New York politician.  Real change *NEVER* happens among the masses
> 
> 7)  I blame you for high taxes because you *lie like Hell* about me and YOU propose a government so big that the average person could never resist a tyrannical government.  You endorse a plank out of the Communist Manifesto by falsely accusing foreigners of not paying that unconstitutional tax.  You sabotaged our efforts to get rid of the income tax, the IRS, and make the tax burden equal on all (regardless of immigration status, income level, etc.)  YOU are part of that bunch that want Orwellian National ID tied to your Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_."  That is two points you are, by your own admission, advocating socialism on
> 
> 8)  Did you realize that in 1953 we had the lowest unemployment rates in U.S. history and people, like you, wanted a mass deportation - and so we did... and by the end of 1954 our unemployment rate DOUBLED in under five years and stayed above that 1953 level until recently???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  We, as Americans have the right to self determination. A big part of that is having the right to decide who joins our community. When people enter illegally and stay, that right is violated.   You support that.
> 
> 
> 2. When you want to let people (mostly third world) walk across the border, against our wishes and join our society, you are supporting this nation being turned into a Third World shithole.
> 
> 3. That we have the power to send some one home, maybe if we catch them, does not mean they are under our jurisdiction, and I've heard of quite a lot of those illegals ILLEGALLY copying someone ELSE'S numbers, often messing with their lives, a lot. They are here illegally, send their asses home.
> 
> 
> 4.  And just like that, you dropped your claim about Ted Kennedy coming up with the idea of immigration control. You don't like Federal control? Interesting. Let's talk about that a lot. AFTER WE SEND THE ILLEGALS HOME.
> 
> 5. You support having Americans compete against unlimited, cheap and/or illegal labor. That has and will guarantee low wages for American workers.
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Your desire to smear ideas, with the logical fallacy of attacking the messenger, is just a way to avoid dealing with the actual pros and cons of the issue.
> 
> 7. The government was big way before I was born. NOT deporting the illegals, nor NOT building a Wall, is not going to make it smaller.
> 
> 
> 8.  And now you just dropped the claim that David Duke invented it, thanks. DEPORT THEM ALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  You are right.  I do think that each community and each state makes their own decisions.  So, if Californication wants 75 percent undocumented foreigners, have at it.  Don't expect me to pay for it
> 
> 2)  Just because someone comes here does not and should not make them a part of our society.  THAT is one of your major weaknesses
> 
> 3)  The United States Supreme Court has said you are wrong on jurisdiction:
> 
> Plyler v. Doe
> 
> 4)  You are lying out your ass again.  You show me where I said that Ted Kennedy _"came up with the idea of immigration control_" and I'll kiss your ass on the main street of America and give you two weeks to draw a crowd.  You are acting like a moron and lying out your ever loving ass.  Kennedy forced through the current laws that were designed to take away from the posterity and then implode.
> 
> 5)  Another lie and I'm not going to respond to that.  You would not make that allegation with your real name attached and that allegation destroys your credibility and is an admission on your part that you cannot sustain your arguments
> 
> 6)  I've dealt with the pros and cons of the issue without smearing a single soul.  I've not said anything about you that *YOU* did not say about yourself.  You've tried lying, deflecting and making the most idiotic allegations ever heard.  Quite frankly, since you cannot make an honest statement, you've pretty well displayed how low your intelligence is
> 
> 7)  Your side has already spent over *TWO TRILLION DOLLARS* on your idiotic fantasy.  You, by your own admission, have nothing to show for it.  Cry me a river
> 
> 8)  I have dropped no such claim about David Duke.  You lie like HELL.  I challenged you to name an American who advocated it and lobbied for it in the United States and you could not come up with a single solitary name.  You are fucked up and a liar.  I accept your concession of defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. California's illegals are not staying in California. They are changing this nation, without our consent.
> 
> 2. I agree completely, but by current rules that is what happens, so send the fuckers home.
> 
> 3. Supreme Court has been wrong before. Send the fuckers home.
> 
> 4. Your words from above,  "The ONLY thing regulating the process is laws pushed by Ted Kennedy and "
> 
> 5. You support letting the illegals waltz into California, as though they stay there. Once they are here, they compete with Americans for jobs.
> 
> 6. In our culture calling someone a nazi is the greatest smear and you have done that over and over again, based on nothing.
> 
> 7. I assume the two trillion number includes all border security over a long period of time. It is dishonest to put that all on me.
> 
> 8. My position is not based on how else was for border security and/or a wall.
Click to expand...


I responded to you.  Time for some answers Correll.  Put up or shut up.  I stand by what I said, but it still isn't what you claim.  You got reading comprehension issues?

I want some answers for a change.  I'm not calling everyone a Nazi... just YOU.  *And the TWO TRILLION is on YOU*.  You want to be the spokesman - you want to be the big cheese.  

So, now answer my questions.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> David Duke organizes Border Watch in 1977:
> 
> That time David Duke and KKK patrolled the Mexican border…
> 
> David Duke and Donald Trump both belonged to the Reform Party at the same time, which demonstrates a unity of ideology:
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it does not.
Click to expand...


Now you sound like a fifth grader.  A denial doesn't refute anything.  You had a lot to say and now you cannot answer the questions.  Let me repeat a post for you:

America has had foreigners regulated since the Mayflower hit the shores of the New World in 1620. However, this process has been done by different levels of government at different times. From your own article:

"_The federal government assumed control of immigration on April 18, 1890_"

Here are the serious questions for you Correll:

A) Where, in the Constitution, does the federal government have the authority to tell the states who can and cannot come to that respective state?

B) PRIOR to 1890 the federal government *did not* have control over immigration. Obviously if someone were regulating the flow of foreigners and it was not the federal government, somebody did it for that period between 1789 and 1890 *A FULL CENTURY OF REGULATION WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY YOUR OWN LINK!*

C) HOW did the federal government, after a century end up controlling the flow of foreigners? Which Amendment changed that?

Tell me who, before David Duke, wanted the same kind of border control you advocate?  Give me a name.  Tell me someone who says they are "_for_" open borders.  You wanted a discussion.  Spit it out.  OR were you full of shit and now realize it?  That deal with two personas was a real low.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. We are a Constitutional republic with our government's legitimacy based on the consent of the governed. Referencing the source of that legitimacy is not admitting that I am a social democrat.  Calling me a name, was just a dodge of my point about illegal immigration violating our Right to Self Determination, which still stands. And which you have not addressed though I have brought it up many times.
> 
> 
> 2. I am denied my right of self determination. We as a nation, have the right to define who we are and how we live. Being flooded by the Turd World is not how I want America to be.
> 
> 3. How do they legally get a number when they are here illegally? And don't think that I didn't notice that you ignore the other crimes I mentioned. They are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of our laws
> 
> 4. Immigration was regulated and controlled WAY before Ted Kennedy.
> 
> Ellis Island - Wikipedia
> 
> *"Ellis Island* is a museum and former immigration inspection station in New York Harbor, within the states of New York and New Jersey. It was the gateway for over 12 million immigrants to the United States as the nation's busiest immigrant inspection station from 1892 until 1954"
> 
> for one very limited example. Ted Kennedy, who I agree is a villain, was not born until 1932, 3O years after Ellis Island started inspecting and controlling immigration. I have know that your claims about who invented certain ideas in America was wrong, and this time I was able to easily and clearly show it.
> 
> 
> My point stands. Foreigners are let into this country by a corrupt political class, not because of our culture. Your contempt of your fellow Americans does not change that.
> 
> 
> 
> 5. I agree that economics should not be the only factor considered. My point about low wages being bad for American workers stands, and nothing in your post explains why you oppose higher wages, or why you consider it wrong of me to want that.
> 
> 
> 6. Saying the Nazis are a fringe group does make me happy. It is a good thing. And I like speaking the Truth to panic mongers who want to panic people for no good reason.
> 
> 
> 7. HOw do you blame me for high taxes?
> 
> 
> 8. I know that there were anti-immigration movements in the past. The specific tools would have been different because the times were different. Supporting a wall between US and Mexico, when the vast majority of immigration was coming from Europe, would have been senseless, but the idea of being anti-immigration was certainly there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  I don't know what point you're alleging I'm dodging, but spit it out.  What does that even mean that _"illegal immigration"_ violates your Right to Self Determination (sic?)
> 
> 2)  I realize that this is going to come as a great big fucking surprise to you since you don't pay attention, but in many of my long posts I have stated many many times that America cannot be all things to all people and what America is about is stated in the Preamble to the Constitution:
> 
> "_We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and *secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity*_..."
> 
> Can you read that bolded portion?  Where do you see me advocating for turning America into a third world country?  Take a look at this country's FIRST naturalization law (I've posted it over 20 times.)  Where does it allow for the third world to gain equal political status with you or I?
> 
> 3)  If people were not subject to the jurisdiction of our laws, we would have no jurisdiction to deport them.  As for taxes, the IRS is a quasi private corporation and they don't give a shit who you are or where you come from.  If money passes hands, they want their piece of the pie.  So again, Individual Taxpayer Identification Number.  Immigration status is no bar to owing the tax according to the IRS.
> 
> If / when people commit crimes, they are prosecuted regardless of their immigration status.  OTOH, they also have the Right to a presumption of innocence due to the 14th Amendment (which, BTW, I believe to have been illegally ratified)
> 
> 4)  America has had foreigners regulated since the Mayflower hit the shores of the New World in 1620.  However, this process has been done by different levels of government at different times.  From your own article:
> 
> "_The federal government assumed control of immigration on April 18, 1890_"
> 
> Here are the serious questions for you Correll:
> 
> A)  Where, in the Constitution, does the federal government have the authority to tell the states who can and cannot come to that respective state?
> 
> B)  PRIOR to 1890 the federal government *did not* have control over immigration.  Obviously if someone were regulating the flow of foreigners and it was not the federal government, somebody did it for that period between 1789 and 1890  *A FULL CENTURY OF REGULATION WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY YOUR OWN LINK!
> *
> C)  HOW did the federal government, after a century end up controlling the flow of foreigners?  Which Amendment changed that?
> 
> 5)  Aside from your bold assertions that you've done stuff you most assuredly have not, you have added to your abject stupidity by saying I'm against paying Americans high wages.  In fact, I drafted legislation that I propose to my congresscritters twice each year to give strong incentives to employers to hire Americans and pay higher wages.  You continue to lie about proving me wrong - YOU NEVER HAVE AND NEVER WILL and you lie to yourself about me.  NOBODY is buying your bullshit.  Not even you...
> 
> 6)  Whether you are a "_fringe_" group or just one of their bitches is irrelevant.  National Socialist solutions prevail and you are all in.  You won't even consider anything else - which is why you are spreading the horseshit thick as you can on this thread and LYING like a New York politician.  Real change *NEVER* happens among the masses
> 
> 7)  I blame you for high taxes because you *lie like Hell* about me and YOU propose a government so big that the average person could never resist a tyrannical government.  You endorse a plank out of the Communist Manifesto by falsely accusing foreigners of not paying that unconstitutional tax.  You sabotaged our efforts to get rid of the income tax, the IRS, and make the tax burden equal on all (regardless of immigration status, income level, etc.)  YOU are part of that bunch that want Orwellian National ID tied to your Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_."  That is two points you are, by your own admission, advocating socialism on
> 
> 8)  Did you realize that in 1953 we had the lowest unemployment rates in U.S. history and people, like you, wanted a mass deportation - and so we did... and by the end of 1954 our unemployment rate DOUBLED in under five years and stayed above that 1953 level until recently???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  We, as Americans have the right to self determination. A big part of that is having the right to decide who joins our community. When people enter illegally and stay, that right is violated.   You support that.
> 
> 
> 2. When you want to let people (mostly third world) walk across the border, against our wishes and join our society, you are supporting this nation being turned into a Third World shithole.
> 
> 3. That we have the power to send some one home, maybe if we catch them, does not mean they are under our jurisdiction, and I've heard of quite a lot of those illegals ILLEGALLY copying someone ELSE'S numbers, often messing with their lives, a lot. They are here illegally, send their asses home.
> 
> 
> 4.  And just like that, you dropped your claim about Ted Kennedy coming up with the idea of immigration control. You don't like Federal control? Interesting. Let's talk about that a lot. AFTER WE SEND THE ILLEGALS HOME.
> 
> 5. You support having Americans compete against unlimited, cheap and/or illegal labor. That has and will guarantee low wages for American workers.
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Your desire to smear ideas, with the logical fallacy of attacking the messenger, is just a way to avoid dealing with the actual pros and cons of the issue.
> 
> 7. The government was big way before I was born. NOT deporting the illegals, nor NOT building a Wall, is not going to make it smaller.
> 
> 
> 8.  And now you just dropped the claim that David Duke invented it, thanks. DEPORT THEM ALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  You are right.  I do think that each community and each state makes their own decisions.  So, if Californication wants 75 percent undocumented foreigners, have at it.  Don't expect me to pay for it
> 
> 2)  Just because someone comes here does not and should not make them a part of our society.  THAT is one of your major weaknesses
> 
> 3)  The United States Supreme Court has said you are wrong on jurisdiction:
> 
> Plyler v. Doe
> 
> 4)  You are lying out your ass again.  You show me where I said that Ted Kennedy _"came up with the idea of immigration control_" and I'll kiss your ass on the main street of America and give you two weeks to draw a crowd.  You are acting like a moron and lying out your ever loving ass.  Kennedy forced through the current laws that were designed to take away from the posterity and then implode.
> 
> 5)  Another lie and I'm not going to respond to that.  You would not make that allegation with your real name attached and that allegation destroys your credibility and is an admission on your part that you cannot sustain your arguments
> 
> 6)  I've dealt with the pros and cons of the issue without smearing a single soul.  I've not said anything about you that *YOU* did not say about yourself.  You've tried lying, deflecting and making the most idiotic allegations ever heard.  Quite frankly, since you cannot make an honest statement, you've pretty well displayed how low your intelligence is
> 
> 7)  Your side has already spent over *TWO TRILLION DOLLARS* on your idiotic fantasy.  You, by your own admission, have nothing to show for it.  Cry me a river
> 
> 8)  I have dropped no such claim about David Duke.  You lie like HELL.  I challenged you to name an American who advocated it and lobbied for it in the United States and you could not come up with a single solitary name.  You are fucked up and a liar.  I accept your concession of defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. California's illegals are not staying in California. They are changing this nation, without our consent.
> 
> 2. I agree completely, but by current rules that is what happens, so send the fuckers home.
> 
> 3. Supreme Court has been wrong before. Send the fuckers home.
> 
> 4. Your words from above,  "The ONLY thing regulating the process is laws pushed by Ted Kennedy and "
> 
> 5. You support letting the illegals waltz into California, as though they stay there. Once they are here, they compete with Americans for jobs.
> 
> 6. In our culture calling someone a nazi is the greatest smear and you have done that over and over again, based on nothing.
> 
> 7. I assume the two trillion number includes all border security over a long period of time. It is dishonest to put that all on me.
> 
> 8. My position is not based on how else was for border security and/or a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I responded to you.  Time for some answers Correll.  Put up or shut up.  I stand by what I said, but it still isn't what you claim.  You got reading comprehension issues?
> 
> I want some answers for a change.  I'm not calling everyone a Nazi... just YOU.  *And the TWO TRILLION is on YOU*.  You want to be the spokesman - you want to be the big cheese.
> 
> So, now answer my questions.
Click to expand...




You lumped the *Tea Party* in with the freaking Nazis. 


What questions do you want answers to?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

I'm tired of your bullshit Correll.  You claim I want people working for low wages and would turn America over to the third world.  You're never going to have the intestinal fortitude to say shit like that to my face, so I'm calling you on your shit.

Until you've manned the border, you are a poseur looking for relevance here.  Not on my watch.  You cannot answer basic questions, so you don't get any more free answers.

You hang with neo-Nazis and make outlandish claims and you refuse to answer simple questions.  If / when the SHTF, those who believe what you do are the first to go to jail, Hell, prison, or a grave - unless you become a snitch bitch.  Let's rock - got some answers?  You wanted a fight.  Your solutions are not solutions.  They are helpful ways to get your American brethren killed.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> David Duke organizes Border Watch in 1977:
> 
> That time David Duke and KKK patrolled the Mexican border…
> 
> David Duke and Donald Trump both belonged to the Reform Party at the same time, which demonstrates a unity of ideology:
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you sound like a fifth grader.  A denial doesn't refute anything. ....
Click to expand...




A political party is generally a very large and general organization. Look at John McCain and Donald Trump. They were both republicans at the same time. By your logic, they share an "unity of ideology".


WHich is obvious nonsense.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  I don't know what point you're alleging I'm dodging, but spit it out.  What does that even mean that _"illegal immigration"_ violates your Right to Self Determination (sic?)
> 
> 2)  I realize that this is going to come as a great big fucking surprise to you since you don't pay attention, but in many of my long posts I have stated many many times that America cannot be all things to all people and what America is about is stated in the Preamble to the Constitution:
> 
> "_We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and *secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity*_..."
> 
> Can you read that bolded portion?  Where do you see me advocating for turning America into a third world country?  Take a look at this country's FIRST naturalization law (I've posted it over 20 times.)  Where does it allow for the third world to gain equal political status with you or I?
> 
> 3)  If people were not subject to the jurisdiction of our laws, we would have no jurisdiction to deport them.  As for taxes, the IRS is a quasi private corporation and they don't give a shit who you are or where you come from.  If money passes hands, they want their piece of the pie.  So again, Individual Taxpayer Identification Number.  Immigration status is no bar to owing the tax according to the IRS.
> 
> If / when people commit crimes, they are prosecuted regardless of their immigration status.  OTOH, they also have the Right to a presumption of innocence due to the 14th Amendment (which, BTW, I believe to have been illegally ratified)
> 
> 4)  America has had foreigners regulated since the Mayflower hit the shores of the New World in 1620.  However, this process has been done by different levels of government at different times.  From your own article:
> 
> "_The federal government assumed control of immigration on April 18, 1890_"
> 
> Here are the serious questions for you Correll:
> 
> A)  Where, in the Constitution, does the federal government have the authority to tell the states who can and cannot come to that respective state?
> 
> B)  PRIOR to 1890 the federal government *did not* have control over immigration.  Obviously if someone were regulating the flow of foreigners and it was not the federal government, somebody did it for that period between 1789 and 1890  *A FULL CENTURY OF REGULATION WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY YOUR OWN LINK!
> *
> C)  HOW did the federal government, after a century end up controlling the flow of foreigners?  Which Amendment changed that?
> 
> 5)  Aside from your bold assertions that you've done stuff you most assuredly have not, you have added to your abject stupidity by saying I'm against paying Americans high wages.  In fact, I drafted legislation that I propose to my congresscritters twice each year to give strong incentives to employers to hire Americans and pay higher wages.  You continue to lie about proving me wrong - YOU NEVER HAVE AND NEVER WILL and you lie to yourself about me.  NOBODY is buying your bullshit.  Not even you...
> 
> 6)  Whether you are a "_fringe_" group or just one of their bitches is irrelevant.  National Socialist solutions prevail and you are all in.  You won't even consider anything else - which is why you are spreading the horseshit thick as you can on this thread and LYING like a New York politician.  Real change *NEVER* happens among the masses
> 
> 7)  I blame you for high taxes because you *lie like Hell* about me and YOU propose a government so big that the average person could never resist a tyrannical government.  You endorse a plank out of the Communist Manifesto by falsely accusing foreigners of not paying that unconstitutional tax.  You sabotaged our efforts to get rid of the income tax, the IRS, and make the tax burden equal on all (regardless of immigration status, income level, etc.)  YOU are part of that bunch that want Orwellian National ID tied to your Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_."  That is two points you are, by your own admission, advocating socialism on
> 
> 8)  Did you realize that in 1953 we had the lowest unemployment rates in U.S. history and people, like you, wanted a mass deportation - and so we did... and by the end of 1954 our unemployment rate DOUBLED in under five years and stayed above that 1953 level until recently???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  We, as Americans have the right to self determination. A big part of that is having the right to decide who joins our community. When people enter illegally and stay, that right is violated.   You support that.
> 
> 
> 2. When you want to let people (mostly third world) walk across the border, against our wishes and join our society, you are supporting this nation being turned into a Third World shithole.
> 
> 3. That we have the power to send some one home, maybe if we catch them, does not mean they are under our jurisdiction, and I've heard of quite a lot of those illegals ILLEGALLY copying someone ELSE'S numbers, often messing with their lives, a lot. They are here illegally, send their asses home.
> 
> 
> 4.  And just like that, you dropped your claim about Ted Kennedy coming up with the idea of immigration control. You don't like Federal control? Interesting. Let's talk about that a lot. AFTER WE SEND THE ILLEGALS HOME.
> 
> 5. You support having Americans compete against unlimited, cheap and/or illegal labor. That has and will guarantee low wages for American workers.
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Your desire to smear ideas, with the logical fallacy of attacking the messenger, is just a way to avoid dealing with the actual pros and cons of the issue.
> 
> 7. The government was big way before I was born. NOT deporting the illegals, nor NOT building a Wall, is not going to make it smaller.
> 
> 
> 8.  And now you just dropped the claim that David Duke invented it, thanks. DEPORT THEM ALL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  You are right.  I do think that each community and each state makes their own decisions.  So, if Californication wants 75 percent undocumented foreigners, have at it.  Don't expect me to pay for it
> 
> 2)  Just because someone comes here does not and should not make them a part of our society.  THAT is one of your major weaknesses
> 
> 3)  The United States Supreme Court has said you are wrong on jurisdiction:
> 
> Plyler v. Doe
> 
> 4)  You are lying out your ass again.  You show me where I said that Ted Kennedy _"came up with the idea of immigration control_" and I'll kiss your ass on the main street of America and give you two weeks to draw a crowd.  You are acting like a moron and lying out your ever loving ass.  Kennedy forced through the current laws that were designed to take away from the posterity and then implode.
> 
> 5)  Another lie and I'm not going to respond to that.  You would not make that allegation with your real name attached and that allegation destroys your credibility and is an admission on your part that you cannot sustain your arguments
> 
> 6)  I've dealt with the pros and cons of the issue without smearing a single soul.  I've not said anything about you that *YOU* did not say about yourself.  You've tried lying, deflecting and making the most idiotic allegations ever heard.  Quite frankly, since you cannot make an honest statement, you've pretty well displayed how low your intelligence is
> 
> 7)  Your side has already spent over *TWO TRILLION DOLLARS* on your idiotic fantasy.  You, by your own admission, have nothing to show for it.  Cry me a river
> 
> 8)  I have dropped no such claim about David Duke.  You lie like HELL.  I challenged you to name an American who advocated it and lobbied for it in the United States and you could not come up with a single solitary name.  You are fucked up and a liar.  I accept your concession of defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. California's illegals are not staying in California. They are changing this nation, without our consent.
> 
> 2. I agree completely, but by current rules that is what happens, so send the fuckers home.
> 
> 3. Supreme Court has been wrong before. Send the fuckers home.
> 
> 4. Your words from above,  "The ONLY thing regulating the process is laws pushed by Ted Kennedy and "
> 
> 5. You support letting the illegals waltz into California, as though they stay there. Once they are here, they compete with Americans for jobs.
> 
> 6. In our culture calling someone a nazi is the greatest smear and you have done that over and over again, based on nothing.
> 
> 7. I assume the two trillion number includes all border security over a long period of time. It is dishonest to put that all on me.
> 
> 8. My position is not based on how else was for border security and/or a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I responded to you.  Time for some answers Correll.  Put up or shut up.  I stand by what I said, but it still isn't what you claim.  You got reading comprehension issues?
> 
> I want some answers for a change.  I'm not calling everyone a Nazi... just YOU.  *And the TWO TRILLION is on YOU*.  You want to be the spokesman - you want to be the big cheese.
> 
> So, now answer my questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lumped the *Tea Party* in with the freaking Nazis.
> 
> 
> What questions do you want answers to?
Click to expand...


Yes, the Tea Party supported Hitler style National ID among other things.  They fucked the old guard that had the fight won.  Your point?  Let me try again dumb ass:

America has had foreigners regulated since the Mayflower hit the shores of the New World in 1620. However, this process has been done by different levels of government at different times. From your own article:

"_The federal government assumed control of immigration on April 18, 1890_"

Here are the serious questions for you Correll:

A) Where, in the Constitution, does the federal government have the authority to tell the states who can and cannot come to that respective state?

B) PRIOR to 1890 the federal government *did not* have control over immigration. Obviously if someone were regulating the flow of foreigners and it was not the federal government, somebody did it for that period between 1789 and 1890 *A FULL CENTURY OF REGULATION WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY YOUR OWN LINK!*

C) HOW did the federal government, after a century end up controlling the flow of foreigners? Which Amendment changed that?

Tell me who, before David Duke, wanted the same kind of border control you advocate? Give me a name. Tell me someone who says they are "_for_" open borders. You wanted a discussion. Spit it out. OR were you full of shit and now realize it? That deal with two personas was a real low.

So WTF dude, can you make a simple answer?  Do you know what the Rule of Law is?  When you've *DONE* something, you might be able to earn the Right to criticize me.  Until then, you're desperately looking for support from anybody dumb enough to enter the fray without the FACTS.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> I'm tired of your bullshit Correll.  You claim I want people working for low wages and would turn America over to the third world.  You're never going to have the intestinal fortitude to say shit like that to my face, so I'm calling you on your shit.
> 
> Until you've manned the border, you are a poseur looking for relevance here.  Not on my watch.  You cannot answer basic questions, so you don't get any more free answers.
> 
> You hang with neo-Nazis and make outlandish claims and you refuse to answer simple questions.  If / when the SHTF, those who believe what you do are the first to go to jail, Hell, prison, or a grave - unless you become a snitch bitch.  Let's rock - got some answers?  You wanted a fight.  Your solutions are not solutions.  They are helpful ways to get your American brethren killed.





I've made no outlandish claims. 


You've tried to lump the Tea Party, and many other good people, in with Nazis.


THAT is an "outlandish claim".


Hell, accusing me of "hanging out with neo-Nazis" because I want a Wall, THAT is an outlandish claim.



Nazis are not infamous because of their good border security. Building a wall and sending people home is not the same as sending them to the ovens, and it is outlandish of you to imply otherwise.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> David Duke organizes Border Watch in 1977:
> 
> That time David Duke and KKK patrolled the Mexican border…
> 
> David Duke and Donald Trump both belonged to the Reform Party at the same time, which demonstrates a unity of ideology:
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you sound like a fifth grader.  A denial doesn't refute anything. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A political party is generally a very large and general organization. Look at John McCain and Donald Trump. They were both republicans at the same time. By your logic, they share an "unity of ideology".
> 
> 
> WHich is obvious nonsense.
Click to expand...



Trump never was a Republican and you ignored the entire post where Bush and Reagan disagreed with you.  Were they open borders liberals that hated America?  Were they?  Or are you just so full of shit you can't afford a civil discussion?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm tired of your bullshit Correll.  You claim I want people working for low wages and would turn America over to the third world.  You're never going to have the intestinal fortitude to say shit like that to my face, so I'm calling you on your shit.
> 
> Until you've manned the border, you are a poseur looking for relevance here.  Not on my watch.  You cannot answer basic questions, so you don't get any more free answers.
> 
> You hang with neo-Nazis and make outlandish claims and you refuse to answer simple questions.  If / when the SHTF, those who believe what you do are the first to go to jail, Hell, prison, or a grave - unless you become a snitch bitch.  Let's rock - got some answers?  You wanted a fight.  Your solutions are not solutions.  They are helpful ways to get your American brethren killed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've made no outlandish claims.
> 
> 
> You've tried to lump the Tea Party, and many other good people, in with Nazis.
> 
> 
> THAT is an "outlandish claim".
> 
> 
> Hell, accusing me of "hanging out with neo-Nazis" because I want a Wall, THAT is an outlandish claim.
> 
> 
> 
> Nazis are not infamous because of their good border security. Building a wall and sending people home is not the same as sending them to the ovens, and it is outlandish of you to imply otherwise.
Click to expand...



You cannot even deny outlandish claims without making more idiotic and insulting outlandish and STUPID bullshit to hide behind.  You're the king of all scumbags.  

I never said anything against the PEOPLE in the Tea Party.  They got hoodwinked just like you.  But, I'm not some fucking chump that sits on his ass and denies what I know to be true.  If you get played, you get played.  Sending people to ovens?  How dishonest!  The heat must really be getting to you.  One lie to cover another.

You are the most desperate little angry man on this board, but you wanted some of me, you got it.  Now you have to formulate some answers.  I'll ask again:

Here are the serious questions for you Correll:

A) Where, in the Constitution, does the federal government have the authority to tell the states who can and cannot come to that respective state?

B) PRIOR to 1890 the federal government *did not* have control over immigration. Obviously if someone were regulating the flow of foreigners and it was not the federal government, somebody did it for that period between 1789 and 1890 *A FULL CENTURY OF REGULATION WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY YOUR OWN LINK!*

C) HOW did the federal government, after a century end up controlling the flow of foreigners? Which Amendment changed that?

Tell me who, before David Duke, wanted the same kind of border control you advocate? Give me a name. Tell me someone who says they are "_for_" open borders. You wanted a discussion. Spit it out. OR were you full of shit and now realize it? That deal with two personas was a real low.

So WTF dude, can you make a simple answer? Do you know what the Rule of Law is? When you've *DONE* something, you might be able to earn the Right to criticize me. Until then, you're desperately looking for support from anybody dumb enough to enter the fray without the FACTS.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  We, as Americans have the right to self determination. A big part of that is having the right to decide who joins our community. When people enter illegally and stay, that right is violated.   You support that.
> 
> 
> 2. When you want to let people (mostly third world) walk across the border, against our wishes and join our society, you are supporting this nation being turned into a Third World shithole.
> 
> 3. That we have the power to send some one home, maybe if we catch them, does not mean they are under our jurisdiction, and I've heard of quite a lot of those illegals ILLEGALLY copying someone ELSE'S numbers, often messing with their lives, a lot. They are here illegally, send their asses home.
> 
> 
> 4.  And just like that, you dropped your claim about Ted Kennedy coming up with the idea of immigration control. You don't like Federal control? Interesting. Let's talk about that a lot. AFTER WE SEND THE ILLEGALS HOME.
> 
> 5. You support having Americans compete against unlimited, cheap and/or illegal labor. That has and will guarantee low wages for American workers.
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Your desire to smear ideas, with the logical fallacy of attacking the messenger, is just a way to avoid dealing with the actual pros and cons of the issue.
> 
> 7. The government was big way before I was born. NOT deporting the illegals, nor NOT building a Wall, is not going to make it smaller.
> 
> 
> 8.  And now you just dropped the claim that David Duke invented it, thanks. DEPORT THEM ALL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You are right.  I do think that each community and each state makes their own decisions.  So, if Californication wants 75 percent undocumented foreigners, have at it.  Don't expect me to pay for it
> 
> 2)  Just because someone comes here does not and should not make them a part of our society.  THAT is one of your major weaknesses
> 
> 3)  The United States Supreme Court has said you are wrong on jurisdiction:
> 
> Plyler v. Doe
> 
> 4)  You are lying out your ass again.  You show me where I said that Ted Kennedy _"came up with the idea of immigration control_" and I'll kiss your ass on the main street of America and give you two weeks to draw a crowd.  You are acting like a moron and lying out your ever loving ass.  Kennedy forced through the current laws that were designed to take away from the posterity and then implode.
> 
> 5)  Another lie and I'm not going to respond to that.  You would not make that allegation with your real name attached and that allegation destroys your credibility and is an admission on your part that you cannot sustain your arguments
> 
> 6)  I've dealt with the pros and cons of the issue without smearing a single soul.  I've not said anything about you that *YOU* did not say about yourself.  You've tried lying, deflecting and making the most idiotic allegations ever heard.  Quite frankly, since you cannot make an honest statement, you've pretty well displayed how low your intelligence is
> 
> 7)  Your side has already spent over *TWO TRILLION DOLLARS* on your idiotic fantasy.  You, by your own admission, have nothing to show for it.  Cry me a river
> 
> 8)  I have dropped no such claim about David Duke.  You lie like HELL.  I challenged you to name an American who advocated it and lobbied for it in the United States and you could not come up with a single solitary name.  You are fucked up and a liar.  I accept your concession of defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. California's illegals are not staying in California. They are changing this nation, without our consent.
> 
> 2. I agree completely, but by current rules that is what happens, so send the fuckers home.
> 
> 3. Supreme Court has been wrong before. Send the fuckers home.
> 
> 4. Your words from above,  "The ONLY thing regulating the process is laws pushed by Ted Kennedy and "
> 
> 5. You support letting the illegals waltz into California, as though they stay there. Once they are here, they compete with Americans for jobs.
> 
> 6. In our culture calling someone a nazi is the greatest smear and you have done that over and over again, based on nothing.
> 
> 7. I assume the two trillion number includes all border security over a long period of time. It is dishonest to put that all on me.
> 
> 8. My position is not based on how else was for border security and/or a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I responded to you.  Time for some answers Correll.  Put up or shut up.  I stand by what I said, but it still isn't what you claim.  You got reading comprehension issues?
> 
> I want some answers for a change.  I'm not calling everyone a Nazi... just YOU.  *And the TWO TRILLION is on YOU*.  You want to be the spokesman - you want to be the big cheese.
> 
> So, now answer my questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lumped the *Tea Party* in with the freaking Nazis.
> 
> 
> What questions do you want answers to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the Tea Party supported Hitler style National ID among other things.  They fucked the old guard that had the fight won.  Your point?  Let me try again dumb ass:
> 
> America has had foreigners regulated since the Mayflower hit the shores of the New World in 1620. However, this process has been done by different levels of government at different times. From your own article:
> 
> "_The federal government assumed control of immigration on April 18, 1890_"
> 
> Here are the serious questions for you Correll:
> 
> A) Where, in the Constitution, does the federal government have the authority to tell the states who can and cannot come to that respective state?
> 
> B) PRIOR to 1890 the federal government *did not* have control over immigration. Obviously if someone were regulating the flow of foreigners and it was not the federal government, somebody did it for that period between 1789 and 1890 *A FULL CENTURY OF REGULATION WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY YOUR OWN LINK!*
> 
> C) HOW did the federal government, after a century end up controlling the flow of foreigners? Which Amendment changed that?
> 
> Tell me who, before David Duke, wanted the same kind of border control you advocate? Give me a name. Tell me someone who says they are "_for_" open borders. You wanted a discussion. Spit it out. OR were you full of shit and now realize it? That deal with two personas was a real low.
> 
> So WTF dude, can you make a simple answer?  Do you know what the Rule of Law is?  When you've *DONE* something, you might be able to earn the Right to criticize me.  Until then, you're desperately looking for support from anybody dumb enough to enter the fray without the FACTS.
Click to expand...





a. I don't know the justification for the expansion. THat is an interesting historical discussion to be had. ONce we send the illegals home.

b. So? For over a century now, it has been the feds. And that is not a reason to have unlimited immigration by unvetted and unwanted people. Send them home. 

c. Don't know. Send them home.

d. I have not read up on the history of immigration politics. I don't know that names of anti-immigration politicians from decades and centuries ago. Send them home.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> David Duke organizes Border Watch in 1977:
> 
> That time David Duke and KKK patrolled the Mexican border…
> 
> David Duke and Donald Trump both belonged to the Reform Party at the same time, which demonstrates a unity of ideology:
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you sound like a fifth grader.  A denial doesn't refute anything. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A political party is generally a very large and general organization. Look at John McCain and Donald Trump. They were both republicans at the same time. By your logic, they share an "unity of ideology".
> 
> 
> WHich is obvious nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Trump never was a Republican and you ignored the entire post where Bush and Reagan disagreed with you.  Were they open borders liberals that hated America?  Were they?  Or are you just so full of shit you can't afford a civil discussion?
Click to expand...





Yes, I did ignore it, because I did not read much past the point where you made the obscene move of trying to tie the President of the United States to a freaking nazi.

You want to have a serious conversation, don't open with* that.*


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You are right.  I do think that each community and each state makes their own decisions.  So, if Californication wants 75 percent undocumented foreigners, have at it.  Don't expect me to pay for it
> 
> 2)  Just because someone comes here does not and should not make them a part of our society.  THAT is one of your major weaknesses
> 
> 3)  The United States Supreme Court has said you are wrong on jurisdiction:
> 
> Plyler v. Doe
> 
> 4)  You are lying out your ass again.  You show me where I said that Ted Kennedy _"came up with the idea of immigration control_" and I'll kiss your ass on the main street of America and give you two weeks to draw a crowd.  You are acting like a moron and lying out your ever loving ass.  Kennedy forced through the current laws that were designed to take away from the posterity and then implode.
> 
> 5)  Another lie and I'm not going to respond to that.  You would not make that allegation with your real name attached and that allegation destroys your credibility and is an admission on your part that you cannot sustain your arguments
> 
> 6)  I've dealt with the pros and cons of the issue without smearing a single soul.  I've not said anything about you that *YOU* did not say about yourself.  You've tried lying, deflecting and making the most idiotic allegations ever heard.  Quite frankly, since you cannot make an honest statement, you've pretty well displayed how low your intelligence is
> 
> 7)  Your side has already spent over *TWO TRILLION DOLLARS* on your idiotic fantasy.  You, by your own admission, have nothing to show for it.  Cry me a river
> 
> 8)  I have dropped no such claim about David Duke.  You lie like HELL.  I challenged you to name an American who advocated it and lobbied for it in the United States and you could not come up with a single solitary name.  You are fucked up and a liar.  I accept your concession of defeat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. California's illegals are not staying in California. They are changing this nation, without our consent.
> 
> 2. I agree completely, but by current rules that is what happens, so send the fuckers home.
> 
> 3. Supreme Court has been wrong before. Send the fuckers home.
> 
> 4. Your words from above,  "The ONLY thing regulating the process is laws pushed by Ted Kennedy and "
> 
> 5. You support letting the illegals waltz into California, as though they stay there. Once they are here, they compete with Americans for jobs.
> 
> 6. In our culture calling someone a nazi is the greatest smear and you have done that over and over again, based on nothing.
> 
> 7. I assume the two trillion number includes all border security over a long period of time. It is dishonest to put that all on me.
> 
> 8. My position is not based on how else was for border security and/or a wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I responded to you.  Time for some answers Correll.  Put up or shut up.  I stand by what I said, but it still isn't what you claim.  You got reading comprehension issues?
> 
> I want some answers for a change.  I'm not calling everyone a Nazi... just YOU.  *And the TWO TRILLION is on YOU*.  You want to be the spokesman - you want to be the big cheese.
> 
> So, now answer my questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lumped the *Tea Party* in with the freaking Nazis.
> 
> 
> What questions do you want answers to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the Tea Party supported Hitler style National ID among other things.  They fucked the old guard that had the fight won.  Your point?  Let me try again dumb ass:
> 
> America has had foreigners regulated since the Mayflower hit the shores of the New World in 1620. However, this process has been done by different levels of government at different times. From your own article:
> 
> "_The federal government assumed control of immigration on April 18, 1890_"
> 
> Here are the serious questions for you Correll:
> 
> A) Where, in the Constitution, does the federal government have the authority to tell the states who can and cannot come to that respective state?
> 
> B) PRIOR to 1890 the federal government *did not* have control over immigration. Obviously if someone were regulating the flow of foreigners and it was not the federal government, somebody did it for that period between 1789 and 1890 *A FULL CENTURY OF REGULATION WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY YOUR OWN LINK!*
> 
> C) HOW did the federal government, after a century end up controlling the flow of foreigners? Which Amendment changed that?
> 
> Tell me who, before David Duke, wanted the same kind of border control you advocate? Give me a name. Tell me someone who says they are "_for_" open borders. You wanted a discussion. Spit it out. OR were you full of shit and now realize it? That deal with two personas was a real low.
> 
> So WTF dude, can you make a simple answer?  Do you know what the Rule of Law is?  When you've *DONE* something, you might be able to earn the Right to criticize me.  Until then, you're desperately looking for support from anybody dumb enough to enter the fray without the FACTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a. I don't know the justification for the expansion. THat is an interesting historical discussion to be had. ONce we send the illegals home.
> 
> b. So? For over a century now, it has been the feds. And that is not a reason to have unlimited immigration by unvetted and unwanted people. Send them home.
> 
> c. Don't know. Send them home.
> 
> 
> d. I have not read up on the history of immigration politics. I don't know that names of anti-immigration politicians from decades and centuries ago. Send them home.
Click to expand...


Your ignorance and your apathy toward the subject is what makes you a menace to society. 

The answer is that you have been 100 percent *WRONG*.  In 1875 the United States Supreme Court gave* plenary powers* to Congress over all aspects of immigration.  So, where, in the Constitution does the United States Supreme Court get the authority to grant powers of any kind to ANY branch of government?  They don't. 

So you are asking that the government solve a problem through unconstitutional means.  And the more the federal government intervenes, the worse the problem gets.  And, it's like a ripple in a calm pond.  The surveillance of American citizens, gun control, warrant less searches, killing people without Due Process... ALL made possible by your narrow minded idiocy.

When my life was on the line, I learned the hard way what we did wrong.  So, I don't mind disagreeing with people, but you've admitted you don't know history.  You sure as HELL don't know political strategies.  Even if we could get rid of all the Hispanics - or every person that isn't a citizen today, it would not raise your wages.  I do care about my life.  I care about the Constitution.  *I care about the Constitution as with was originally written and intended*.  

That means the only real "Citizens" of this country are white.  The 14th Amendment, illegally ratified, is the core of your problem.  It took away your Rights and replaced them with "privileges and immunities."  It made you a *SLAVE*.  And now you're attacking the Constitution on the premise that government is going to help you go Hispanic free.  You'll continue to endanger MY Rights and yours too - not that you would ever resist an unconstitutional government.  Under the 14th Amendment, foreigners (regardless of immigration status) are due the same Liberties as you are.  You cannot attack them in the manner you are without attacking me.  My Liberty is not for sale.  There is a way to reclaim it and the immigration problem goes away, but I'm going to make sure everyone understands that what you're saying about me is utter bullshit and if anyone follows you they will end up in prison, dead, or be a snitch bitch for an alphabet agency.  

Get ready for questions.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> David Duke organizes Border Watch in 1977:
> 
> That time David Duke and KKK patrolled the Mexican border…
> 
> David Duke and Donald Trump both belonged to the Reform Party at the same time, which demonstrates a unity of ideology:
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you sound like a fifth grader.  A denial doesn't refute anything. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A political party is generally a very large and general organization. Look at John McCain and Donald Trump. They were both republicans at the same time. By your logic, they share an "unity of ideology".
> 
> 
> WHich is obvious nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Trump never was a Republican and you ignored the entire post where Bush and Reagan disagreed with you.  Were they open borders liberals that hated America?  Were they?  Or are you just so full of shit you can't afford a civil discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I did ignore it, because I did not read much past the point where you made the obscene move of trying to tie the President of the United States to a freaking nazi.
> 
> You want to have a serious conversation, don't open with* that.*
Click to expand...



Don't tell me what parts of the truth to hide from the people.  You want to believe in a fantasy, do so.  But, don't presume to tell me what I think.  You've admitted you don't read; don't have the experience and you misrepresent the facts presented to you because you don't read all of it.

Other people ARE going to read these exchanges - sooner or later and figure out you are a complete and utter dumb ass and a horrible liar.  You presume to say things about me you don't have the courage to say publicly.  I've put my life on the line for your Rights you fucking ingrate -  you repay it by not looking at the facts and making outrageous allegations about me not supported by ANY fact.  So, I'm taking you to task.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it does not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you sound like a fifth grader.  A denial doesn't refute anything. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A political party is generally a very large and general organization. Look at John McCain and Donald Trump. They were both republicans at the same time. By your logic, they share an "unity of ideology".
> 
> 
> WHich is obvious nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Trump never was a Republican and you ignored the entire post where Bush and Reagan disagreed with you.  Were they open borders liberals that hated America?  Were they?  Or are you just so full of shit you can't afford a civil discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I did ignore it, because I did not read much past the point where you made the obscene move of trying to tie the President of the United States to a freaking nazi.
> 
> You want to have a serious conversation, don't open with* that.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't tell me what parts of the truth to hide from the people.  You want to believe in a fantasy, do so.  But, don't presume to tell me what I think.  You've admitted you don't read; don't have the experience and you misrepresent the facts presented to you because you don't read all of it.
> 
> Other people ARE going to read these exchanges - sooner or later and figure out you are a complete and utter dumb ass and a horrible liar.  You presume to say things about me you don't have the courage to say publicly.  I've put my life on the line for your Rights you fucking ingrate -  you repay it by not looking at the facts and making outrageous allegations about me not supported by ANY fact.  So, I'm taking you to task.
Click to expand...



When you open with claiming the President of the United States has "unity of ideology" with an actual, real, klansman,  you lose TONS of credibility.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

I think that as time goes on, most of you realize that a wall will *NOT* be built.  A wall would have to face the hurdles of the House of Representatives where funding legislation begins.  Then, IF the funding could be found, private property owners, environmentalists, conservationists, and Hispanic lobbying groups would file lawsuits that would take decades to hash out.  Then there would be the courts who *will not* separate families.

Personally, I'm against the border because the 14th Amendment guarantees to* all persons* the _equal protection of the laws _by virtue of the 14th Amendment.  The courts have already ruled.  No matter what country you're from and what your immigration status is, *YOU HAVE RIGHTS*.  And Hell no, I'm not a liberal trying to spew an opinion.  I'm dealing in legal reality.  So I know, without hesitation or reservation, when the liberals begin that charge of separating families the wall idea is DOA.

So, why do I bitch about it?  It was the Tea Party that endorsed the so - called "_Patriot Act_," and the National ID / REAL ID Act - E verify  legislation that started turning America into the ultimate *POLICE STATE*.  This stuff isn't used on foreigners.  It's employed against Americans!  I know - I was one of them.  I'm only alive today due to the grace of God and a reporter that wanted a big story.  The legislation that almost got me killed was introduced by Tea Party Republicans.

Correll has set himself up to be the spokesman here for the wallists.  And his actions show what kind of people they are - uneducated, apathetic, and the only thing they know is if you don't want a wall, you are a problem.  They are blind to the peripheral laws they created and deserve to be labeled and exposed for what they are:  ignorant traitors.  I could resolve the immigration crisis without a wall and protect the posterity of the Constitution.  The wallists have had over 15 years of failure.  It's time for a real discussion - one where the facts are brought forward and examined.  Correll and his ilk won't even read the facts - which means they don't know their political enemies positions either.  On Capitol Hill, *they will fail*.  But, if you want a real solution, then here is your opportunity.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you sound like a fifth grader.  A denial doesn't refute anything. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A political party is generally a very large and general organization. Look at John McCain and Donald Trump. They were both republicans at the same time. By your logic, they share an "unity of ideology".
> 
> 
> WHich is obvious nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Trump never was a Republican and you ignored the entire post where Bush and Reagan disagreed with you.  Were they open borders liberals that hated America?  Were they?  Or are you just so full of shit you can't afford a civil discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I did ignore it, because I did not read much past the point where you made the obscene move of trying to tie the President of the United States to a freaking nazi.
> 
> You want to have a serious conversation, don't open with* that.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't tell me what parts of the truth to hide from the people.  You want to believe in a fantasy, do so.  But, don't presume to tell me what I think.  You've admitted you don't read; don't have the experience and you misrepresent the facts presented to you because you don't read all of it.
> 
> Other people ARE going to read these exchanges - sooner or later and figure out you are a complete and utter dumb ass and a horrible liar.  You presume to say things about me you don't have the courage to say publicly.  I've put my life on the line for your Rights you fucking ingrate -  you repay it by not looking at the facts and making outrageous allegations about me not supported by ANY fact.  So, I'm taking you to task.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When you open with claiming the President of the United States has "unity of ideology" with an actual, real, klansman,  you lose TONS of credibility.
Click to expand...


You are out of your damn mind.  Both Duke and Trump belonged to the Reform Party at the same time.  They believe in the same things.  I won't lie to you or for you thinking it has an effect on credibility.

Trump says that some of the Charlottesville protesters were "_good people_."  They were some good people there.  To claim that there is no unity of ideology is a straight out lie.  David Duke worked behind the scenes to make sure Trump got enough electoral votes in several states.

Publicly, it's cool to denounce one another and pretend we're all enemies.  But, there are common interests and only idiots refuse a guaranteed vote.  Politicians trash talk each other, but once it's over it's like George Bush agreeing to be Reagan's VP.  

The Nazis, white supremacists, conservatives, white separatists, Tea Party, Reform Party, etc. may all have a common interest.  They will work together to get what they want.  In the instant case, the Nazis came out on top for whatever reason.  They want what Correll wants.  And I couldn't care less if all the foreigners packed their rags and caught the next train, plane, bus, or van heading out of the United States.  My beef with them is not that they care about the culture of this country, but that they deny *OUR* ownership in the status quo and that we cannot fix the problem with the Nazis solutions.  Plausible deniablility, the trash talk like pro - wrestlers, and pretending to be offended by us admitting what the left already knows is not necessary any longer.  Without the Nazis and white supremacists, Trump would be cooling his heels in his mansion and Hitlery would be prez.  

Don't shit yourself people.  It's not the size of the wave; it's the motion of the ocean.  I learned this while a lobbyist with the NRA.  They would have 3 million members and only 3400 people who actually made the decisions.  The wall issue is the same deal - but the head monkeys running the propaganda machine are Nazis... and I do not agree with forfeiting my God given, *unalienable* Rights for the faulty promise that a wall can save us from our own actions.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> A political party is generally a very large and general organization. Look at John McCain and Donald Trump. They were both republicans at the same time. By your logic, they share an "unity of ideology".
> 
> 
> WHich is obvious nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump never was a Republican and you ignored the entire post where Bush and Reagan disagreed with you.  Were they open borders liberals that hated America?  Were they?  Or are you just so full of shit you can't afford a civil discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I did ignore it, because I did not read much past the point where you made the obscene move of trying to tie the President of the United States to a freaking nazi.
> 
> You want to have a serious conversation, don't open with* that.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't tell me what parts of the truth to hide from the people.  You want to believe in a fantasy, do so.  But, don't presume to tell me what I think.  You've admitted you don't read; don't have the experience and you misrepresent the facts presented to you because you don't read all of it.
> 
> Other people ARE going to read these exchanges - sooner or later and figure out you are a complete and utter dumb ass and a horrible liar.  You presume to say things about me you don't have the courage to say publicly.  I've put my life on the line for your Rights you fucking ingrate -  you repay it by not looking at the facts and making outrageous allegations about me not supported by ANY fact.  So, I'm taking you to task.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When you open with claiming the President of the United States has "unity of ideology" with an actual, real, klansman,  you lose TONS of credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are out of your damn mind.  Both Duke and Trump belonged to the Reform Party at the same time.  They believe in the same things.  I won't lie to you or for you thinking it has an effect on credibility.
> 
> Trump says that some of the Charlottesville protesters were "_good people_."  They were some good people there.  To claim that there is no unity of ideology is a straight out lie.  David Duke worked behind the scenes to make sure Trump got enough electoral votes in several states.
> 
> Publicly, it's cool to denounce one another and pretend we're all enemies.  But, there are common interests and only idiots refuse a guaranteed vote.  Politicians trash talk each other, but once it's over it's like George Bush agreeing to be Reagan's VP.
> 
> The Nazis, white supremacists, conservatives, white separatists, Tea Party, Reform Party, etc. may all have a common interest.  They will work together to get what they want.  In the instant case, the Nazis came out on top for whatever reason.  They want what Correll wants.  And I couldn't care less if all the foreigners packed their rags and caught the next train, plane, bus, or van heading out of the United States.  My beef with them is not that they care about the culture of this country, but that they deny *OUR* ownership in the status quo and that we cannot fix the problem with the Nazis solutions.  Plausible deniablility, the trash talk like pro - wrestlers, and pretending to be offended by us admitting what the left already knows is not necessary any longer.  Without the Nazis and white supremacists, Trump would be cooling his heels in his mansion and Hitlery would be prez.
> 
> Don't shit yourself people.  It's not the size of the wave; it's the motion of the ocean.  I learned this while a lobbyist with the NRA.  They would have 3 million members and only 3400 people who actually made the decisions.  The wall issue is the same deal - but the head monkeys running the propaganda machine are Nazis... and I do not agree with forfeiting my God given, *unalienable* Rights for the faulty promise that a wall can save us from our own actions.
Click to expand...




1. Many of the Charlottesville people were there to protest the removal of historical statues. There is no reason to think that there were NOT good people. Trump furthermore specifically stated that when he said that, he was NOT talking about the white supremacists. That you cite this as evidence of him sharing ideology with DUke, shows that you are the one who has been duped. 


2. DUke might have worked on that. He had no effect. White supremacy is a long dead political force in this country. 

3. Mainstream political parties and grassroots movements do NOT work together with or have common interests with Nazis. 


4. Explain "thy deny our ownership in the status quo".

5. Nazi have no impact.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump never was a Republican and you ignored the entire post where Bush and Reagan disagreed with you.  Were they open borders liberals that hated America?  Were they?  Or are you just so full of shit you can't afford a civil discussion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I did ignore it, because I did not read much past the point where you made the obscene move of trying to tie the President of the United States to a freaking nazi.
> 
> You want to have a serious conversation, don't open with* that.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't tell me what parts of the truth to hide from the people.  You want to believe in a fantasy, do so.  But, don't presume to tell me what I think.  You've admitted you don't read; don't have the experience and you misrepresent the facts presented to you because you don't read all of it.
> 
> Other people ARE going to read these exchanges - sooner or later and figure out you are a complete and utter dumb ass and a horrible liar.  You presume to say things about me you don't have the courage to say publicly.  I've put my life on the line for your Rights you fucking ingrate -  you repay it by not looking at the facts and making outrageous allegations about me not supported by ANY fact.  So, I'm taking you to task.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When you open with claiming the President of the United States has "unity of ideology" with an actual, real, klansman,  you lose TONS of credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are out of your damn mind.  Both Duke and Trump belonged to the Reform Party at the same time.  They believe in the same things.  I won't lie to you or for you thinking it has an effect on credibility.
> 
> Trump says that some of the Charlottesville protesters were "_good people_."  They were some good people there.  To claim that there is no unity of ideology is a straight out lie.  David Duke worked behind the scenes to make sure Trump got enough electoral votes in several states.
> 
> Publicly, it's cool to denounce one another and pretend we're all enemies.  But, there are common interests and only idiots refuse a guaranteed vote.  Politicians trash talk each other, but once it's over it's like George Bush agreeing to be Reagan's VP.
> 
> The Nazis, white supremacists, conservatives, white separatists, Tea Party, Reform Party, etc. may all have a common interest.  They will work together to get what they want.  In the instant case, the Nazis came out on top for whatever reason.  They want what Correll wants.  And I couldn't care less if all the foreigners packed their rags and caught the next train, plane, bus, or van heading out of the United States.  My beef with them is not that they care about the culture of this country, but that they deny *OUR* ownership in the status quo and that we cannot fix the problem with the Nazis solutions.  Plausible deniablility, the trash talk like pro - wrestlers, and pretending to be offended by us admitting what the left already knows is not necessary any longer.  Without the Nazis and white supremacists, Trump would be cooling his heels in his mansion and Hitlery would be prez.
> 
> Don't shit yourself people.  It's not the size of the wave; it's the motion of the ocean.  I learned this while a lobbyist with the NRA.  They would have 3 million members and only 3400 people who actually made the decisions.  The wall issue is the same deal - but the head monkeys running the propaganda machine are Nazis... and I do not agree with forfeiting my God given, *unalienable* Rights for the faulty promise that a wall can save us from our own actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Many of the Charlottesville people were there to protest the removal of historical statues. There is no reason to think that there were NOT good people. Trump furthermore specifically stated that when he said that, he was NOT talking about the white supremacists. That you cite this as evidence of him sharing ideology with DUke, shows that you are the one who has been duped.
> 
> 
> 2. DUke might have worked on that. He had no effect. White supremacy is a long dead political force in this country.
> 
> 3. Mainstream political parties and grassroots movements do NOT work together with or have common interests with Nazis.
> 
> 
> 4. Explain "thy deny our ownership in the status quo".
> 
> 5. Nazi have no impact.
Click to expand...


I can't figure out if you're that stupid or that dishonest

1)   Plausible deniability 

2)  Everybody that expends any effort has an impact.  You've admitted that you are not a researcher, so you should leave the facts to people who HAVE experience

3)  Even *YOU* have the same common interests with Nazis.  If you had to make an argument for the wall and you were forbidden to quote any statistic related to John Tanton, you would have little more than your weenie in your hand.  Shall I begin repeating the ties between Nazis, Republicans, the Tea Party and the wall idea?  Just because you can't read it don't mean the facts don't exist

4)  Damn son.  How many times do you want to cover the same ground?  Are you REALLY that fucking stupid?  We just did this once today and many more times in the past.  Stay tuned - we can keep repeating it.  It isn't going to change and you won't know until you read the thread

5)  Nazis had a big impact on your dumb ass.  You're one of them and too stupid to recognize it

Okay, here is the proof - YET AGAIN


----------



## Porter Rockwell

A repeat of the FACTS

David Duke organizes Border Watch in 1977:

That time David Duke and KKK patrolled the Mexican border…

David Duke and Donald Trump both belonged to the Reform Party at the same time, which demonstrates a unity of ideology:

“_Duke joined the __Reform__ Party in 1999 while working for __Pat Buchanan__'s 2000 presidential campaign_”

David Duke - Wikipedia

“_Donald Trump's presidential campaign of 2000 for the nomination of the __Reform Party__ began when __real estate__ magnate __Donald Trump__ of __New York__announced the creation of a presidential __exploratory committee__ on the October 8, 1999 edition of_ _Larry King Live__”_

Donald Trump 2000 presidential campaign - Wikipedia

The Real David Duke This info will become very important to the subject



Trump plays stupid and tries to deny his ideological ties to white supremacy:

Trump dodges on David Duke question: ' I know nothing about white supremacists'Trump dodges on David Duke question: ' I know nothing about white supremacists'

*Jim Gilchrist*, a former newsman and *Chris Simcox* become the fathers of the “Secure the border / monitor (sic) the flow of Undocumented immigrants effort:

“*The Minuteman Project*_ was a __vigilante__ organization started in August 2004__[1]__ by a group of private individuals in the __United States__ to extrajudicially monitor the __United States – Mexico border__'s flow of __Undocumented immigrants__.__[2]__ Founded by __Jim Gilchrist__ and __Chris Simcox_,..”

Minuteman Project - Wikipedia


Today, the *founder* of the wallist religion is proudly displaying his ties to the Tea Party publicly:


Jim Gilchrist's Page


So, who is Jim Gilchrist?

Jim Gilchrist is a former newsman, left of center, who is politically a National Socialist. His views are palatable enough so that Bernie Sanders once voted to Gilchrist’s benefit:

Julian Castro claims Bernie Sanders voted with Republicans to protect a hate group

The top lieutenants of his “Minuteman Project” were exposed as being neo – Nazis and even murderers.

Co-founder *Chris Simcox* Gilchrist’s most trusted friend) was proven to be both a pedophile as well as a nazi:



Ex-Minuteman Chris Simcox sentenced to 19.5 years in child sex-abuse case


*Chris Simcox* befriended *J.T. Ready* who was also mainstream Republican that, on the surface only wanted to fight so – called “_illegal immigration_,” but was, in reality, a neo-nazi that ended up committing a mass murder before committing suicide:

“*Jason Todd "J. T." Ready* (February 17, 1973[1][2] – May 2, 2012) was a former American Marine, founder and leader of a border militia group[3]and a former member of the *neo-Nazi* *National Socialist Movement*

J. T. Ready - Wikipedia


Gilchrist was a very cunning politician type (learning lessons from his newsman days) so he would deny knowing his own officers when they got into trouble. An article I read had this to say in response to one of Gilchrist’s false claims that he knew one of his own top officers “briefly”:

“_Well, one of those "brief meetings" with *{Shawna}Forde* involved __a big public Minuteman rally organized by Forde__ in Everett, Washington, back in 2006, about the same time Forde was appearing onstage representing the Minutemen in public-TV forums, too. Gilchrist was __the star attraction at the Everett rally__, and he and Forde praised each other onstage.

In an __earlier report,__ moreover, Steller pointed out that Gilchrist was up to his ankles in communicating with Forde right up to the point of her arrest -- and in fact appears to have tried to tip her off that federal authorities were looking for her_:


_
Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project and an early leader of the movement, said last week that he donated $200 to a member of Forde's group, t*hat he called Forde a few days after the murders as investigators closed in,* and that his group removed postings by and about Forde from its Web site after the arrests. But he called Forde and her associates "rogues," and denied that he or his group had a formal relationship with her_.”

Orcinus: Minuteman leader Jim Gilchrist's ties to Shawna Forde's gang of killers finally catch up with him


“Formal relationship?” *Shawna Forde* was one of his top organizers! And he had a lot of faith in her:

Jim Gilchrist Speaks on Shawna - Justice for Shawna Forde

Evidently, Minutemen Founder Gilchrist Doesn't Like Us

*Shawna Forde* was convicted of the murder of a nine year old and her father:

Shawna Forde Guilty of Murder: Exclusive Interview with Arizona Minuteman

Also see this:

5 of Arizona's Most Notorious Racists and Their Crimes

Shawna Forde’s co-conspirator, Jason Bush, was a carbon copy of the kinds of people Gilchrist attracted:

_“… Bush was also __charged__ for the murder of a Latino man in Washington state in 1997, and in the murder of an Aryan Nations member he considered to be a “race-traitor_”…”

The meltdown of the anti-immigration Minuteman militia


Gilchrist knows how to hide the National Socialist trimmings and then deny those who embarrass the effort. Make no mistake. Jim Gilchrist and Chris Simcox are the founding fathers of the wallist religion – where the wall and so – called “_illegal immigration_” are the ONLY topics they have any concern with. What are the odds that all the founders of the wallist religion *ARE proven* Nazis and their followers are not? Then again, that might not be a rhetorical question as I’ve been reading that right now is the first time in history where more people without an education are supporting the Republicans than are supporting them.


Be that as it may, the DADDY of the wallist religion IS a Tea Party member:

Jim Gilchrist's Page

Jim Gilchrist: Illegal Alien Children Being Used As Political Human Shields - Tea Party News


*THE IDEOLOGY*

The major organizations / think tanks were founded and funded by a single individual by the name of John Tanton. According to Wikipedia:

*John H. Tanton*_ (born February 23, 1934)[1] is an American retired __ophthalmologist__ and activist in efforts aimed at __reducing immigration levels__ in the United States. He was the founder and first chairman of the _*Federation for American Immigration Reform** (FAIR)*_, an anti-immigration organization. He was chairman of _*U.S. English*_ and ProEnglish. He is the founder of _*The Social Contract Press**, *_which *publishes the quarterly journal The Social Contract*. *He founded the pro-*_*eugenics** organization Society for Genetic Education*.

“*FAIR, CIS and NumbersUSA*_ are all part of a network of restrictionist organizations conceived and created by John Tanton, the "puppeteer" of the nativist movement and a man with deep racist roots. As the first article in this report shows, Tanton has for decades been at the heart of the white nationalist scene. He has met with leading white supremacists and associated closely with the leaders of a eugenicist foundation once described by a leading newspaper as a "neo-Nazi organization." He has made a series of racist statements about Latinos and worried that they were outbreeding whites. At one point, he wrote candidly that to maintain American culture, "a European-American majority" is required_.”[25]

John Tanton - Wikipedia


So, here is the man responsible for the think tanks and the rhetoric that is generated relative to the wallist religion. But what, exactly is eugenics? I’d be a long time explaining it, but Wikipedia did a balanced article on it, so check it out:

Eugenics in the United States - Wikipedia


I only want to point out that the Rockefellers helped finance eugenics research… and the Rockefellers were all about the NEW WORLD ORDER / One World Government. It’s kind of hard to connect the dots until you figure out how the NEW WORLD ORDER types help finance both sides so that they can take each other out liberals v conservatives, right v left, Constitutionalists v National Socialists, etc. But, I digress. Now that I’ve spent over 15 years spreading my research about the David Duke – John Tanton ideologies (and Tanton supplied Duke his talking points back in the 1970s) other researchers have taken note:

Calling Former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke's Bluff


A Look at the Forces Behind the Anti-Immigrant Movement | Democracy Now!

A John Tanton Connect the Dots « American Border Patrol « Immigration « The Pink Flamingo

Team Trump's ties to white supremacy are even deeper than you imagined

https://splinternews.com/the-eugenicist-doctor-and-the-vast-fortune-behind-trump-1827322435


NOTE: It is unfortunate that I have to cite the left, but the Tea Party is never going to admit to who pioneered their political rhetoric. They also make the links to Nazism. Again, I am not getting into the fray over racial issues. I disagree with the current power structure because I oppose National Socialism. And the fact that the right’s think tanks are owned by a guy into eugenics and is pro-abortion signal significant differences of opinion between he and I.


The proposed solutions to the immigration debacle as adopted by those in the Tea Party are National Socialist NOT those of a constitutionalist group


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I did ignore it, because I did not read much past the point where you made the obscene move of trying to tie the President of the United States to a freaking nazi.
> 
> You want to have a serious conversation, don't open with* that.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't tell me what parts of the truth to hide from the people.  You want to believe in a fantasy, do so.  But, don't presume to tell me what I think.  You've admitted you don't read; don't have the experience and you misrepresent the facts presented to you because you don't read all of it.
> 
> Other people ARE going to read these exchanges - sooner or later and figure out you are a complete and utter dumb ass and a horrible liar.  You presume to say things about me you don't have the courage to say publicly.  I've put my life on the line for your Rights you fucking ingrate -  you repay it by not looking at the facts and making outrageous allegations about me not supported by ANY fact.  So, I'm taking you to task.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When you open with claiming the President of the United States has "unity of ideology" with an actual, real, klansman,  you lose TONS of credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are out of your damn mind.  Both Duke and Trump belonged to the Reform Party at the same time.  They believe in the same things.  I won't lie to you or for you thinking it has an effect on credibility.
> 
> Trump says that some of the Charlottesville protesters were "_good people_."  They were some good people there.  To claim that there is no unity of ideology is a straight out lie.  David Duke worked behind the scenes to make sure Trump got enough electoral votes in several states.
> 
> Publicly, it's cool to denounce one another and pretend we're all enemies.  But, there are common interests and only idiots refuse a guaranteed vote.  Politicians trash talk each other, but once it's over it's like George Bush agreeing to be Reagan's VP.
> 
> The Nazis, white supremacists, conservatives, white separatists, Tea Party, Reform Party, etc. may all have a common interest.  They will work together to get what they want.  In the instant case, the Nazis came out on top for whatever reason.  They want what Correll wants.  And I couldn't care less if all the foreigners packed their rags and caught the next train, plane, bus, or van heading out of the United States.  My beef with them is not that they care about the culture of this country, but that they deny *OUR* ownership in the status quo and that we cannot fix the problem with the Nazis solutions.  Plausible deniablility, the trash talk like pro - wrestlers, and pretending to be offended by us admitting what the left already knows is not necessary any longer.  Without the Nazis and white supremacists, Trump would be cooling his heels in his mansion and Hitlery would be prez.
> 
> Don't shit yourself people.  It's not the size of the wave; it's the motion of the ocean.  I learned this while a lobbyist with the NRA.  They would have 3 million members and only 3400 people who actually made the decisions.  The wall issue is the same deal - but the head monkeys running the propaganda machine are Nazis... and I do not agree with forfeiting my God given, *unalienable* Rights for the faulty promise that a wall can save us from our own actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Many of the Charlottesville people were there to protest the removal of historical statues. There is no reason to think that there were NOT good people. Trump furthermore specifically stated that when he said that, he was NOT talking about the white supremacists. That you cite this as evidence of him sharing ideology with DUke, shows that you are the one who has been duped.
> 
> 
> 2. DUke might have worked on that. He had no effect. White supremacy is a long dead political force in this country.
> 
> 3. Mainstream political parties and grassroots movements do NOT work together with or have common interests with Nazis.
> 
> 
> 4. Explain "thy deny our ownership in the status quo".
> 
> 5. Nazi have no impact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't figure out if you're that stupid or that dishonest
> 
> 1)   Plausible deniability
> 
> 2)  Everybody that expends any effort has an impact.  You've admitted that you are not a researcher, so you should leave the facts to people who HAVE experience
> 
> 3)  Even *YOU* have the same common interests with Nazis.  If you had to make an argument for the wall and you were forbidden to quote any statistic related to John Tanton, you would have little more than your weenie in your hand.  Shall I begin repeating the ties between Nazis, Republicans, the Tea Party and the wall idea?  Just because you can't read it don't mean the facts don't exist
> 
> 4)  Damn son.  How many times do you want to cover the same ground?  Are you REALLY that fucking stupid?  We just did this once today and many more times in the past.  Stay tuned - we can keep repeating it.  It isn't going to change and you won't know until you read the thread
> 
> 5)  Nazis had a big impact on your dumb ass.  You're one of them and too stupid to recognize it
> 
> Okay, here is the proof - YET AGAIN
Click to expand...




1. Nope. Makes complete sense to distinguish between the white supremacists and those legitimately concerned about historical statues. What is dishonest is people like you, lumping the two groups together as though they are one. 

2. NOt really. Some fringe guy who speaks for a few thousand people, maybe,  in a nation of over 300 million, has no impact. Lost in the noise. Out weighted by people too drunk to pull the right lever. 

3. I've ridiculed your game of Kevin Bacon to death. If you want to go back to that, I can do it some more. I don't mind beating a dead horse. But, my point stands. Mainstream political parties and grassroots movements do NOT work together with or have common interests with Nazis.

4. Save the histrionics and insults for someone that might be impressed by them. My question stands. Explain "thy deny our ownership in the status quo".

5. Blah, blah, blah, nazi. Blah, blah blah, blah, stupid. Your inability to support your claim is noted. We can drop this now, or I can point that out some more. Your choice.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

*AMERICANS OWNERSHIP IN THE STATUS QUO OF IMMIGRATION
*
Let's just do the top 10 so as to not confuse Koshergirl / Correll

1)  America has more prisoners than any nation on this planet

2)  Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply

3)  Over half of all federal prisoners are in prison on drug related charges

4)  American children are prescribed Ritalin at a ratio of 3 to 1 over countries like the U.K.

5)  With the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, *many Americans* are locked out of the job market - and many times for irrelevant B.S. that the general public should NOT be allowed to access

6)  Too many mommies think their children are special so you see guys in their 20s, 30s, 40s and beyond living in mommy's house and NOT contributing to society in any way, shape, fashion or form

7)  Millions upon millions of Americans are functional illiterates (my critics have admitted they are)

8)  Over half of the American people are dependent upon the government for at least a portion of their daily bread

9)  Scores of these illiterates support socialist ideology that violates a person's Right to Privacy, their presumption of innocence, and the illiterates think that the private sector *owes *them a job

10)  By complaining about people (and doing so dishonestly) not paying taxes, it is supporting the income tax - which is a plank out of the Communist Manifesto.

Pill popping, tattooed, body pierced people with no education, no job skills, a drug habit and a criminal record (that the wallists like Correll want you to have for life) absolutely guarantees that you are virtually unemployable.  

Compare to that some foreign kid in his 20s that is fit and ready to work.  He has a couple of kids and a mortgage to pay for.  Who the Hell do the wallists think the employer is going to hire?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't tell me what parts of the truth to hide from the people.  You want to believe in a fantasy, do so.  But, don't presume to tell me what I think.  You've admitted you don't read; don't have the experience and you misrepresent the facts presented to you because you don't read all of it.
> 
> Other people ARE going to read these exchanges - sooner or later and figure out you are a complete and utter dumb ass and a horrible liar.  You presume to say things about me you don't have the courage to say publicly.  I've put my life on the line for your Rights you fucking ingrate -  you repay it by not looking at the facts and making outrageous allegations about me not supported by ANY fact.  So, I'm taking you to task.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you open with claiming the President of the United States has "unity of ideology" with an actual, real, klansman,  you lose TONS of credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are out of your damn mind.  Both Duke and Trump belonged to the Reform Party at the same time.  They believe in the same things.  I won't lie to you or for you thinking it has an effect on credibility.
> 
> Trump says that some of the Charlottesville protesters were "_good people_."  They were some good people there.  To claim that there is no unity of ideology is a straight out lie.  David Duke worked behind the scenes to make sure Trump got enough electoral votes in several states.
> 
> Publicly, it's cool to denounce one another and pretend we're all enemies.  But, there are common interests and only idiots refuse a guaranteed vote.  Politicians trash talk each other, but once it's over it's like George Bush agreeing to be Reagan's VP.
> 
> The Nazis, white supremacists, conservatives, white separatists, Tea Party, Reform Party, etc. may all have a common interest.  They will work together to get what they want.  In the instant case, the Nazis came out on top for whatever reason.  They want what Correll wants.  And I couldn't care less if all the foreigners packed their rags and caught the next train, plane, bus, or van heading out of the United States.  My beef with them is not that they care about the culture of this country, but that they deny *OUR* ownership in the status quo and that we cannot fix the problem with the Nazis solutions.  Plausible deniablility, the trash talk like pro - wrestlers, and pretending to be offended by us admitting what the left already knows is not necessary any longer.  Without the Nazis and white supremacists, Trump would be cooling his heels in his mansion and Hitlery would be prez.
> 
> Don't shit yourself people.  It's not the size of the wave; it's the motion of the ocean.  I learned this while a lobbyist with the NRA.  They would have 3 million members and only 3400 people who actually made the decisions.  The wall issue is the same deal - but the head monkeys running the propaganda machine are Nazis... and I do not agree with forfeiting my God given, *unalienable* Rights for the faulty promise that a wall can save us from our own actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Many of the Charlottesville people were there to protest the removal of historical statues. There is no reason to think that there were NOT good people. Trump furthermore specifically stated that when he said that, he was NOT talking about the white supremacists. That you cite this as evidence of him sharing ideology with DUke, shows that you are the one who has been duped.
> 
> 
> 2. DUke might have worked on that. He had no effect. White supremacy is a long dead political force in this country.
> 
> 3. Mainstream political parties and grassroots movements do NOT work together with or have common interests with Nazis.
> 
> 
> 4. Explain "thy deny our ownership in the status quo".
> 
> 5. Nazi have no impact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't figure out if you're that stupid or that dishonest
> 
> 1)   Plausible deniability
> 
> 2)  Everybody that expends any effort has an impact.  You've admitted that you are not a researcher, so you should leave the facts to people who HAVE experience
> 
> 3)  Even *YOU* have the same common interests with Nazis.  If you had to make an argument for the wall and you were forbidden to quote any statistic related to John Tanton, you would have little more than your weenie in your hand.  Shall I begin repeating the ties between Nazis, Republicans, the Tea Party and the wall idea?  Just because you can't read it don't mean the facts don't exist
> 
> 4)  Damn son.  How many times do you want to cover the same ground?  Are you REALLY that fucking stupid?  We just did this once today and many more times in the past.  Stay tuned - we can keep repeating it.  It isn't going to change and you won't know until you read the thread
> 
> 5)  Nazis had a big impact on your dumb ass.  You're one of them and too stupid to recognize it
> 
> Okay, here is the proof - YET AGAIN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Nope. Makes complete sense to distinguish between the white supremacists and those legitimately concerned about historical statues. What is dishonest is people like you, lumping the two groups together as though they are one.
> 
> 2. NOt really. Some fringe guy who speaks for a few thousand people, maybe,  in a nation of over 300 million, has no impact. Lost in the noise. Out weighted by people too drunk to pull the right lever.
> 
> 3. I've ridiculed your game of Kevin Bacon to death. If you want to go back to that, I can do it some more. I don't mind beating a dead horse. But, my point stands. Mainstream political parties and grassroots movements do NOT work together with or have common interests with Nazis.
> 
> 4. Save the histrionics and insults for someone that might be impressed by them. My question stands. Explain "thy deny our ownership in the status quo".
> 
> 5. Blah, blah, blah, nazi. Blah, blah blah, blah, stupid. Your inability to support your claim is noted. We can drop this now, or I can point that out some more. Your choice.
Click to expand...



1)  You hang with Nazis.  Trying to claim otherwise is dishonest and dishonorable.  You could disavow the strategies and solutions, but choose not to.  That is hypocritical and dishonest

2)  You are uneducated as they come.  If voting could change things, it would be illegal.  It's not large groups that wield power.  That is what you fail to comprehend... though you hang with shitsacks (and then bad mouth them when you don't have plausible deniability 

3)  You can beat a dead horse, but what you believe in is National Socialism

4)  DONE  and got your number ... even with you using two profiles, you're no match for me.  Your denials do not refute the *truth*.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

In one of the earliest United States Supreme Court decisions on this, the court ruled as follows:

"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable* rights,-'life, *liberty*, and the pursuit of happiness;' *and to 'secure*,' *not grant or create*, these rights, governments are instituted. *That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of*, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

In other words what I create is MINE and I don't owe you a job to benefit you - it's my job to give. This is *THE* fatal flaw of your argument.

3) I agree that the government "could" strictly enforce the Constitution Free Zone. IF they did, the people would see this is VERY real and they would rebel. So, they do it in small doses. YouTube is full of videos of law abiding Americans who have had their Rights violated in the Constitution Free Zone.

As you will recall, Al Capone was arrested on a 25 year old law that had possibly never been enforced - the people would have rebelled had they known what it was REALLY about (income tax evasion.)

4) I don't do theories. I live in the real world. In order to enforce the laws relative to the wall, your boys have already passed the so - called "Patriot Act," the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify and trashed the policies of a presumption of innocence - innocent until proven guilty. You're perfectly comfortable with the Constitution Free Zone and I'd bet there are over 500 suggestions from people you agree with on this thread alone advocating that we "crack down on those sending money out of this country." Those precedents are a dual edged sword. 

Frederick Douglass, a former slave and a Republican once said:

"No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened around his own neck."

So, you create a bad precedent on the border, falsely thinking it will apply only to undocumented foreigners only to find out it's being used against you. You don't have a very sound strategy. All you've supported in the past expands into a cashless society wherein all your transactions are tracked by the paper trail you left on a computer. You'd support a cashless society if it would get rid of the little brown guys from south of the border. All that will be enacted in order to assist in enforcing the wall... an untended consequence for those who realize that we may be engaged in an internal civil war some day.

The unintended consequences of giving the government as much power as you would - on the pretext that it will save you from yourself is foolish and your repetitive posts and covering the same ground over and over won't make my point any less true.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

If you throw a rock into a still pond, it makes a lot of ripples. One right wing book I read called Unintended Consequences by John Ross. It is a fictional novel based upon current laws and how they could be used in an anti-gun scenario. It demonstrates how one action may impact another.

When I was a teen, I spoke out publicly and was then recruited by the Young Republicans Club and the John Birch Society not to mention other organizations and I became hard core right. Since then, my major theme has not changed; the movement has. Those who want a wall around the southern border refuse to answer a few simple questions:

If unalienable Rights exist – and I think they do, WHERE in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation or the Constitution did our leaders ever presume to take those from people who are not citizens? What proof can they offer us that foreigners were not born with unalienable Rights? T*hey keep accusing me of taking a stand I have NOT taken. I’m asking them for proof of their position*.

Unable to do that they call me a lot of names that they cannot back up. But, I want to remind them of a few things:

If you go back to the mid to late 1990s the John Birch Society, Concern Conservative Citizens Society, Young Republicans Club, etc. were *AGAINST*the New World Order, One World Government, the abolition of jurisdictions,the Constitution Free Zone, militarized police, National ID, surveillance society, the unconstitutional 14th and 16th Amendments (neither passing constitutional muster), and the assaults on religion. They fought gun control, eminent domain abuses, and warrant less search and seizures. Probably, the last great effort to gain national attention was Alex Jones video* POLICE STATE 2000* (put out in the late 1980s) and a book called Operation Vampire Killer 2000 (written in the early 1990s by Jack McLamb of Police Against the New World Order.)

Operation Vampire Killer 2000 - The Lawful Path


If one were to return to that era, the uninformed build the wall guys, would swear and be damned the conservatives were the liberals. Well, the right adopted the left’s solutions:


Meanwhile, the left has jumped on the privacy bandwagon, warning Americans about the Constitution Free Zone:





Reminds me of the old Johnny Cash song The One on the Right is on the Left.

Anyway, with the wall up, it will immediately affect your Liberties in about a dozen ways. For this installment, I’ll list three:


1 There will be the strict enforcement of the Constitution Free Zone. There will go your Fourth Amendment Rights FOREVER. Right now, you can still fight back to regain those Rights

2 The right already passed the National ID / REAL ID Act – E Verify which is far worse than what Hitler had AND it reeks of Orwellian nightmares that today’s youth cannot begin to fathom. It will expand into drones and listening devices being used against them 24 / 7 / 365 from the womb to the tomb

3 As if the suspension of constitutional guarantees and total surveillance aren’t enough, the nutty wall gives the government the ability to track your every financial transaction based on your SSN / National ID card.


I mention this because a lot of people have NO intention of surrendering their firearms AND they expect an internal war due to government over-reach. The unintended consequences of this nutty wall idea will give government access to so much information they will know you built your own weapon without you ever having registered it. If you think you or the next generation may have to go up against a tyrannical government, you just handicapped them and endangered their lives with this lobbying effort. We got a long way to go


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> *AMERICANS OWNERSHIP IN THE STATUS QUO OF IMMIGRATION
> *
> Let's just do the top 10 so as to not confuse Koshergirl / Correll
> 
> 1)  America has more prisoners than any nation on this planet
> 
> 2)  Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply
> 
> 3)  Over half of all federal prisoners are in prison on drug related charges
> 
> 4)  American children are prescribed Ritalin at a ratio of 3 to 1 over countries like the U.K.
> 
> 5)  With the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, *many Americans* are locked out of the job market - and many times for irrelevant B.S. that the general public should NOT be allowed to access
> 
> 6)  Too many mommies think their children are special so you see guys in their 20s, 30s, 40s and beyond living in mommy's house and NOT contributing to society in any way, shape, fashion or form
> 
> 7)  Millions upon millions of Americans are functional illiterates (my critics have admitted they are)
> 
> 8)  Over half of the American people are dependent upon the government for at least a portion of their daily bread
> 
> 9)  Scores of these illiterates support socialist ideology that violates a person's Right to Privacy, their presumption of innocence, and the illiterates think that the private sector *owes *them a job
> 
> 10)  By complaining about people (and doing so dishonestly) not paying taxes, it is supporting the income tax - which is a plank out of the Communist Manifesto.
> 
> Pill popping, tattooed, body pierced people with no education, no job skills, a drug habit and a criminal record (that the wallists like Correll want you to have for life) absolutely guarantees that you are virtually unemployable.
> 
> Compare to that some foreign kid in his 20s that is fit and ready to work.  He has a couple of kids and a mortgage to pay for.  Who the Hell do the wallists think the employer is going to hire?




Americans have the right to AMERICAN polices that serve the interests of AMERICANS. 


That the lowest dregs of American society have trouble competing against the best that the Turd World has to offer, is a valid point. 


But if our policies prevent those Third Worlders, from being IN our labor market, then that gives a chance for those "pill popping, tattooed, body pierced people" to get some job skills and turn their screwed up lives around.


Your point about the criminal records is valid. Employers are so terrified of being sued on discrimination charges, that they go the paper trail more than the actual candidate, imo.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *AMERICANS OWNERSHIP IN THE STATUS QUO OF IMMIGRATION
> *
> Let's just do the top 10 so as to not confuse Koshergirl / Correll
> 
> 1)  America has more prisoners than any nation on this planet
> 
> 2)  Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply
> 
> 3)  Over half of all federal prisoners are in prison on drug related charges
> 
> 4)  American children are prescribed Ritalin at a ratio of 3 to 1 over countries like the U.K.
> 
> 5)  With the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, *many Americans* are locked out of the job market - and many times for irrelevant B.S. that the general public should NOT be allowed to access
> 
> 6)  Too many mommies think their children are special so you see guys in their 20s, 30s, 40s and beyond living in mommy's house and NOT contributing to society in any way, shape, fashion or form
> 
> 7)  Millions upon millions of Americans are functional illiterates (my critics have admitted they are)
> 
> 8)  Over half of the American people are dependent upon the government for at least a portion of their daily bread
> 
> 9)  Scores of these illiterates support socialist ideology that violates a person's Right to Privacy, their presumption of innocence, and the illiterates think that the private sector *owes *them a job
> 
> 10)  By complaining about people (and doing so dishonestly) not paying taxes, it is supporting the income tax - which is a plank out of the Communist Manifesto.
> 
> Pill popping, tattooed, body pierced people with no education, no job skills, a drug habit and a criminal record (that the wallists like Correll want you to have for life) absolutely guarantees that you are virtually unemployable.
> 
> Compare to that some foreign kid in his 20s that is fit and ready to work.  He has a couple of kids and a mortgage to pay for.  Who the Hell do the wallists think the employer is going to hire?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Americans have the right to AMERICAN polices that serve the interests of AMERICANS.
> 
> 
> That the lowest dregs of American society have trouble competing against the best that the Turd World has to offer, is a valid point.
> 
> 
> But if our policies prevent those Third Worlders, from being IN our labor market, then that gives a chance for those "pill popping, tattooed, body pierced people" to get some job skills and turn their screwed up lives around.
> 
> 
> Your point about the criminal records is valid. Employers are so terrified of being sued on discrimination charges, that they go the paper trail more than the actual candidate, imo.
Click to expand...



*  Americans do have the Right to American policies that serve their interests.  That is why we have private property Rights

*  The lowest dregs of society are WHY you have an influx of foreigners to fill the jobs they cannot or will not work AND to fill the jobs YOU would deny to them with those endless background checks wherein Americans can never rise above their past

*  Employers will not hire the dregs of society at inflated wages and be dictated to by a tyrannical government.  If you don't believe that, check to see how much communist China has grown over the last 15 or so years compared to the United States.

*  It's sad to say, but it is easier to get into communist China than the U.S. - that is if you want in the U.S. with human registration papers


----------



## Porter Rockwell

It is sad that the wallists do not understand the economics of their own country.  They blame people they call "illegals" for their woes, but the facts bear out a much different picture.

"_Almost 40 percent of young adults lived with their parents, step-parents, grandparents and other relatives last year, or the highest point in 75 years, according to data from real estate analytics company Trulia_."

Young adults living with their parents hits a 75-year high

When children live at home, they are not benefiting the nation.  Compare that to the Hispanic guy that comes here with two or three kids (or his wife has them while in the U.S.)  That guy works a job, has his own mortgage, and has life related bills.

By contrast, the dope smoking dregs of society live off of welfare, food stamps, "_disability_" for a condition they willingly gave themselves, and other manner of handouts (food banks, panhandling, etc.)  These people are a significant part of our society.

The foreigner who comes here, buys a home and pays the usual taxes is paying out far more than the 40 percent of young adults and is creating opportunities for the rest of us.  I'm a homeowner and will tell you that my property taxes are double what the unconstitutional income taxes come to.  AND, when you're working,  When houses and apartments are being rented and sold, it is generating incomes for other people.  For every job than an American will take, it will mean one less job for a foreigner.  

You can't get the job with a drug habit and a criminal history.  At any given moment 2.3 million Americans are in jail or prison with another 4.5 million on probation or parole.  Roughly 21 percent of the American population get government assistance.  Then you have over half a million homeless people that are not included in most of these statistics.  If the wallists are going to tell me jobs should pay more, that is not what the stats are saying - they're saying something is wrong in our culture and each one of you bitching should pick up one American and get them back in the game.  If you just think employers should pay more, then you should read Bernie Sanders platform.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you open with claiming the President of the United States has "unity of ideology" with an actual, real, klansman,  you lose TONS of credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are out of your damn mind.  Both Duke and Trump belonged to the Reform Party at the same time.  They believe in the same things.  I won't lie to you or for you thinking it has an effect on credibility.
> 
> Trump says that some of the Charlottesville protesters were "_good people_."  They were some good people there.  To claim that there is no unity of ideology is a straight out lie.  David Duke worked behind the scenes to make sure Trump got enough electoral votes in several states.
> 
> Publicly, it's cool to denounce one another and pretend we're all enemies.  But, there are common interests and only idiots refuse a guaranteed vote.  Politicians trash talk each other, but once it's over it's like George Bush agreeing to be Reagan's VP.
> 
> The Nazis, white supremacists, conservatives, white separatists, Tea Party, Reform Party, etc. may all have a common interest.  They will work together to get what they want.  In the instant case, the Nazis came out on top for whatever reason.  They want what Correll wants.  And I couldn't care less if all the foreigners packed their rags and caught the next train, plane, bus, or van heading out of the United States.  My beef with them is not that they care about the culture of this country, but that they deny *OUR* ownership in the status quo and that we cannot fix the problem with the Nazis solutions.  Plausible deniablility, the trash talk like pro - wrestlers, and pretending to be offended by us admitting what the left already knows is not necessary any longer.  Without the Nazis and white supremacists, Trump would be cooling his heels in his mansion and Hitlery would be prez.
> 
> Don't shit yourself people.  It's not the size of the wave; it's the motion of the ocean.  I learned this while a lobbyist with the NRA.  They would have 3 million members and only 3400 people who actually made the decisions.  The wall issue is the same deal - but the head monkeys running the propaganda machine are Nazis... and I do not agree with forfeiting my God given, *unalienable* Rights for the faulty promise that a wall can save us from our own actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Many of the Charlottesville people were there to protest the removal of historical statues. There is no reason to think that there were NOT good people. Trump furthermore specifically stated that when he said that, he was NOT talking about the white supremacists. That you cite this as evidence of him sharing ideology with DUke, shows that you are the one who has been duped.
> 
> 
> 2. DUke might have worked on that. He had no effect. White supremacy is a long dead political force in this country.
> 
> 3. Mainstream political parties and grassroots movements do NOT work together with or have common interests with Nazis.
> 
> 
> 4. Explain "thy deny our ownership in the status quo".
> 
> 5. Nazi have no impact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't figure out if you're that stupid or that dishonest
> 
> 1)   Plausible deniability
> 
> 2)  Everybody that expends any effort has an impact.  You've admitted that you are not a researcher, so you should leave the facts to people who HAVE experience
> 
> 3)  Even *YOU* have the same common interests with Nazis.  If you had to make an argument for the wall and you were forbidden to quote any statistic related to John Tanton, you would have little more than your weenie in your hand.  Shall I begin repeating the ties between Nazis, Republicans, the Tea Party and the wall idea?  Just because you can't read it don't mean the facts don't exist
> 
> 4)  Damn son.  How many times do you want to cover the same ground?  Are you REALLY that fucking stupid?  We just did this once today and many more times in the past.  Stay tuned - we can keep repeating it.  It isn't going to change and you won't know until you read the thread
> 
> 5)  Nazis had a big impact on your dumb ass.  You're one of them and too stupid to recognize it
> 
> Okay, here is the proof - YET AGAIN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Nope. Makes complete sense to distinguish between the white supremacists and those legitimately concerned about historical statues. What is dishonest is people like you, lumping the two groups together as though they are one.
> 
> 2. NOt really. Some fringe guy who speaks for a few thousand people, maybe,  in a nation of over 300 million, has no impact. Lost in the noise. Out weighted by people too drunk to pull the right lever.
> 
> 3. I've ridiculed your game of Kevin Bacon to death. If you want to go back to that, I can do it some more. I don't mind beating a dead horse. But, my point stands. Mainstream political parties and grassroots movements do NOT work together with or have common interests with Nazis.
> 
> 4. Save the histrionics and insults for someone that might be impressed by them. My question stands. Explain "thy deny our ownership in the status quo".
> 
> 5. Blah, blah, blah, nazi. Blah, blah blah, blah, stupid. Your inability to support your claim is noted. We can drop this now, or I can point that out some more. Your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You hang with Nazis.  Trying to claim otherwise is dishonest and dishonorable.  You could disavow the strategies and solutions, but choose not to.  That is hypocritical and dishonest
> 
> 2)  You are uneducated as they come.  If voting could change things, it would be illegal.  It's not large groups that wield power.  That is what you fail to comprehend... though you hang with shitsacks (and then bad mouth them when you don't have plausible deniability
> 
> 3)  You can beat a dead horse, but what you believe in is National Socialism
> 
> 4)  DONE  and got your number ... even with you using two profiles, you're no match for me.  Your denials do not refute the *truth*.
Click to expand...




1. We were discussing you repeating the lie that the President said that some nazis are fine people. You conveniently got confused on that.... Your confusions like that, often seen to occur at such convenient times. That your confusion led to you simply calling me nazi, is very telling. You need to stop this bullshit.


2. So, which is it? Are nazis a "large group" that put Trump into power? Or does "voting not change anything"? You are all over the place, not making much sense. You do keep on message when it comes to being insulting though. FUnny how that works.


3. Save the histrionics and insults for someone that might be impressed by them. My question stands. Explain "thy deny our ownership in the status quo". You did not answer that. YOu did stay on message with your insults though. Funny how you never lose THAT thread.


4. Blah, blah, blah, nazi. Blah, blah blah, blah, stupid. Your inability to support your claim is noted. We can drop this now, or I can point that out some more. Your choice. And again, you ignore the point but stay on message with the insults.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are out of your damn mind.  Both Duke and Trump belonged to the Reform Party at the same time.  They believe in the same things.  I won't lie to you or for you thinking it has an effect on credibility.
> 
> Trump says that some of the Charlottesville protesters were "_good people_."  They were some good people there.  To claim that there is no unity of ideology is a straight out lie.  David Duke worked behind the scenes to make sure Trump got enough electoral votes in several states.
> 
> Publicly, it's cool to denounce one another and pretend we're all enemies.  But, there are common interests and only idiots refuse a guaranteed vote.  Politicians trash talk each other, but once it's over it's like George Bush agreeing to be Reagan's VP.
> 
> The Nazis, white supremacists, conservatives, white separatists, Tea Party, Reform Party, etc. may all have a common interest.  They will work together to get what they want.  In the instant case, the Nazis came out on top for whatever reason.  They want what Correll wants.  And I couldn't care less if all the foreigners packed their rags and caught the next train, plane, bus, or van heading out of the United States.  My beef with them is not that they care about the culture of this country, but that they deny *OUR* ownership in the status quo and that we cannot fix the problem with the Nazis solutions.  Plausible deniablility, the trash talk like pro - wrestlers, and pretending to be offended by us admitting what the left already knows is not necessary any longer.  Without the Nazis and white supremacists, Trump would be cooling his heels in his mansion and Hitlery would be prez.
> 
> Don't shit yourself people.  It's not the size of the wave; it's the motion of the ocean.  I learned this while a lobbyist with the NRA.  They would have 3 million members and only 3400 people who actually made the decisions.  The wall issue is the same deal - but the head monkeys running the propaganda machine are Nazis... and I do not agree with forfeiting my God given, *unalienable* Rights for the faulty promise that a wall can save us from our own actions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Many of the Charlottesville people were there to protest the removal of historical statues. There is no reason to think that there were NOT good people. Trump furthermore specifically stated that when he said that, he was NOT talking about the white supremacists. That you cite this as evidence of him sharing ideology with DUke, shows that you are the one who has been duped.
> 
> 
> 2. DUke might have worked on that. He had no effect. White supremacy is a long dead political force in this country.
> 
> 3. Mainstream political parties and grassroots movements do NOT work together with or have common interests with Nazis.
> 
> 
> 4. Explain "thy deny our ownership in the status quo".
> 
> 5. Nazi have no impact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't figure out if you're that stupid or that dishonest
> 
> 1)   Plausible deniability
> 
> 2)  Everybody that expends any effort has an impact.  You've admitted that you are not a researcher, so you should leave the facts to people who HAVE experience
> 
> 3)  Even *YOU* have the same common interests with Nazis.  If you had to make an argument for the wall and you were forbidden to quote any statistic related to John Tanton, you would have little more than your weenie in your hand.  Shall I begin repeating the ties between Nazis, Republicans, the Tea Party and the wall idea?  Just because you can't read it don't mean the facts don't exist
> 
> 4)  Damn son.  How many times do you want to cover the same ground?  Are you REALLY that fucking stupid?  We just did this once today and many more times in the past.  Stay tuned - we can keep repeating it.  It isn't going to change and you won't know until you read the thread
> 
> 5)  Nazis had a big impact on your dumb ass.  You're one of them and too stupid to recognize it
> 
> Okay, here is the proof - YET AGAIN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Nope. Makes complete sense to distinguish between the white supremacists and those legitimately concerned about historical statues. What is dishonest is people like you, lumping the two groups together as though they are one.
> 
> 2. NOt really. Some fringe guy who speaks for a few thousand people, maybe,  in a nation of over 300 million, has no impact. Lost in the noise. Out weighted by people too drunk to pull the right lever.
> 
> 3. I've ridiculed your game of Kevin Bacon to death. If you want to go back to that, I can do it some more. I don't mind beating a dead horse. But, my point stands. Mainstream political parties and grassroots movements do NOT work together with or have common interests with Nazis.
> 
> 4. Save the histrionics and insults for someone that might be impressed by them. My question stands. Explain "thy deny our ownership in the status quo".
> 
> 5. Blah, blah, blah, nazi. Blah, blah blah, blah, stupid. Your inability to support your claim is noted. We can drop this now, or I can point that out some more. Your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You hang with Nazis.  Trying to claim otherwise is dishonest and dishonorable.  You could disavow the strategies and solutions, but choose not to.  That is hypocritical and dishonest
> 
> 2)  You are uneducated as they come.  If voting could change things, it would be illegal.  It's not large groups that wield power.  That is what you fail to comprehend... though you hang with shitsacks (and then bad mouth them when you don't have plausible deniability
> 
> 3)  You can beat a dead horse, but what you believe in is National Socialism
> 
> 4)  DONE  and got your number ... even with you using two profiles, you're no match for me.  Your denials do not refute the *truth*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. We were discussing you repeating the lie that the President said that some nazis are fine people. You conveniently got confused on that.... Your confusions like that, often seen to occur at such convenient times. That your confusion led to you simply calling me nazi, is very telling. You need to stop this bullshit.
> 
> 
> 2. So, which is it? Are nazis a "large group" that put Trump into power? Or does "voting not change anything"? You are all over the place, not making much sense. You do keep on message when it comes to being insulting though. FUnny how that works.
> 
> 
> 3. Save the histrionics and insults for someone that might be impressed by them. My question stands. Explain "thy deny our ownership in the status quo". You did not answer that. YOu did stay on message with your insults though. Funny how you never lose THAT thread.
> 
> 
> 4. Blah, blah, blah, nazi. Blah, blah blah, blah, stupid. Your inability to support your claim is noted. We can drop this now, or I can point that out some more. Your choice. And again, you ignore the point but stay on message with the insults.
Click to expand...


1)  If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and has webbed feet... however you define yourself is on you.  But you are knowingly supporting the policies of Nazis.  That is a fact.  Period

2)  I've* NEVER* said the Nazis were a numerically powerful force.  You just keep avoid reading what I did say.  John Tanton, a real pro-Nazi funded at least a dozen non - profits like Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), NumbersUSA, etc.  Those think tanks and Political Action Committees are largely funded by ONE man and promoted by a very small number of organizations.  BUT, their propaganda constitutes 98 percent of your talking points and you dismiss any other solution

3)  You're lying again and in post # 1434 it fairly lists the failures that people such as yourself will not address.  If America were not the drug capital of the world, there would be no need to create drug cartels from south of the border.  If those drug addicts were not in jail, prison, on probation / parole, drawing welfare, or being judged for their *past* criminal history, they might be able to get a job (with some incentives and help from volunteers,... like you, presuming you can give up posting every day.)  If all that happened, they would be working and if there were no available jobs, there would be no need for foreigners to come here

4)  I don't have to insult you.  You're an insult to yourself.  Anybody with an IQ higher than their shoe size can see that I've provided *INDISPUTABLE FACTS*.  These are facts, by your own admission, *you haven't read*.  You're just pounding your chest, lying and refusing to accept the truth for what it is.  But, let's start over just in case you lost your place.  Let us start at the beginning...


----------



## Porter Rockwell

A repeat of the FACTS

David Duke organizes Border Watch in 1977:

That time David Duke and KKK patrolled the Mexican border…

David Duke and Donald Trump both belonged to the Reform Party at the same time, which demonstrates a unity of ideology:

“_Duke joined the __Reform__ Party in 1999 while working for __Pat Buchanan__'s 2000 presidential campaign_”

David Duke - Wikipedia

“_Donald Trump's presidential campaign of 2000 for the nomination of the __Reform Party__ began when __real estate__ magnate __Donald Trump__ of __New York__announced the creation of a presidential __exploratory committee__ on the October 8, 1999 edition of_ _Larry King Live__”_

Donald Trump 2000 presidential campaign - Wikipedia

The Real David Duke This info will become very important to the subject



Trump plays stupid and tries to deny his ideological ties to white supremacy:

Trump dodges on David Duke question: ' I know nothing about white supremacists'Trump dodges on David Duke question: ' I know nothing about white supremacists'

*Jim Gilchrist*, a former newsman and *Chris Simcox* become the fathers of the “Secure the border / monitor (sic) the flow of Undocumented immigrants effort:

“*The Minuteman Project*_ was a __vigilante__ organization started in August 2004__[1]__ by a group of private individuals in the __United States__ to extrajudicially monitor the __United States – Mexico border__'s flow of __Undocumented immigrants__.__[2]__ Founded by __Jim Gilchrist__ and __Chris Simcox_,..”

Minuteman Project - Wikipedia


Today, the *founder* of the wallist religion is proudly displaying his ties to the Tea Party publicly:


Jim Gilchrist's Page


So, who is Jim Gilchrist?

Jim Gilchrist is a former newsman, left of center, who is politically a National Socialist. His views are palatable enough so that Bernie Sanders once voted to Gilchrist’s benefit:

Julian Castro claims Bernie Sanders voted with Republicans to protect a hate group

The top lieutenants of his “Minuteman Project” were exposed as being neo – Nazis and even murderers.

Co-founder *Chris Simcox* Gilchrist’s most trusted friend) was proven to be both a pedophile as well as a nazi:



Ex-Minuteman Chris Simcox sentenced to 19.5 years in child sex-abuse case


*Chris Simcox* befriended *J.T. Ready* who was also mainstream Republican that, on the surface only wanted to fight so – called “_illegal immigration_,” but was, in reality, a neo-nazi that ended up committing a mass murder before committing suicide:

“*Jason Todd "J. T." Ready* (February 17, 1973[1][2] – May 2, 2012) was a former American Marine, founder and leader of a border militia group[3]and a former member of the *neo-Nazi* *National Socialist Movement*

J. T. Ready - Wikipedia


Gilchrist was a very cunning politician type (learning lessons from his newsman days) so he would deny knowing his own officers when they got into trouble. An article I read had this to say in response to one of Gilchrist’s false claims that he knew one of his own top officers “briefly”:

“_Well, one of those "brief meetings" with *{Shawna}Forde* involved __a big public Minuteman rally organized by Forde__ in Everett, Washington, back in 2006, about the same time Forde was appearing onstage representing the Minutemen in public-TV forums, too. Gilchrist was __the star attraction at the Everett rally__, and he and Forde praised each other onstage.

In an __earlier report,__ moreover, Steller pointed out that Gilchrist was up to his ankles in communicating with Forde right up to the point of her arrest -- and in fact appears to have tried to tip her off that federal authorities were looking for her_:


_
Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project and an early leader of the movement, said last week that he donated $200 to a member of Forde's group, t*hat he called Forde a few days after the murders as investigators closed in,* and that his group removed postings by and about Forde from its Web site after the arrests. But he called Forde and her associates "rogues," and denied that he or his group had a formal relationship with her_.”

Orcinus: Minuteman leader Jim Gilchrist's ties to Shawna Forde's gang of killers finally catch up with him


“Formal relationship?” *Shawna Forde* was one of his top organizers! And he had a lot of faith in her:

Jim Gilchrist Speaks on Shawna - Justice for Shawna Forde

Evidently, Minutemen Founder Gilchrist Doesn't Like Us

*Shawna Forde* was convicted of the murder of a nine year old and her father:

Shawna Forde Guilty of Murder: Exclusive Interview with Arizona Minuteman

Also see this:

5 of Arizona's Most Notorious Racists and Their Crimes

Shawna Forde’s co-conspirator, Jason Bush, was a carbon copy of the kinds of people Gilchrist attracted:

_“… Bush was also __charged__ for the murder of a Latino man in Washington state in 1997, and in the murder of an Aryan Nations member he considered to be a “race-traitor_”…”

The meltdown of the anti-immigration Minuteman militia


Gilchrist knows how to hide the National Socialist trimmings and then deny those who embarrass the effort. Make no mistake. Jim Gilchrist and Chris Simcox are the founding fathers of the wallist religion – where the wall and so – called “_illegal immigration_” are the ONLY topics they have any concern with. What are the odds that all the founders of the wallist religion *ARE proven* Nazis and their followers are not? Then again, that might not be a rhetorical question as I’ve been reading that right now is the first time in history where more people without an education are supporting the Republicans than are supporting them.


Be that as it may, the DADDY of the wallist religion IS a Tea Party member:

Jim Gilchrist's Page

Jim Gilchrist: Illegal Alien Children Being Used As Political Human Shields - Tea Party News


*THE IDEOLOGY*

The major organizations / think tanks were founded and funded by a single individual by the name of John Tanton. According to Wikipedia:

*John H. Tanton*_ (born February 23, 1934)[1] is an American retired __ophthalmologist__ and activist in efforts aimed at __reducing immigration levels__ in the United States. He was the founder and first chairman of the _*Federation for American Immigration Reform** (FAIR)*_, an anti-immigration organization. He was chairman of _*U.S. English*_ and ProEnglish. He is the founder of _*The Social Contract Press**, *_which *publishes the quarterly journal The Social Contract*. *He founded the pro-*_*eugenics** organization Society for Genetic Education*.

“*FAIR, CIS and NumbersUSA*_ are all part of a network of restrictionist organizations conceived and created by John Tanton, the "puppeteer" of the nativist movement and a man with deep racist roots. As the first article in this report shows, Tanton has for decades been at the heart of the white nationalist scene. He has met with leading white supremacists and associated closely with the leaders of a eugenicist foundation once described by a leading newspaper as a "neo-Nazi organization." He has made a series of racist statements about Latinos and worried that they were outbreeding whites. At one point, he wrote candidly that to maintain American culture, "a European-American majority" is required_.”[25]

John Tanton - Wikipedia


So, here is the man responsible for the think tanks and the rhetoric that is generated relative to the wallist religion. But what, exactly is eugenics? I’d be a long time explaining it, but Wikipedia did a balanced article on it, so check it out:

Eugenics in the United States - Wikipedia


I only want to point out that the Rockefellers helped finance eugenics research… and the Rockefellers were all about the NEW WORLD ORDER / One World Government. It’s kind of hard to connect the dots until you figure out how the NEW WORLD ORDER types help finance both sides so that they can take each other out liberals v conservatives, right v left, Constitutionalists v National Socialists, etc. But, I digress. Now that I’ve spent over 15 years spreading my research about the David Duke – John Tanton ideologies (and Tanton supplied Duke his talking points back in the 1970s) other researchers have taken note:

Calling Former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke's Bluff


A Look at the Forces Behind the Anti-Immigrant Movement | Democracy Now!

A John Tanton Connect the Dots « American Border Patrol « Immigration « The Pink Flamingo

Team Trump's ties to white supremacy are even deeper than you imagined

https://splinternews.com/the-eugenicist-doctor-and-the-vast-fortune-behind-trump-1827322435


NOTE: It is unfortunate that I have to cite the left, but the Tea Party is never going to admit to who pioneered their political rhetoric. They also make the links to Nazism. Again, I am not getting into the fray over racial issues. I disagree with the current power structure because I oppose National Socialism. And the fact that the right’s think tanks are owned by a guy into eugenics and is pro-abortion signal significant differences of opinion between he and I.


The proposed solutions to the immigration debacle as adopted by those in the Tea Party are National Socialist NOT those of a constitutionalist group


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll continues to claim that I've not answered his questions.  It must be projection on his part.  For we are talking about our legal options - it's how the OP frames this thread.  Correll challenged me and he's been reminded of *WHERE* he was duly responded to.  Now let us see if Correll can tell you *ANYTHING *about the Rule of Law.  Let's repeat this post that Correll has failed to answer:

 Since Correll keeps typing and ignoring my challenges, I will keep repeating them:

America has had foreigners regulated since the Mayflower hit the shores of the New World in 1620. However, this process has been done by different levels of government at different times. From your own article:

"_The federal government assumed control of immigration on April 18, 1890_"

Here are the serious questions for you Correll:

A) Where, in the Constitution, does the federal government have the authority to tell the states who can and cannot come to that respective state?

B) PRIOR to 1890 the federal government *did not* have control over immigration. Obviously if someone were regulating the flow of foreigners and it was not the federal government, somebody did it for that period between 1789 and 1890 *A FULL CENTURY OF REGULATION WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY YOUR OWN LINK!*

C) HOW did the federal government, after a century end up controlling the flow of foreigners? Which Amendment changed that?


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *AMERICANS OWNERSHIP IN THE STATUS QUO OF IMMIGRATION
> *
> Let's just do the top 10 so as to not confuse Koshergirl / Correll
> 
> 1)  America has more prisoners than any nation on this planet
> 
> 2)  Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply
> 
> 3)  Over half of all federal prisoners are in prison on drug related charges
> 
> 4)  American children are prescribed Ritalin at a ratio of 3 to 1 over countries like the U.K.
> 
> 5)  With the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, *many Americans* are locked out of the job market - and many times for irrelevant B.S. that the general public should NOT be allowed to access
> 
> 6)  Too many mommies think their children are special so you see guys in their 20s, 30s, 40s and beyond living in mommy's house and NOT contributing to society in any way, shape, fashion or form
> 
> 7)  Millions upon millions of Americans are functional illiterates (my critics have admitted they are)
> 
> 8)  Over half of the American people are dependent upon the government for at least a portion of their daily bread
> 
> 9)  Scores of these illiterates support socialist ideology that violates a person's Right to Privacy, their presumption of innocence, and the illiterates think that the private sector *owes *them a job
> 
> 10)  By complaining about people (and doing so dishonestly) not paying taxes, it is supporting the income tax - which is a plank out of the Communist Manifesto.
> 
> Pill popping, tattooed, body pierced people with no education, no job skills, a drug habit and a criminal record (that the wallists like Correll want you to have for life) absolutely guarantees that you are virtually unemployable.
> 
> Compare to that some foreign kid in his 20s that is fit and ready to work.  He has a couple of kids and a mortgage to pay for.  Who the Hell do the wallists think the employer is going to hire?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Americans have the right to AMERICAN polices that serve the interests of AMERICANS.
> 
> 
> That the lowest dregs of American society have trouble competing against the best that the Turd World has to offer, is a valid point.
> 
> 
> But if our policies prevent those Third Worlders, from being IN our labor market, then that gives a chance for those "pill popping, tattooed, body pierced people" to get some job skills and turn their screwed up lives around.
> 
> 
> Your point about the criminal records is valid. Employers are so terrified of being sued on discrimination charges, that they go the paper trail more than the actual candidate, imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *  Americans do have the Right to American policies that serve their interests.  That is why we have private property Rights
> 
> *  The lowest dregs of society are WHY you have an influx of foreigners to fill the jobs they cannot or will not work AND to fill the jobs YOU would deny to them with those endless background checks wherein Americans can never rise above their past
> 
> *  Employers will not hire the dregs of society at inflated wages and be dictated to by a tyrannical government.  If you don't believe that, check to see how much communist China has grown over the last 15 or so years compared to the United States.
> 
> *  It's sad to say, but it is easier to get into communist China than the U.S. - that is if you want in the U.S. with human registration papers
Click to expand...




The right to American policies that serve their interests is not supported by the Property Rights but by voting, and having the elected representatives representing their interests.


Employers WILL hire Americans, at hirer wages, if they are the only ones available. AS WE ARE SEEING HAPPENING MORE AND MORE NOW.


THe Americans we are talking about, are not bad people. They don't need or deserve being punished. You give them a chance and the vast majority of them will be able to benefit from it. 

And that is a good thing for them, and for America as a whole.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Many of the Charlottesville people were there to protest the removal of historical statues. There is no reason to think that there were NOT good people. Trump furthermore specifically stated that when he said that, he was NOT talking about the white supremacists. That you cite this as evidence of him sharing ideology with DUke, shows that you are the one who has been duped.
> 
> 
> 2. DUke might have worked on that. He had no effect. White supremacy is a long dead political force in this country.
> 
> 3. Mainstream political parties and grassroots movements do NOT work together with or have common interests with Nazis.
> 
> 
> 4. Explain "thy deny our ownership in the status quo".
> 
> 5. Nazi have no impact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't figure out if you're that stupid or that dishonest
> 
> 1)   Plausible deniability
> 
> 2)  Everybody that expends any effort has an impact.  You've admitted that you are not a researcher, so you should leave the facts to people who HAVE experience
> 
> 3)  Even *YOU* have the same common interests with Nazis.  If you had to make an argument for the wall and you were forbidden to quote any statistic related to John Tanton, you would have little more than your weenie in your hand.  Shall I begin repeating the ties between Nazis, Republicans, the Tea Party and the wall idea?  Just because you can't read it don't mean the facts don't exist
> 
> 4)  Damn son.  How many times do you want to cover the same ground?  Are you REALLY that fucking stupid?  We just did this once today and many more times in the past.  Stay tuned - we can keep repeating it.  It isn't going to change and you won't know until you read the thread
> 
> 5)  Nazis had a big impact on your dumb ass.  You're one of them and too stupid to recognize it
> 
> Okay, here is the proof - YET AGAIN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Nope. Makes complete sense to distinguish between the white supremacists and those legitimately concerned about historical statues. What is dishonest is people like you, lumping the two groups together as though they are one.
> 
> 2. NOt really. Some fringe guy who speaks for a few thousand people, maybe,  in a nation of over 300 million, has no impact. Lost in the noise. Out weighted by people too drunk to pull the right lever.
> 
> 3. I've ridiculed your game of Kevin Bacon to death. If you want to go back to that, I can do it some more. I don't mind beating a dead horse. But, my point stands. Mainstream political parties and grassroots movements do NOT work together with or have common interests with Nazis.
> 
> 4. Save the histrionics and insults for someone that might be impressed by them. My question stands. Explain "thy deny our ownership in the status quo".
> 
> 5. Blah, blah, blah, nazi. Blah, blah blah, blah, stupid. Your inability to support your claim is noted. We can drop this now, or I can point that out some more. Your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You hang with Nazis.  Trying to claim otherwise is dishonest and dishonorable.  You could disavow the strategies and solutions, but choose not to.  That is hypocritical and dishonest
> 
> 2)  You are uneducated as they come.  If voting could change things, it would be illegal.  It's not large groups that wield power.  That is what you fail to comprehend... though you hang with shitsacks (and then bad mouth them when you don't have plausible deniability
> 
> 3)  You can beat a dead horse, but what you believe in is National Socialism
> 
> 4)  DONE  and got your number ... even with you using two profiles, you're no match for me.  Your denials do not refute the *truth*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. We were discussing you repeating the lie that the President said that some nazis are fine people. You conveniently got confused on that.... Your confusions like that, often seen to occur at such convenient times. That your confusion led to you simply calling me nazi, is very telling. You need to stop this bullshit.
> 
> 
> 2. So, which is it? Are nazis a "large group" that put Trump into power? Or does "voting not change anything"? You are all over the place, not making much sense. You do keep on message when it comes to being insulting though. FUnny how that works.
> 
> 
> 3. Save the histrionics and insults for someone that might be impressed by them. My question stands. Explain "thy deny our ownership in the status quo". You did not answer that. YOu did stay on message with your insults though. Funny how you never lose THAT thread.
> 
> 
> 4. Blah, blah, blah, nazi. Blah, blah blah, blah, stupid. Your inability to support your claim is noted. We can drop this now, or I can point that out some more. Your choice. And again, you ignore the point but stay on message with the insults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and has webbed feet... however you define yourself is on you.  But you are knowingly supporting the policies of Nazis.  That is a fact.  Period
> 
> 2)  I've* NEVER* said the Nazis were a numerically powerful force.  You just keep avoid reading what I did say.  John Tanton, a real pro-Nazi funded at least a dozen non - profits like Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), NumbersUSA, etc.  Those think tanks and Political Action Committees are largely funded by ONE man and promoted by a very small number of organizations.  BUT, their propaganda constitutes 98 percent of your talking points and you dismiss any other solution
> 
> 3)  You're lying again and in post # 1434 it fairly lists the failures that people such as yourself will not address.  If America were not the drug capital of the world, there would be no need to create drug cartels from south of the border.  If those drug addicts were not in jail, prison, on probation / parole, drawing welfare, or being judged for their *past* criminal history, they might be able to get a job (with some incentives and help from volunteers,... like you, presuming you can give up posting every day.)  If all that happened, they would be working and if there were no available jobs, there would be no need for foreigners to come here
> 
> 4)  I don't have to insult you.  You're an insult to yourself.  Anybody with an IQ higher than their shoe size can see that I've provided *INDISPUTABLE FACTS*.  These are facts, by your own admission, *you haven't read*.  You're just pounding your chest, lying and refusing to accept the truth for what it is.  But, let's start over just in case you lost your place.  Let us start at the beginning...
Click to expand...




1. Walking like a duck, in this case, would be launching wars of conquest and genocide, not saying something nice about some people who like historical statues. So, that is you being very, very wrong. And unfair, AND rude.


2. Calling my points, "propaganda" nor making up shit about where you think I got the ideas, is not an counter argument, it is just you being a jerk.

3. Whoa, that is an interesting response. So, somehow in your mind, that we have internal problems, that means we don't have the right to immigration policy? Walk me though that more slowly. 

4. Blah, blah, blah, no insult you. Blah, blah, blah, insult you.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *AMERICANS OWNERSHIP IN THE STATUS QUO OF IMMIGRATION
> *
> Let's just do the top 10 so as to not confuse Koshergirl / Correll
> 
> 1)  America has more prisoners than any nation on this planet
> 
> 2)  Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply
> 
> 3)  Over half of all federal prisoners are in prison on drug related charges
> 
> 4)  American children are prescribed Ritalin at a ratio of 3 to 1 over countries like the U.K.
> 
> 5)  With the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, *many Americans* are locked out of the job market - and many times for irrelevant B.S. that the general public should NOT be allowed to access
> 
> 6)  Too many mommies think their children are special so you see guys in their 20s, 30s, 40s and beyond living in mommy's house and NOT contributing to society in any way, shape, fashion or form
> 
> 7)  Millions upon millions of Americans are functional illiterates (my critics have admitted they are)
> 
> 8)  Over half of the American people are dependent upon the government for at least a portion of their daily bread
> 
> 9)  Scores of these illiterates support socialist ideology that violates a person's Right to Privacy, their presumption of innocence, and the illiterates think that the private sector *owes *them a job
> 
> 10)  By complaining about people (and doing so dishonestly) not paying taxes, it is supporting the income tax - which is a plank out of the Communist Manifesto.
> 
> Pill popping, tattooed, body pierced people with no education, no job skills, a drug habit and a criminal record (that the wallists like Correll want you to have for life) absolutely guarantees that you are virtually unemployable.
> 
> Compare to that some foreign kid in his 20s that is fit and ready to work.  He has a couple of kids and a mortgage to pay for.  Who the Hell do the wallists think the employer is going to hire?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Americans have the right to AMERICAN polices that serve the interests of AMERICANS.
> 
> 
> That the lowest dregs of American society have trouble competing against the best that the Turd World has to offer, is a valid point.
> 
> 
> But if our policies prevent those Third Worlders, from being IN our labor market, then that gives a chance for those "pill popping, tattooed, body pierced people" to get some job skills and turn their screwed up lives around.
> 
> 
> Your point about the criminal records is valid. Employers are so terrified of being sued on discrimination charges, that they go the paper trail more than the actual candidate, imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *  Americans do have the Right to American policies that serve their interests.  That is why we have private property Rights
> 
> *  The lowest dregs of society are WHY you have an influx of foreigners to fill the jobs they cannot or will not work AND to fill the jobs YOU would deny to them with those endless background checks wherein Americans can never rise above their past
> 
> *  Employers will not hire the dregs of society at inflated wages and be dictated to by a tyrannical government.  If you don't believe that, check to see how much communist China has grown over the last 15 or so years compared to the United States.
> 
> *  It's sad to say, but it is easier to get into communist China than the U.S. - that is if you want in the U.S. with human registration papers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to American policies that serve their interests is not supported by the Property Rights but by voting, and having the elected representatives representing their interests.
> 
> 
> Employers WILL hire Americans, at hirer wages, if they are the only ones available. AS WE ARE SEEING HAPPENING MORE AND MORE NOW.
> 
> 
> THe Americans we are talking about, are not bad people. They don't need or deserve being punished. You give them a chance and the vast majority of them will be able to benefit from it.
> 
> And that is a good thing for them, and for America as a whole.
Click to expand...


If that made you feel good, I'm glad for you.  The people locked out of the job market are the ones I spend my days helping.  You lack any knowledge or experience there.

No wall is up and you're claiming wages are rising.  Thank you.  That is a road to progress.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *AMERICANS OWNERSHIP IN THE STATUS QUO OF IMMIGRATION
> *
> Let's just do the top 10 so as to not confuse Koshergirl / Correll
> 
> 1)  America has more prisoners than any nation on this planet
> 
> 2)  Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply
> 
> 3)  Over half of all federal prisoners are in prison on drug related charges
> 
> 4)  American children are prescribed Ritalin at a ratio of 3 to 1 over countries like the U.K.
> 
> 5)  With the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, *many Americans* are locked out of the job market - and many times for irrelevant B.S. that the general public should NOT be allowed to access
> 
> 6)  Too many mommies think their children are special so you see guys in their 20s, 30s, 40s and beyond living in mommy's house and NOT contributing to society in any way, shape, fashion or form
> 
> 7)  Millions upon millions of Americans are functional illiterates (my critics have admitted they are)
> 
> 8)  Over half of the American people are dependent upon the government for at least a portion of their daily bread
> 
> 9)  Scores of these illiterates support socialist ideology that violates a person's Right to Privacy, their presumption of innocence, and the illiterates think that the private sector *owes *them a job
> 
> 10)  By complaining about people (and doing so dishonestly) not paying taxes, it is supporting the income tax - which is a plank out of the Communist Manifesto.
> 
> Pill popping, tattooed, body pierced people with no education, no job skills, a drug habit and a criminal record (that the wallists like Correll want you to have for life) absolutely guarantees that you are virtually unemployable.
> 
> Compare to that some foreign kid in his 20s that is fit and ready to work.  He has a couple of kids and a mortgage to pay for.  Who the Hell do the wallists think the employer is going to hire?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Americans have the right to AMERICAN polices that serve the interests of AMERICANS.
> 
> 
> That the lowest dregs of American society have trouble competing against the best that the Turd World has to offer, is a valid point.
> 
> 
> But if our policies prevent those Third Worlders, from being IN our labor market, then that gives a chance for those "pill popping, tattooed, body pierced people" to get some job skills and turn their screwed up lives around.
> 
> 
> Your point about the criminal records is valid. Employers are so terrified of being sued on discrimination charges, that they go the paper trail more than the actual candidate, imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *  Americans do have the Right to American policies that serve their interests.  That is why we have private property Rights
> 
> *  The lowest dregs of society are WHY you have an influx of foreigners to fill the jobs they cannot or will not work AND to fill the jobs YOU would deny to them with those endless background checks wherein Americans can never rise above their past
> 
> *  Employers will not hire the dregs of society at inflated wages and be dictated to by a tyrannical government.  If you don't believe that, check to see how much communist China has grown over the last 15 or so years compared to the United States.
> 
> *  It's sad to say, but it is easier to get into communist China than the U.S. - that is if you want in the U.S. with human registration papers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to American policies that serve their interests is not supported by the Property Rights but by voting, and having the elected representatives representing their interests.
> 
> 
> Employers WILL hire Americans, at hirer wages, if they are the only ones available. AS WE ARE SEEING HAPPENING MORE AND MORE NOW.
> 
> 
> THe Americans we are talking about, are not bad people. They don't need or deserve being punished. You give them a chance and the vast majority of them will be able to benefit from it.
> 
> And that is a good thing for them, and for America as a whole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that made you feel good, I'm glad for you.  The people locked out of the job market are the ones I spend my days helping.  You lack any knowledge or experience there.
> 
> No wall is up and you're claiming wages are rising.  Thank you.  That is a road to progress.
Click to expand...




Wages are up, imo, because the labor market has finally tightened, a little bit. 


Keeping them rising, will require keep the labor market tight. 


The more wages rise, the more of a draw for immigration, legal and illegal. That if allowed, will stop the rise.

Employers who are desperate for workers, are more likely to be open to dropping restrictions against people with criminal records, especially old and/or non violent offenses.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't figure out if you're that stupid or that dishonest
> 
> 1)   Plausible deniability
> 
> 2)  Everybody that expends any effort has an impact.  You've admitted that you are not a researcher, so you should leave the facts to people who HAVE experience
> 
> 3)  Even *YOU* have the same common interests with Nazis.  If you had to make an argument for the wall and you were forbidden to quote any statistic related to John Tanton, you would have little more than your weenie in your hand.  Shall I begin repeating the ties between Nazis, Republicans, the Tea Party and the wall idea?  Just because you can't read it don't mean the facts don't exist
> 
> 4)  Damn son.  How many times do you want to cover the same ground?  Are you REALLY that fucking stupid?  We just did this once today and many more times in the past.  Stay tuned - we can keep repeating it.  It isn't going to change and you won't know until you read the thread
> 
> 5)  Nazis had a big impact on your dumb ass.  You're one of them and too stupid to recognize it
> 
> Okay, here is the proof - YET AGAIN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Nope. Makes complete sense to distinguish between the white supremacists and those legitimately concerned about historical statues. What is dishonest is people like you, lumping the two groups together as though they are one.
> 
> 2. NOt really. Some fringe guy who speaks for a few thousand people, maybe,  in a nation of over 300 million, has no impact. Lost in the noise. Out weighted by people too drunk to pull the right lever.
> 
> 3. I've ridiculed your game of Kevin Bacon to death. If you want to go back to that, I can do it some more. I don't mind beating a dead horse. But, my point stands. Mainstream political parties and grassroots movements do NOT work together with or have common interests with Nazis.
> 
> 4. Save the histrionics and insults for someone that might be impressed by them. My question stands. Explain "thy deny our ownership in the status quo".
> 
> 5. Blah, blah, blah, nazi. Blah, blah blah, blah, stupid. Your inability to support your claim is noted. We can drop this now, or I can point that out some more. Your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You hang with Nazis.  Trying to claim otherwise is dishonest and dishonorable.  You could disavow the strategies and solutions, but choose not to.  That is hypocritical and dishonest
> 
> 2)  You are uneducated as they come.  If voting could change things, it would be illegal.  It's not large groups that wield power.  That is what you fail to comprehend... though you hang with shitsacks (and then bad mouth them when you don't have plausible deniability
> 
> 3)  You can beat a dead horse, but what you believe in is National Socialism
> 
> 4)  DONE  and got your number ... even with you using two profiles, you're no match for me.  Your denials do not refute the *truth*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. We were discussing you repeating the lie that the President said that some nazis are fine people. You conveniently got confused on that.... Your confusions like that, often seen to occur at such convenient times. That your confusion led to you simply calling me nazi, is very telling. You need to stop this bullshit.
> 
> 
> 2. So, which is it? Are nazis a "large group" that put Trump into power? Or does "voting not change anything"? You are all over the place, not making much sense. You do keep on message when it comes to being insulting though. FUnny how that works.
> 
> 
> 3. Save the histrionics and insults for someone that might be impressed by them. My question stands. Explain "thy deny our ownership in the status quo". You did not answer that. YOu did stay on message with your insults though. Funny how you never lose THAT thread.
> 
> 
> 4. Blah, blah, blah, nazi. Blah, blah blah, blah, stupid. Your inability to support your claim is noted. We can drop this now, or I can point that out some more. Your choice. And again, you ignore the point but stay on message with the insults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and has webbed feet... however you define yourself is on you.  But you are knowingly supporting the policies of Nazis.  That is a fact.  Period
> 
> 2)  I've* NEVER* said the Nazis were a numerically powerful force.  You just keep avoid reading what I did say.  John Tanton, a real pro-Nazi funded at least a dozen non - profits like Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), NumbersUSA, etc.  Those think tanks and Political Action Committees are largely funded by ONE man and promoted by a very small number of organizations.  BUT, their propaganda constitutes 98 percent of your talking points and you dismiss any other solution
> 
> 3)  You're lying again and in post # 1434 it fairly lists the failures that people such as yourself will not address.  If America were not the drug capital of the world, there would be no need to create drug cartels from south of the border.  If those drug addicts were not in jail, prison, on probation / parole, drawing welfare, or being judged for their *past* criminal history, they might be able to get a job (with some incentives and help from volunteers,... like you, presuming you can give up posting every day.)  If all that happened, they would be working and if there were no available jobs, there would be no need for foreigners to come here
> 
> 4)  I don't have to insult you.  You're an insult to yourself.  Anybody with an IQ higher than their shoe size can see that I've provided *INDISPUTABLE FACTS*.  These are facts, by your own admission, *you haven't read*.  You're just pounding your chest, lying and refusing to accept the truth for what it is.  But, let's start over just in case you lost your place.  Let us start at the beginning...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Walking like a duck, in this case, would be launching wars of conquest and genocide, not saying something nice about some people who like historical statues. So, that is you being very, very wrong. And unfair, AND rude.
> 
> 
> 2. Calling my points, "propaganda" nor making up shit about where you think I got the ideas, is not an counter argument, it is just you being a jerk.
> 
> 3. Whoa, that is an interesting response. So, somehow in your mind, that we have internal problems, that means we don't have the right to immigration policy? Walk me though that more slowly.
> 
> 4. Blah, blah, blah, no insult you. Blah, blah, blah, insult you.
Click to expand...



1)  I've been nice about the people who are concerned over our culture. * NOW* you're switching gears and want to join me in saying the* REAL THREAT IS TO OUR CULTURE*?  How mighty American of you!

2)  The John Tanton points that you spew *are *propaganda that are not supported by facts.  You're going to see that if you pay attention to number 3 on this list 

3)  A right to an immigration policy?  I tried to get you to talk about that.  You keep dodging it.  Watch for my next post and let's REALLY discuss that.  Let's leave all the other shit on the back burner and let's talk about immigration policy

4)  Open challenge - No insults and no bullshit.  Let's debate immigration policy and only immigration policy.  See my next post


----------



## Porter Rockwell

America has had foreigners regulated since the Mayflower hit the shores of the New World in 1620. However, this process has been done by different levels of government at different times. From your own article:

"_The federal government assumed control of immigration on April 18, 1890_"

Here are the serious questions for you Correll:

A) Where, in the Constitution, does the federal government have the authority to tell the states who can and cannot come to that respective state?

B) PRIOR to 1890 the federal government *did not* have control over immigration. Obviously if someone were regulating the flow of foreigners and it was not the federal government, somebody did it for that period between 1789 and 1890 *A FULL CENTURY OF REGULATION WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY YOUR OWN LINK!*

C) HOW did the federal government, after a century end up controlling the flow of foreigners? Which Amendment changed that?


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Nope. Makes complete sense to distinguish between the white supremacists and those legitimately concerned about historical statues. What is dishonest is people like you, lumping the two groups together as though they are one.
> 
> 2. NOt really. Some fringe guy who speaks for a few thousand people, maybe,  in a nation of over 300 million, has no impact. Lost in the noise. Out weighted by people too drunk to pull the right lever.
> 
> 3. I've ridiculed your game of Kevin Bacon to death. If you want to go back to that, I can do it some more. I don't mind beating a dead horse. But, my point stands. Mainstream political parties and grassroots movements do NOT work together with or have common interests with Nazis.
> 
> 4. Save the histrionics and insults for someone that might be impressed by them. My question stands. Explain "thy deny our ownership in the status quo".
> 
> 5. Blah, blah, blah, nazi. Blah, blah blah, blah, stupid. Your inability to support your claim is noted. We can drop this now, or I can point that out some more. Your choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You hang with Nazis.  Trying to claim otherwise is dishonest and dishonorable.  You could disavow the strategies and solutions, but choose not to.  That is hypocritical and dishonest
> 
> 2)  You are uneducated as they come.  If voting could change things, it would be illegal.  It's not large groups that wield power.  That is what you fail to comprehend... though you hang with shitsacks (and then bad mouth them when you don't have plausible deniability
> 
> 3)  You can beat a dead horse, but what you believe in is National Socialism
> 
> 4)  DONE  and got your number ... even with you using two profiles, you're no match for me.  Your denials do not refute the *truth*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. We were discussing you repeating the lie that the President said that some nazis are fine people. You conveniently got confused on that.... Your confusions like that, often seen to occur at such convenient times. That your confusion led to you simply calling me nazi, is very telling. You need to stop this bullshit.
> 
> 
> 2. So, which is it? Are nazis a "large group" that put Trump into power? Or does "voting not change anything"? You are all over the place, not making much sense. You do keep on message when it comes to being insulting though. FUnny how that works.
> 
> 
> 3. Save the histrionics and insults for someone that might be impressed by them. My question stands. Explain "thy deny our ownership in the status quo". You did not answer that. YOu did stay on message with your insults though. Funny how you never lose THAT thread.
> 
> 
> 4. Blah, blah, blah, nazi. Blah, blah blah, blah, stupid. Your inability to support your claim is noted. We can drop this now, or I can point that out some more. Your choice. And again, you ignore the point but stay on message with the insults.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and has webbed feet... however you define yourself is on you.  But you are knowingly supporting the policies of Nazis.  That is a fact.  Period
> 
> 2)  I've* NEVER* said the Nazis were a numerically powerful force.  You just keep avoid reading what I did say.  John Tanton, a real pro-Nazi funded at least a dozen non - profits like Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), NumbersUSA, etc.  Those think tanks and Political Action Committees are largely funded by ONE man and promoted by a very small number of organizations.  BUT, their propaganda constitutes 98 percent of your talking points and you dismiss any other solution
> 
> 3)  You're lying again and in post # 1434 it fairly lists the failures that people such as yourself will not address.  If America were not the drug capital of the world, there would be no need to create drug cartels from south of the border.  If those drug addicts were not in jail, prison, on probation / parole, drawing welfare, or being judged for their *past* criminal history, they might be able to get a job (with some incentives and help from volunteers,... like you, presuming you can give up posting every day.)  If all that happened, they would be working and if there were no available jobs, there would be no need for foreigners to come here
> 
> 4)  I don't have to insult you.  You're an insult to yourself.  Anybody with an IQ higher than their shoe size can see that I've provided *INDISPUTABLE FACTS*.  These are facts, by your own admission, *you haven't read*.  You're just pounding your chest, lying and refusing to accept the truth for what it is.  But, let's start over just in case you lost your place.  Let us start at the beginning...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Walking like a duck, in this case, would be launching wars of conquest and genocide, not saying something nice about some people who like historical statues. So, that is you being very, very wrong. And unfair, AND rude.
> 
> 
> 2. Calling my points, "propaganda" nor making up shit about where you think I got the ideas, is not an counter argument, it is just you being a jerk.
> 
> 3. Whoa, that is an interesting response. So, somehow in your mind, that we have internal problems, that means we don't have the right to immigration policy? Walk me though that more slowly.
> 
> 4. Blah, blah, blah, no insult you. Blah, blah, blah, insult you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  I've been nice about the people who are concerned over our culture. * NOW* you're switching gears and want to join me in saying the* REAL THREAT IS TO OUR CULTURE*?  How mighty American of you!
> 
> 2)  The John Tanton points that you spew *are *propaganda that are not supported by facts.  You're going to see that if you pay attention to number 3 on this list
> 
> 3)  A right to an immigration policy?  I tried to get you to talk about that.  You keep dodging it.  Watch for my next post and let's REALLY discuss that.  Let's leave all the other shit on the back burner and let's talk about immigration policy
> 
> 4)  Open challenge - No insults and no bullshit.  Let's debate immigration policy and only immigration policy.  See my next post
Click to expand...




1. Trump was discussing NOT white supremacists/nazis, when he said that, and YOU are the one that implied that they were nazis. That is not being nice to them, that is being incredibly insulting to them.

2. If they were really not supported by facts, then call me on those facts. Attacking me because your Kevin Bacon game, is not valid.


3. There is no reason that our internal polices deny US the right to decide who to invite into our community or not.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> America has had foreigners regulated since the Mayflower hit the shores of the New World in 1620. However, this process has been done by different levels of government at different times. From your own article:
> 
> "_The federal government assumed control of immigration on April 18, 1890_"
> 
> Here are the serious questions for you Correll:
> 
> A) Where, in the Constitution, does the federal government have the authority to tell the states who can and cannot come to that respective state?
> 
> B) PRIOR to 1890 the federal government *did not* have control over immigration. Obviously if someone were regulating the flow of foreigners and it was not the federal government, somebody did it for that period between 1789 and 1890 *A FULL CENTURY OF REGULATION WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY YOUR OWN LINK!*
> 
> C) HOW did the federal government, after a century end up controlling the flow of foreigners? Which Amendment changed that?





Don't know, don't really care. You let 50 million Mexicans move into California, and this country will no longer be this country.


Also, this does not explain your use of our drug issue as a reason to not have an immigration policy.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *AMERICANS OWNERSHIP IN THE STATUS QUO OF IMMIGRATION
> *
> Let's just do the top 10 so as to not confuse Koshergirl / Correll
> 
> 1)  America has more prisoners than any nation on this planet
> 
> 2)  Americans consume over 80 percent of the world's opioid supply
> 
> 3)  Over half of all federal prisoners are in prison on drug related charges
> 
> 4)  American children are prescribed Ritalin at a ratio of 3 to 1 over countries like the U.K.
> 
> 5)  With the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, *many Americans* are locked out of the job market - and many times for irrelevant B.S. that the general public should NOT be allowed to access
> 
> 6)  Too many mommies think their children are special so you see guys in their 20s, 30s, 40s and beyond living in mommy's house and NOT contributing to society in any way, shape, fashion or form
> 
> 7)  Millions upon millions of Americans are functional illiterates (my critics have admitted they are)
> 
> 8)  Over half of the American people are dependent upon the government for at least a portion of their daily bread
> 
> 9)  Scores of these illiterates support socialist ideology that violates a person's Right to Privacy, their presumption of innocence, and the illiterates think that the private sector *owes *them a job
> 
> 10)  By complaining about people (and doing so dishonestly) not paying taxes, it is supporting the income tax - which is a plank out of the Communist Manifesto.
> 
> Pill popping, tattooed, body pierced people with no education, no job skills, a drug habit and a criminal record (that the wallists like Correll want you to have for life) absolutely guarantees that you are virtually unemployable.
> 
> Compare to that some foreign kid in his 20s that is fit and ready to work.  He has a couple of kids and a mortgage to pay for.  Who the Hell do the wallists think the employer is going to hire?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Americans have the right to AMERICAN polices that serve the interests of AMERICANS.
> 
> 
> That the lowest dregs of American society have trouble competing against the best that the Turd World has to offer, is a valid point.
> 
> 
> But if our policies prevent those Third Worlders, from being IN our labor market, then that gives a chance for those "pill popping, tattooed, body pierced people" to get some job skills and turn their screwed up lives around.
> 
> Your point about the criminal records is valid. Employers are so terrified of being sued on discrimination charges, that they go the paper trail more than the actual candidate, imo.
Click to expand...

we simply need better management.  

there is no drug war clause.   equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States is more cost effective than our current, "police State" regime, for the Poor.

we should be generating revenue from all foreign nationals in the US; they should all be known to the general government and be federally identified for civil purposes.  we should have no illegal problem or any illegal underclass.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> America has had foreigners regulated since the Mayflower hit the shores of the New World in 1620. However, this process has been done by different levels of government at different times. From your own article:
> 
> "_The federal government assumed control of immigration on April 18, 1890_"
> 
> Here are the serious questions for you Correll:
> 
> A) Where, in the Constitution, does the federal government have the authority to tell the states who can and cannot come to that respective state?
> 
> B) PRIOR to 1890 the federal government *did not* have control over immigration. Obviously if someone were regulating the flow of foreigners and it was not the federal government, somebody did it for that period between 1789 and 1890 *A FULL CENTURY OF REGULATION WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY YOUR OWN LINK!*
> 
> C) HOW did the federal government, after a century end up controlling the flow of foreigners? Which Amendment changed that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know, don't really care. You let 50 million Mexicans move into California, and this country will no longer be this country.
> 
> 
> Also, this does not explain your use of our drug issue as a reason to not have an immigration policy.
Click to expand...



We have an immigration policy.  We also have an unconstitutional Amendment (that allows those mythical "_anchor babies_" you wail about) which should cause you some consternation.  We have illegal policies that are causing the problem AND my biggest stake in the game - the *REAL* reason you don't like me...

*MY RIGHTS ARE NOT FOR SALE AT ANY PRICE.
*
Now, since you bitched about insults and came up with a straw man argument, I'm going to post my question again.  This time, see if you can leave veiled insults, straw man arguments and our differences on the back burner.  I'm going to help you understand the issue.  Just answer my questions.  I'll even repeat this stuff for you again.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

EVERYTHING the federal government touches, they manage to screw up.  I continue to ask Correll the following.  I think he will not answer this because he does NOT support the Rule of Law.  Let's see.  Here it is one more time:

America has had foreigners regulated since the Mayflower hit the shores of the New World in 1620. However, this process has been done by different levels of government at different times. From your own article:

"_The federal government assumed control of immigration on April 18, 1890_"

Here are the serious questions for you Correll:

A) Where, in the Constitution, does the federal government have the authority to tell the states who can and cannot come to that respective state?

B) PRIOR to 1890 the federal government *did not* have control over immigration. Obviously if someone were regulating the flow of foreigners and it was not the federal government, somebody did it for that period between 1789 and 1890 *A FULL CENTURY OF REGULATION WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY YOUR OWN LINK!*

C) HOW did the federal government, after a century end up controlling the flow of foreigners? Which Amendment changed that?


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> America has had foreigners regulated since the Mayflower hit the shores of the New World in 1620. However, this process has been done by different levels of government at different times. From your own article:
> 
> "_The federal government assumed control of immigration on April 18, 1890_"
> 
> Here are the serious questions for you Correll:
> 
> A) Where, in the Constitution, does the federal government have the authority to tell the states who can and cannot come to that respective state?
> 
> B) PRIOR to 1890 the federal government *did not* have control over immigration. Obviously if someone were regulating the flow of foreigners and it was not the federal government, somebody did it for that period between 1789 and 1890 *A FULL CENTURY OF REGULATION WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY YOUR OWN LINK!*
> 
> C) HOW did the federal government, after a century end up controlling the flow of foreigners? Which Amendment changed that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know, don't really care. You let 50 million Mexicans move into California, and this country will no longer be this country.
> 
> 
> Also, this does not explain your use of our drug issue as a reason to not have an immigration policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have an immigration policy.  We also have an unconstitutional Amendment (that allows those mythical "_anchor babies_" you wail about) which should cause you some consternation.  We have illegal policies that are causing the problem AND my biggest stake in the game - the *REAL* reason you don't like me...
> 
> *MY RIGHTS ARE NOT FOR SALE AT ANY PRICE.
> *
> Now, since you bitched about insults and came up with a straw man argument, I'm going to post my question again.  This time, see if you can leave veiled insults, straw man arguments and our differences on the back burner.  I'm going to help you understand the issue.  Just answer my questions.  I'll even repeat this stuff for you again.
Click to expand...




I mentioned immigration and you replied with complaints about our internal problems as though that was a reason to NOT control immigration.


That was not a strawman. You brought up the shit about our working poor. Why if not as a reason to let in immigrates, legal and illegal?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> America has had foreigners regulated since the Mayflower hit the shores of the New World in 1620. However, this process has been done by different levels of government at different times. From your own article:
> 
> "_The federal government assumed control of immigration on April 18, 1890_"
> 
> Here are the serious questions for you Correll:
> 
> A) Where, in the Constitution, does the federal government have the authority to tell the states who can and cannot come to that respective state?
> 
> B) PRIOR to 1890 the federal government *did not* have control over immigration. Obviously if someone were regulating the flow of foreigners and it was not the federal government, somebody did it for that period between 1789 and 1890 *A FULL CENTURY OF REGULATION WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY YOUR OWN LINK!*
> 
> C) HOW did the federal government, after a century end up controlling the flow of foreigners? Which Amendment changed that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know, don't really care. You let 50 million Mexicans move into California, and this country will no longer be this country.
> 
> 
> Also, this does not explain your use of our drug issue as a reason to not have an immigration policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We have an immigration policy.  We also have an unconstitutional Amendment (that allows those mythical "_anchor babies_" you wail about) which should cause you some consternation.  We have illegal policies that are causing the problem AND my biggest stake in the game - the *REAL* reason you don't like me...
> 
> *MY RIGHTS ARE NOT FOR SALE AT ANY PRICE.
> *
> Now, since you bitched about insults and came up with a straw man argument, I'm going to post my question again.  This time, see if you can leave veiled insults, straw man arguments and our differences on the back burner.  I'm going to help you understand the issue.  Just answer my questions.  I'll even repeat this stuff for you again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mentioned immigration and you replied with complaints about our internal problems as though that was a reason to NOT control immigration.
> 
> 
> That was not a strawman. You brought up the shit about our working poor. Why if not as a reason to let in immigrates, legal and illegal?
Click to expand...


I asked you some questions in a respectful manner.  You have chosen NOT to formulate honest answers.  Instead you make idiotic allegations and you'll cry like a baby if I insult you.  Did it ever dawn on you that my questions are based upon showing you that your straw man arguments are unnecessary and every question you've asked, along with those that have not been asked (which are equally relevant) will be answered.  

Now, keep up with the allegations, but quit your bitching when I dish it back out to you.  Here is my question to you and I'm damn well due an answer after answering your bullshit as if I were your push button monkey.  Let's see if a civil discourse is possible.  see my next post....


----------



## Porter Rockwell

I responded to one of Correll's rhetorical questions and have been chasing him for over 20 posts, trying to get an honest answer from him.  Let's see if he can answer this time.  EVERY one of his answers so far is to avoid the questions and pose straw man arguments and accuse me of B.S. he would never accuse anyone of to their face.

America has had foreigners regulated since the Mayflower hit the shores of the New World in 1620. However, this process has been done by different levels of government at different times. From your own article:

"_The federal government assumed control of immigration on April 18, 1890_"

Here are the serious questions for you Correll:

A) Where, in the Constitution, does the federal government have the authority to tell the states who can and cannot come to that respective state?

B) PRIOR to 1890 the federal government *did not* have control over immigration. Obviously if someone were regulating the flow of foreigners and it was not the federal government, somebody did it for that period between 1789 and 1890 *A FULL CENTURY OF REGULATION WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY YOUR OWN LINK!*

C) HOW did the federal government, after a century end up controlling the flow of foreigners? Which Amendment changed that?


----------



## danielpalos

Porter Rockwell said:


> EVERYTHING the federal government touches, they manage to screw up.  I continue to ask Correll the following.  I think he will not answer this because he does NOT support the Rule of Law.  Let's see.  Here it is one more time:
> 
> America has had foreigners regulated since the Mayflower hit the shores of the New World in 1620. However, this process has been done by different levels of government at different times. From your own article:
> 
> "_The federal government assumed control of immigration on April 18, 1890_"
> 
> Here are the serious questions for you Correll:
> 
> A) Where, in the Constitution, does the federal government have the authority to tell the states who can and cannot come to that respective state?
> 
> B) PRIOR to 1890 the federal government *did not* have control over immigration. Obviously if someone were regulating the flow of foreigners and it was not the federal government, somebody did it for that period between 1789 and 1890 *A FULL CENTURY OF REGULATION WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY YOUR OWN LINK!*
> 
> C) HOW did the federal government, after a century end up controlling the flow of foreigners? Which Amendment changed that?


The general government has supreme authority over entry into the Union after 1808.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

danielpalos said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> EVERYTHING the federal government touches, they manage to screw up.  I continue to ask Correll the following.  I think he will not answer this because he does NOT support the Rule of Law.  Let's see.  Here it is one more time:
> 
> America has had foreigners regulated since the Mayflower hit the shores of the New World in 1620. However, this process has been done by different levels of government at different times. From your own article:
> 
> "_The federal government assumed control of immigration on April 18, 1890_"
> 
> Here are the serious questions for you Correll:
> 
> A) Where, in the Constitution, does the federal government have the authority to tell the states who can and cannot come to that respective state?
> 
> B) PRIOR to 1890 the federal government *did not* have control over immigration. Obviously if someone were regulating the flow of foreigners and it was not the federal government, somebody did it for that period between 1789 and 1890 *A FULL CENTURY OF REGULATION WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY YOUR OWN LINK!*
> 
> C) HOW did the federal government, after a century end up controlling the flow of foreigners? Which Amendment changed that?
> 
> 
> 
> The general government has supreme authority over entry into the Union after 1808.
Click to expand...


Not being a smart ass, danielpalos, but it's time for Correll to answer the question.  Since he wants to make accusations, let him show us what's really between his ears.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> I responded to one of Correll's rhetorical questions and have been chasing him for over 20 posts, trying to get an honest answer from him.  Let's see if he can answer this time.  EVERY one of his answers so far is to avoid the questions and pose straw man arguments and accuse me of B.S. he would never accuse anyone of to their face.
> 
> America has had foreigners regulated since the Mayflower hit the shores of the New World in 1620. However, this process has been done by different levels of government at different times. From your own article:
> 
> "_The federal government assumed control of immigration on April 18, 1890_"
> 
> Here are the serious questions for you Correll:
> 
> A) Where, in the Constitution, does the federal government have the authority to tell the states who can and cannot come to that respective state?
> 
> B) PRIOR to 1890 the federal government *did not* have control over immigration. Obviously if someone were regulating the flow of foreigners and it was not the federal government, somebody did it for that period between 1789 and 1890 *A FULL CENTURY OF REGULATION WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY YOUR OWN LINK!*
> 
> C) HOW did the federal government, after a century end up controlling the flow of foreigners? Which Amendment changed that?






I have repeatedly answered this question. 

My answer is, I don't know and I don't care. 


These are minor quibbles beside the importance of the rapid and extreme changes being forced onto US, by massive Third World immigration, legal and illegal.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I responded to one of Correll's rhetorical questions and have been chasing him for over 20 posts, trying to get an honest answer from him.  Let's see if he can answer this time.  EVERY one of his answers so far is to avoid the questions and pose straw man arguments and accuse me of B.S. he would never accuse anyone of to their face.
> 
> America has had foreigners regulated since the Mayflower hit the shores of the New World in 1620. However, this process has been done by different levels of government at different times. From your own article:
> 
> "_The federal government assumed control of immigration on April 18, 1890_"
> 
> Here are the serious questions for you Correll:
> 
> A) Where, in the Constitution, does the federal government have the authority to tell the states who can and cannot come to that respective state?
> 
> B) PRIOR to 1890 the federal government *did not* have control over immigration. Obviously if someone were regulating the flow of foreigners and it was not the federal government, somebody did it for that period between 1789 and 1890 *A FULL CENTURY OF REGULATION WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY YOUR OWN LINK!*
> 
> C) HOW did the federal government, after a century end up controlling the flow of foreigners? Which Amendment changed that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly answered this question.
> 
> My answer is, I don't know and I don't care.
> 
> 
> These are minor quibbles beside the importance of the rapid and extreme changes being forced onto US, by massive Third World immigration, legal and illegal.
Click to expand...


You are unable to understand the law because you don't understand history NOR the history of that law.  All you understand is that you want what you want, the consequences be damned.  Therein lies your problem.  

What you want has far reaching effects.  Infringe upon the Rights of another human being, *YOUR* Rights are affected in ways you cannot fathom.  You've never been a victim of your own bad legislative lobbying efforts; I have.

Next, in studying the past, you can pretty much predict the future.  America was founded on the English Common Law known as stare decisis.  That's a fancy Latin term meaning let the decision stand.   When you advocate things like denying Due Process to undocumented foreigners, you set the precedent where *YOUR* Due Process may be denied.

Lastly, our forefathers warned over and over and over again about the dangers of usurpation.  You don't give a damn what happens provided you get what you want.  The truth of the matter is that the current laws are unconstitutional and there is a danger in allowing the United States Supreme Court to grant powers they had no authority to grant.  There is a dangerous precedent when Congress gives the Executive department carte blanche to do what they want.  One day you wake up in an absolute dictatorship, asking yourself how it happened.  

Immigration is but a symptom of a deeper problem.  The fact that you do not understand that immigration is an assault on your culture and you think preserving such culture is racist only insures that the courts are going to over-turn most of what you think you're winning and you will be stuck with those portions of the law that took something away from you.  Stupidity and apathy are costly.  As an example only: the courts will* NEVER* allow the separation of families of foreigners (you saw that aspect tested recently.)  What good is a wall in that instance?  The courts are never going to keep people out permanently for violation a federal civil misdemeanor like Improper Entry as it would be deemed to be cruel and unusual punishment AND a tool to separate families.

Once you understand the history and the law, you begin to understand your best options.  Serious people are not going to follow you to a path of certain defeat.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Why do employers ignore the current immigration laws?  Why do Americans rent to, sell to, buy from and otherwise do business with foreigners?  Do they really have a Right to do so?  The United States Supreme Court once opined:
_
"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_

_The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._

_An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._

_Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._

_A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._

_An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law._

_Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._

_*No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it*._

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I responded to one of Correll's rhetorical questions and have been chasing him for over 20 posts, trying to get an honest answer from him.  Let's see if he can answer this time.  EVERY one of his answers so far is to avoid the questions and pose straw man arguments and accuse me of B.S. he would never accuse anyone of to their face.
> 
> America has had foreigners regulated since the Mayflower hit the shores of the New World in 1620. However, this process has been done by different levels of government at different times. From your own article:
> 
> "_The federal government assumed control of immigration on April 18, 1890_"
> 
> Here are the serious questions for you Correll:
> 
> A) Where, in the Constitution, does the federal government have the authority to tell the states who can and cannot come to that respective state?
> 
> B) PRIOR to 1890 the federal government *did not* have control over immigration. Obviously if someone were regulating the flow of foreigners and it was not the federal government, somebody did it for that period between 1789 and 1890 *A FULL CENTURY OF REGULATION WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY YOUR OWN LINK!*
> 
> C) HOW did the federal government, after a century end up controlling the flow of foreigners? Which Amendment changed that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly answered this question.
> 
> My answer is, I don't know and I don't care.
> 
> 
> These are minor quibbles beside the importance of the rapid and extreme changes being forced onto US, by massive Third World immigration, legal and illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are unable to understand the law because you don't understand history NOR the history of that law.  All you understand is that you want what you want, the consequences be damned.  Therein lies your problem.
Click to expand...



Not caring about the law is not being unable to understand it. I am not a lawyer. If a lawyer or a judge can demonstrate that the law says something obviously wrong and/or stupid, that is not to me, a reason to do wrong and/or stupid shit, like let millions and millions of unwanted foreigners enter and live in our country.




> What you want has far reaching effects.  Infringe upon the Rights of another human being, *YOUR* Rights are affected in ways you cannot fathom.  You've never been a victim of your own bad legislative lobbying efforts; I have.




We are talking about massive immigration and demographic change. EVERYTHING THAT EVERYONE WANTS, regarding this, has "far reaching effects.

I'm sorry you have been screwed by bad law. That is not a reason to let in millions of unwanted foreigners.




> Next, in studying the past, you can pretty much predict the future.  America was founded on the English Common Law known as stare decisis.  That's a fancy Latin term meaning let the decision stand.   When you advocate things like denying Due Process to undocumented foreigners, you set the precedent where *YOUR* Due Process may be denied.




The system has been purposefully overwhelmed by enemies of America coaching illegals to falsely claim asylum. To allow that tactic to work, is to surrender and allow the enemies of America to destroy that which made America, America, and remake it as a defacto One Party Third World Hellhole. 





> Lastly, our forefathers warned over and over and over again about the dangers of usurpation.  You don't give a damn what happens provided you get what you want.  The truth of the matter is that the current laws are unconstitutional and there is a danger in allowing the United States Supreme Court to grant powers they had no authority to grant.  There is a dangerous precedent when Congress gives the Executive department carte blanche to do what they want.  One day you wake up in an absolute dictatorship, asking yourself how it happened.




I want a secure border and to send unwanted foreigners home. If America is shaky that we can't survive doing that, then we were doomed anyways.





> Immigration is but a symptom of a deeper problem.  The fact that you do not understand that immigration is an assault on your culture and you think preserving such culture is racist




I agree that immigration, at least as it is being done now, is an assault on our culture. I do not think that preserving such culture is racist. Try to not make such crazy assumptions about me, and also, respect when I correct you, instead of pretending that you know me better than I know myself.  

Cause you do not.




> only insures that the courts are going to over-turn most of what you think you're winning and you will be stuck with those portions of the law that took something away from you.



Quite likely. One the other hand, your plan of just letting them win, will only cost them the time it takes to ignore those laws they don't like, which is zero.




> Stupidity and apathy are costly.  As an example only: the courts will* NEVER* allow the separation of families of foreigners (you saw that aspect tested recently.)  What good is a wall in that instance?



Most illegals are young males. It will keep out the vast majority of illegals. Also, there will be plenty of times, that we can send the whole familiy home. NOt every child is an anchor baby. 





> The courts are never going to keep people out permanently for violation a federal civil misdemeanor like Improper Entry as it would be deemed to be cruel and unusual punishment AND a tool to separate families.




Giving up, is a sure fire way to lose. 





> Once you understand the history and the law, you begin to understand your best options.  Serious people are not going to follow you to a path of certain defeat.




Yours is the path to certain defeat.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I responded to one of Correll's rhetorical questions and have been chasing him for over 20 posts, trying to get an honest answer from him.  Let's see if he can answer this time.  EVERY one of his answers so far is to avoid the questions and pose straw man arguments and accuse me of B.S. he would never accuse anyone of to their face.
> 
> America has had foreigners regulated since the Mayflower hit the shores of the New World in 1620. However, this process has been done by different levels of government at different times. From your own article:
> 
> "_The federal government assumed control of immigration on April 18, 1890_"
> 
> Here are the serious questions for you Correll:
> 
> A) Where, in the Constitution, does the federal government have the authority to tell the states who can and cannot come to that respective state?
> 
> B) PRIOR to 1890 the federal government *did not* have control over immigration. Obviously if someone were regulating the flow of foreigners and it was not the federal government, somebody did it for that period between 1789 and 1890 *A FULL CENTURY OF REGULATION WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY YOUR OWN LINK!*
> 
> C) HOW did the federal government, after a century end up controlling the flow of foreigners? Which Amendment changed that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly answered this question.
> 
> My answer is, I don't know and I don't care.
> 
> 
> These are minor quibbles beside the importance of the rapid and extreme changes being forced onto US, by massive Third World immigration, legal and illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are unable to understand the law because you don't understand history NOR the history of that law.  All you understand is that you want what you want, the consequences be damned.  Therein lies your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not caring about the law is not being unable to understand it. I am not a lawyer. If a lawyer or a judge can demonstrate that the law says something obviously wrong and/or stupid, that is not to me, a reason to do wrong and/or stupid shit, like let millions and millions of unwanted foreigners enter and live in our country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you want has far reaching effects.  Infringe upon the Rights of another human being, *YOUR* Rights are affected in ways you cannot fathom.  You've never been a victim of your own bad legislative lobbying efforts; I have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about massive immigration and demographic change. EVERYTHING THAT EVERYONE WANTS, regarding this, has "far reaching effects.
> 
> I'm sorry you have been screwed by bad law. That is not a reason to let in millions of unwanted foreigners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next, in studying the past, you can pretty much predict the future.  America was founded on the English Common Law known as stare decisis.  That's a fancy Latin term meaning let the decision stand.   When you advocate things like denying Due Process to undocumented foreigners, you set the precedent where *YOUR* Due Process may be denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The system has been purposefully overwhelmed by enemies of America coaching illegals to falsely claim asylum. To allow that tactic to work, is to surrender and allow the enemies of America to destroy that which made America, America, and remake it as a defacto One Party Third World Hellhole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, our forefathers warned over and over and over again about the dangers of usurpation.  You don't give a damn what happens provided you get what you want.  The truth of the matter is that the current laws are unconstitutional and there is a danger in allowing the United States Supreme Court to grant powers they had no authority to grant.  There is a dangerous precedent when Congress gives the Executive department carte blanche to do what they want.  One day you wake up in an absolute dictatorship, asking yourself how it happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I want a secure border and to send unwanted foreigners home. If America is shaky that we can't survive doing that, then we were doomed anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration is but a symptom of a deeper problem.  The fact that you do not understand that immigration is an assault on your culture and you think preserving such culture is racist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that immigration, at least as it is being done now, is an assault on our culture. I do not think that preserving such culture is racist. Try to not make such crazy assumptions about me, and also, respect when I correct you, instead of pretending that you know me better than I know myself.
> 
> Cause you do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> only insures that the courts are going to over-turn most of what you think you're winning and you will be stuck with those portions of the law that took something away from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite likely. One the other hand, your plan of just letting them win, will only cost them the time it takes to ignore those laws they don't like, which is zero.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupidity and apathy are costly.  As an example only: the courts will* NEVER* allow the separation of families of foreigners (you saw that aspect tested recently.)  What good is a wall in that instance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most illegals are young males. It will keep out the vast majority of illegals. Also, there will be plenty of times, that we can send the whole familiy home. NOt every child is an anchor baby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The courts are never going to keep people out permanently for violation a federal civil misdemeanor like Improper Entry as it would be deemed to be cruel and unusual punishment AND a tool to separate families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Giving up, is a sure fire way to lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once you understand the history and the law, you begin to understand your best options.  Serious people are not going to follow you to a path of certain defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is the path to certain defeat.
Click to expand...



You know I don't play games.  *YOUR* path is the one to certain defeat.  The side you're on has bullshitted the people for over 15 years now.  This multi quote stuff you do is only proof that you are on the ropes, readying for the final count.  Here it comes:

The side you're on has sent more people to prison, jail, Hell, and had more patriots flipped to work as snitch bitches than any effort in the history of American Political Action Committees.  OTOH, after 11 years of study and research, working for really smart guys, I helped organize the Militia of Georgia in 1987.  It was big enough and savvy enough so that the ADL and so forth never challenged us nor reported on the leadership.  It is the oldest and most continuous militia in the United States.  To date (as I was informed yesterday on a pending action) I've had 35 cases that have been won in court; I've never been over-turned on appeal.

As for the thousands of people I've crossed paths with, not one person has spent a single night in jail - nor ever been arrested for that matter for taking my advice.  That's a pretty damn good record for 32 years of service.  In addition, I've been on two legal teams where the cases went to the United States Supreme Court.  Both of those cases were won.  I studied with another guy who got charged with sedition.  He represented himself in court - federal court son.  He won the case.

You've admitted that you don't know shit about the law; you've never studied history; you don't have a clue about immigration law and its legal development.  So, you don't understand the parameters from which we have to work within.  Most of the shit you come up with has been tried in court or put before the masses.  Your side has one consistency - they have lost over and over and over again.  The anti-immigrant wallists emptied out *ALL* the civilian militias.  The leaders who rose up against the original Militia of Georgia and did not take the advice of the state headquarters, but followed the leadership you do are today in jail, prison, dead, or working as Confidential Informants... *ALL* of them.    You might want to try peddling your magic elixir somewhere else.  

You say stupid shit on this board because you have the luxury of remaining anonymous and you've never been a physical *ACTIVIST.  *You are a keyboard commando who has tried to criticize my life without knowing the specific fights I've been in (fist fights, stand-offs, court-room battles, media battles, and political action just as highlights.)  You haven't earned the Right to criticize me because you haven't done shit with your life save of posting in the general area of 100,000 posts on this board under different board names.  You've admitted your inexperience.  And, like I told you, we had this fight won until the wallist religion was financed by billionaires.  More than fifteen years later, you're still bitching about so - called _"illegals_" after blowing more than *2 TRILLION DOLLARS* in tax money and forfeiting God only knows how many of our Liberties.

The political pendulum swings back and forth.  All you did was help the left.  I've not backed down, compromised, nor done anything that helped the left (though you have - and you've done so through stupidity.)  The difference is, we did not get any media attention.  They focus on dumb shits like you for headlines.  Meanwhile, the real fight goes on and is ignored by the media since they cannot demonize what we do.  That may seem like little, but people DO read these threads and those who want to *WIN *instead of reading your criticisms will do what it takes to be effective.  Know this:  What you've done here and with your life has benefited the so - called "_illegals_" more than what the ADL and SCLC *COMBINED* have done for them.  That's fact.


----------



## Devaje007

America needs the military lined up at the border to stop illegals,  I am ok with immigrants asking for asylum if they have nothing to eat or violence but these illegals at the southern border are fake, because they come here overweight ...new clothes and hair cuts plus are caring smartphones

Also in the dessert credit cards were found and cash plus fake marriage  certificates,  these new illegals now are coming from Honduras..Guatemala...Cuba..Africa....many are flown in to Mexico then bussed up to USA boarder then asking for asylum to gain free generous government benefits.......this is reason I don't want any more illegals plus I hope trump sends in military to round up and deport every illegal
They are destroying American filling up  schools and hospitals which raises taxes on American citizens. 
Trump needs to win in 2020 otherwise American will be a socialist third world country.


----------



## danielpalos

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I responded to one of Correll's rhetorical questions and have been chasing him for over 20 posts, trying to get an honest answer from him.  Let's see if he can answer this time.  EVERY one of his answers so far is to avoid the questions and pose straw man arguments and accuse me of B.S. he would never accuse anyone of to their face.
> 
> America has had foreigners regulated since the Mayflower hit the shores of the New World in 1620. However, this process has been done by different levels of government at different times. From your own article:
> 
> "_The federal government assumed control of immigration on April 18, 1890_"
> 
> Here are the serious questions for you Correll:
> 
> A) Where, in the Constitution, does the federal government have the authority to tell the states who can and cannot come to that respective state?
> 
> B) PRIOR to 1890 the federal government *did not* have control over immigration. Obviously if someone were regulating the flow of foreigners and it was not the federal government, somebody did it for that period between 1789 and 1890 *A FULL CENTURY OF REGULATION WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY YOUR OWN LINK!*
> 
> C) HOW did the federal government, after a century end up controlling the flow of foreigners? Which Amendment changed that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly answered this question.
> 
> My answer is, I don't know and I don't care.
> 
> 
> These are minor quibbles beside the importance of the rapid and extreme changes being forced onto US, by massive Third World immigration, legal and illegal.
Click to expand...

The major quibble is that there is no express immigration clause in our federal Constitution.


----------



## Mike Dwight

Danielpalos?! Really?! We are the only Country in the World with a Revolutionary, Civil War reactionary Idea, one of many I presume, called Naturalized Citizenship. You've heard all over the news that People come here and have a baby who is then an American, and Europeans point and have no idea whats going on, because its totally American. Naturalized Citizenship I believe is the 13th amendment bundled tightly with freeing the slaves, disallowing the rebel government from returning to Office, and etc.

Well hey, the First "Citizen" and the "Last" will come with the implication of joined membership. The Romans in 200 BC are recorded as having the "most miraculous and amazing possession in the entire world" which was Roman Citizenship. You could join the army as an auxiliary a decade and Gain citizenship, lands even, go anywhere. The very first European Citizenship again, to be copying the Romans heavily too, was France Revolutionaries started a "Citizenship" in 1806 leading to 1812. Many many groups o the United States of America had no trust in the idea of Citizenship, its a very specific idea historically that we are Currently globalizing!


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Devaje007 said:


> America needs the military lined up at the border to stop illegals,  I am ok with immigrants asking for asylum if they have nothing to eat or violence but these illegals at the southern border are fake, because they come here overweight ...new clothes and hair cuts plus are caring smartphones
> 
> Also in the dessert credit cards were found and cash plus fake marriage  certificates,  these new illegals now are coming from Honduras..Guatemala...Cuba..Africa....many are flown in to Mexico then bussed up to USA boarder then asking for asylum to gain free generous government benefits.......this is reason I don't want any more illegals plus I hope trump sends in military to round up and deport every illegal
> They are destroying American filling up  schools and hospitals which raises taxes on American citizens.
> Trump needs to win in 2020 otherwise American will be a socialist third world country.



You've been fed so much propaganda that reason won't help you.

Undocumented foreigners pay as much in taxes as they receive in benefits.  So, it gets tiresome to do this song and dance every day.  Here is the *REAL *meat and potatoes:

Either you have a National Security issue *OR* you have a legal issue.  When you said the word "_illegal,_" *you negated* the possibility of a military intervention.  The military is prohibited from enforcing domestic policies.  It's in the Constitution.  If you do not respect the Constitution of your country enough to READ it, then you don't deserve to be heard.  BTW, ALL of this has been addressed in this thread IF you take the time to *read *it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Mike Dwight said:


> Danielpalos?! Really?! We are the only Country in the World with a Revolutionary, Civil War reactionary Idea, one of many I presume, called Naturalized Citizenship. You've heard all over the news that People come here and have a baby who is then an American, and Europeans point and have no idea whats going on, because its totally American. Naturalized Citizenship I believe is the 13th amendment bundled tightly with freeing the slaves, disallowing the rebel government from returning to Office, and etc.
> 
> Well hey, the First "Citizen" and the "Last" will come with the implication of joined membership. The Romans in 200 BC are recorded as having the "most miraculous and amazing possession in the entire world" which was Roman Citizenship. You could join the army as an auxiliary a decade and Gain citizenship, lands even, go anywhere. The very first European Citizenship again, to be copying the Romans heavily too, was France Revolutionaries started a "Citizenship" in 1806 leading to 1812. Many many groups o the United States of America had no trust in the idea of Citizenship, its a very specific idea historically that we are Currently globalizing!



Actually the* illegally ratified* 14th Amendment bestowed citizenship upon anyone born in the United States.  

America is unique in that its citizenry had to fight the world's major superpower and win their independence.  We went on to become the greatest nation in the annals of history.  

People like to bring up the Roman Empire that lasted longer than any civilization in history.  Yet the most ships the Romans ever had was 330 in their navy.  The U.S. has been around just over 225 years... a mere fraction of the time the Roman Empire existed.  We have 490 ships with another 90 in the building or planning stages.  I could tell you more about how much more we're advanced comparatively speaking.

The right are the ones with a strategy that ends with forced citizenship, most likely done by the courts.  Citizenship, more than most any other issue, will be what puts the right on the death knell.  That is a major difference I have with wallist theology.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I responded to one of Correll's rhetorical questions and have been chasing him for over 20 posts, trying to get an honest answer from him.  Let's see if he can answer this time.  EVERY one of his answers so far is to avoid the questions and pose straw man arguments and accuse me of B.S. he would never accuse anyone of to their face.
> 
> America has had foreigners regulated since the Mayflower hit the shores of the New World in 1620. However, this process has been done by different levels of government at different times. From your own article:
> 
> "_The federal government assumed control of immigration on April 18, 1890_"
> 
> Here are the serious questions for you Correll:
> 
> A) Where, in the Constitution, does the federal government have the authority to tell the states who can and cannot come to that respective state?
> 
> B) PRIOR to 1890 the federal government *did not* have control over immigration. Obviously if someone were regulating the flow of foreigners and it was not the federal government, somebody did it for that period between 1789 and 1890 *A FULL CENTURY OF REGULATION WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY YOUR OWN LINK!*
> 
> C) HOW did the federal government, after a century end up controlling the flow of foreigners? Which Amendment changed that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly answered this question.
> 
> My answer is, I don't know and I don't care.
> 
> 
> These are minor quibbles beside the importance of the rapid and extreme changes being forced onto US, by massive Third World immigration, legal and illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are unable to understand the law because you don't understand history NOR the history of that law.  All you understand is that you want what you want, the consequences be damned.  Therein lies your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not caring about the law is not being unable to understand it. I am not a lawyer. If a lawyer or a judge can demonstrate that the law says something obviously wrong and/or stupid, that is not to me, a reason to do wrong and/or stupid shit, like let millions and millions of unwanted foreigners enter and live in our country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you want has far reaching effects.  Infringe upon the Rights of another human being, *YOUR* Rights are affected in ways you cannot fathom.  You've never been a victim of your own bad legislative lobbying efforts; I have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about massive immigration and demographic change. EVERYTHING THAT EVERYONE WANTS, regarding this, has "far reaching effects.
> 
> I'm sorry you have been screwed by bad law. That is not a reason to let in millions of unwanted foreigners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next, in studying the past, you can pretty much predict the future.  America was founded on the English Common Law known as stare decisis.  That's a fancy Latin term meaning let the decision stand.   When you advocate things like denying Due Process to undocumented foreigners, you set the precedent where *YOUR* Due Process may be denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The system has been purposefully overwhelmed by enemies of America coaching illegals to falsely claim asylum. To allow that tactic to work, is to surrender and allow the enemies of America to destroy that which made America, America, and remake it as a defacto One Party Third World Hellhole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, our forefathers warned over and over and over again about the dangers of usurpation.  You don't give a damn what happens provided you get what you want.  The truth of the matter is that the current laws are unconstitutional and there is a danger in allowing the United States Supreme Court to grant powers they had no authority to grant.  There is a dangerous precedent when Congress gives the Executive department carte blanche to do what they want.  One day you wake up in an absolute dictatorship, asking yourself how it happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I want a secure border and to send unwanted foreigners home. If America is shaky that we can't survive doing that, then we were doomed anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration is but a symptom of a deeper problem.  The fact that you do not understand that immigration is an assault on your culture and you think preserving such culture is racist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that immigration, at least as it is being done now, is an assault on our culture. I do not think that preserving such culture is racist. Try to not make such crazy assumptions about me, and also, respect when I correct you, instead of pretending that you know me better than I know myself.
> 
> Cause you do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> only insures that the courts are going to over-turn most of what you think you're winning and you will be stuck with those portions of the law that took something away from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite likely. One the other hand, your plan of just letting them win, will only cost them the time it takes to ignore those laws they don't like, which is zero.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupidity and apathy are costly.  As an example only: the courts will* NEVER* allow the separation of families of foreigners (you saw that aspect tested recently.)  What good is a wall in that instance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most illegals are young males. It will keep out the vast majority of illegals. Also, there will be plenty of times, that we can send the whole familiy home. NOt every child is an anchor baby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The courts are never going to keep people out permanently for violation a federal civil misdemeanor like Improper Entry as it would be deemed to be cruel and unusual punishment AND a tool to separate families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Giving up, is a sure fire way to lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once you understand the history and the law, you begin to understand your best options.  Serious people are not going to follow you to a path of certain defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is the path to certain defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know I don't play games.  *YOUR* path is the one to certain defeat.  The side you're on has bullshitted the people for over 15 years now.  This multi quote stuff you do is only proof that you are on the ropes, readying for the final count.  Here it comes:
> 
> The side you're on has sent more people to prison, jail, Hell, and had more patriots flipped to work as snitch bitches than any effort in the history of American Political Action Committees.  OTOH, after 11 years of study and research, working for really smart guys, I helped organize the Militia of Georgia in 1987.  It was big enough and savvy enough so that the ADL and so forth never challenged us nor reported on the leadership.  It is the oldest and most continuous militia in the United States.  To date (as I was informed yesterday on a pending action) I've had 35 cases that have been won in court; I've never been over-turned on appeal.
> 
> As for the thousands of people I've crossed paths with, not one person has spent a single night in jail - nor ever been arrested for that matter for taking my advice.  That's a pretty damn good record for 32 years of service.  In addition, I've been on two legal teams where the cases went to the United States Supreme Court.  Both of those cases were won.  I studied with another guy who got charged with sedition.  He represented himself in court - federal court son.  He won the case.
> 
> You've admitted that you don't know shit about the law; you've never studied history; you don't have a clue about immigration law and its legal development.  So, you don't understand the parameters from which we have to work within.  Most of the shit you come up with has been tried in court or put before the masses.  Your side has one consistency - they have lost over and over and over again.  The anti-immigrant wallists emptied out *ALL* the civilian militias.  The leaders who rose up against the original Militia of Georgia and did not take the advice of the state headquarters, but followed the leadership you do are today in jail, prison, dead, or working as Confidential Informants... *ALL* of them.    You might want to try peddling your magic elixir somewhere else.
> 
> You say stupid shit on this board because you have the luxury of remaining anonymous and you've never been a physical *ACTIVIST.  *You are a keyboard commando who has tried to criticize my life without knowing the specific fights I've been in (fist fights, stand-offs, court-room battles, media battles, and political action just as highlights.)  You haven't earned the Right to criticize me because you haven't done shit with your life save of posting in the general area of 100,000 posts on this board under different board names.  You've admitted your inexperience.  And, like I told you, we had this fight won until the wallist religion was financed by billionaires.  More than fifteen years later, you're still bitching about so - called _"illegals_" after blowing more than *2 TRILLION DOLLARS* in tax money and forfeiting God only knows how many of our Liberties.
> 
> The political pendulum swings back and forth.  All you did was help the left.  I've not backed down, compromised, nor done anything that helped the left (though you have - and you've done so through stupidity.)  The difference is, we did not get any media attention.  They focus on dumb shits like you for headlines.  Meanwhile, the real fight goes on and is ignored by the media since they cannot demonize what we do.  That may seem like little, but people DO read these threads and those who want to *WIN *instead of reading your criticisms will do what it takes to be effective.  Know this:  What you've done here and with your life has benefited the so - called "_illegals_" more than what the ADL and SCLC *COMBINED* have done for them.  That's fact.
Click to expand...



Not trying to criticize your life buddy, but to discuss the current situation, which is not good. The status quo is killing this country. 


That you take it personally, and/or make it personal in your attacks on me, is your choice.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I responded to one of Correll's rhetorical questions and have been chasing him for over 20 posts, trying to get an honest answer from him.  Let's see if he can answer this time.  EVERY one of his answers so far is to avoid the questions and pose straw man arguments and accuse me of B.S. he would never accuse anyone of to their face.
> 
> America has had foreigners regulated since the Mayflower hit the shores of the New World in 1620. However, this process has been done by different levels of government at different times. From your own article:
> 
> "_The federal government assumed control of immigration on April 18, 1890_"
> 
> Here are the serious questions for you Correll:
> 
> A) Where, in the Constitution, does the federal government have the authority to tell the states who can and cannot come to that respective state?
> 
> B) PRIOR to 1890 the federal government *did not* have control over immigration. Obviously if someone were regulating the flow of foreigners and it was not the federal government, somebody did it for that period between 1789 and 1890 *A FULL CENTURY OF REGULATION WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY YOUR OWN LINK!*
> 
> C) HOW did the federal government, after a century end up controlling the flow of foreigners? Which Amendment changed that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly answered this question.
> 
> My answer is, I don't know and I don't care.
> 
> 
> These are minor quibbles beside the importance of the rapid and extreme changes being forced onto US, by massive Third World immigration, legal and illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are unable to understand the law because you don't understand history NOR the history of that law.  All you understand is that you want what you want, the consequences be damned.  Therein lies your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not caring about the law is not being unable to understand it. I am not a lawyer. If a lawyer or a judge can demonstrate that the law says something obviously wrong and/or stupid, that is not to me, a reason to do wrong and/or stupid shit, like let millions and millions of unwanted foreigners enter and live in our country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you want has far reaching effects.  Infringe upon the Rights of another human being, *YOUR* Rights are affected in ways you cannot fathom.  You've never been a victim of your own bad legislative lobbying efforts; I have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about massive immigration and demographic change. EVERYTHING THAT EVERYONE WANTS, regarding this, has "far reaching effects.
> 
> I'm sorry you have been screwed by bad law. That is not a reason to let in millions of unwanted foreigners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next, in studying the past, you can pretty much predict the future.  America was founded on the English Common Law known as stare decisis.  That's a fancy Latin term meaning let the decision stand.   When you advocate things like denying Due Process to undocumented foreigners, you set the precedent where *YOUR* Due Process may be denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The system has been purposefully overwhelmed by enemies of America coaching illegals to falsely claim asylum. To allow that tactic to work, is to surrender and allow the enemies of America to destroy that which made America, America, and remake it as a defacto One Party Third World Hellhole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, our forefathers warned over and over and over again about the dangers of usurpation.  You don't give a damn what happens provided you get what you want.  The truth of the matter is that the current laws are unconstitutional and there is a danger in allowing the United States Supreme Court to grant powers they had no authority to grant.  There is a dangerous precedent when Congress gives the Executive department carte blanche to do what they want.  One day you wake up in an absolute dictatorship, asking yourself how it happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I want a secure border and to send unwanted foreigners home. If America is shaky that we can't survive doing that, then we were doomed anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration is but a symptom of a deeper problem.  The fact that you do not understand that immigration is an assault on your culture and you think preserving such culture is racist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that immigration, at least as it is being done now, is an assault on our culture. I do not think that preserving such culture is racist. Try to not make such crazy assumptions about me, and also, respect when I correct you, instead of pretending that you know me better than I know myself.
> 
> Cause you do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> only insures that the courts are going to over-turn most of what you think you're winning and you will be stuck with those portions of the law that took something away from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite likely. One the other hand, your plan of just letting them win, will only cost them the time it takes to ignore those laws they don't like, which is zero.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupidity and apathy are costly.  As an example only: the courts will* NEVER* allow the separation of families of foreigners (you saw that aspect tested recently.)  What good is a wall in that instance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most illegals are young males. It will keep out the vast majority of illegals. Also, there will be plenty of times, that we can send the whole familiy home. NOt every child is an anchor baby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The courts are never going to keep people out permanently for violation a federal civil misdemeanor like Improper Entry as it would be deemed to be cruel and unusual punishment AND a tool to separate families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Giving up, is a sure fire way to lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once you understand the history and the law, you begin to understand your best options.  Serious people are not going to follow you to a path of certain defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is the path to certain defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know I don't play games.  *YOUR* path is the one to certain defeat.  The side you're on has bullshitted the people for over 15 years now.  This multi quote stuff you do is only proof that you are on the ropes, readying for the final count.  Here it comes:
> 
> The side you're on has sent more people to prison, jail, Hell, and had more patriots flipped to work as snitch bitches than any effort in the history of American Political Action Committees.  OTOH, after 11 years of study and research, working for really smart guys, I helped organize the Militia of Georgia in 1987.  It was big enough and savvy enough so that the ADL and so forth never challenged us nor reported on the leadership.  It is the oldest and most continuous militia in the United States.  To date (as I was informed yesterday on a pending action) I've had 35 cases that have been won in court; I've never been over-turned on appeal.
> 
> As for the thousands of people I've crossed paths with, not one person has spent a single night in jail - nor ever been arrested for that matter for taking my advice.  That's a pretty damn good record for 32 years of service.  In addition, I've been on two legal teams where the cases went to the United States Supreme Court.  Both of those cases were won.  I studied with another guy who got charged with sedition.  He represented himself in court - federal court son.  He won the case.
> 
> You've admitted that you don't know shit about the law; you've never studied history; you don't have a clue about immigration law and its legal development.  So, you don't understand the parameters from which we have to work within.  Most of the shit you come up with has been tried in court or put before the masses.  Your side has one consistency - they have lost over and over and over again.  The anti-immigrant wallists emptied out *ALL* the civilian militias.  The leaders who rose up against the original Militia of Georgia and did not take the advice of the state headquarters, but followed the leadership you do are today in jail, prison, dead, or working as Confidential Informants... *ALL* of them.    You might want to try peddling your magic elixir somewhere else.
> 
> You say stupid shit on this board because you have the luxury of remaining anonymous and you've never been a physical *ACTIVIST.  *You are a keyboard commando who has tried to criticize my life without knowing the specific fights I've been in (fist fights, stand-offs, court-room battles, media battles, and political action just as highlights.)  You haven't earned the Right to criticize me because you haven't done shit with your life save of posting in the general area of 100,000 posts on this board under different board names.  You've admitted your inexperience.  And, like I told you, we had this fight won until the wallist religion was financed by billionaires.  More than fifteen years later, you're still bitching about so - called _"illegals_" after blowing more than *2 TRILLION DOLLARS* in tax money and forfeiting God only knows how many of our Liberties.
> 
> The political pendulum swings back and forth.  All you did was help the left.  I've not backed down, compromised, nor done anything that helped the left (though you have - and you've done so through stupidity.)  The difference is, we did not get any media attention.  They focus on dumb shits like you for headlines.  Meanwhile, the real fight goes on and is ignored by the media since they cannot demonize what we do.  That may seem like little, but people DO read these threads and those who want to *WIN *instead of reading your criticisms will do what it takes to be effective.  Know this:  What you've done here and with your life has benefited the so - called "_illegals_" more than what the ADL and SCLC *COMBINED* have done for them.  That's fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not trying to criticize your life buddy, but to discuss the current situation, which is not good. The status quo is killing this country.
> 
> 
> That you take it personally, and/or make it personal in your attacks on me, is your choice.
Click to expand...


You were the one who made it personal with *YOUR* insults, attacks, and ignorant criticisms.  *If* the status quo is killing this country, it is due to the simple fact that under the watch of *your leadership* things didn't get any better.  The people who believe as you do have had the major headlines for over 15 years at this point.  They've spent *2 TRILLION DOLLARS*; they have co-opted the democrats talking points; emptied the civilian militias and conservative Political Action Committees... *AND YOU'RE STILL LOSING!!!!
*
OTOH, you cannot articulate what it is that is killing this country.  You cannot claim it is the job situation as Trump is claiming he's putting America back to work.  Or is that a bullshit, chest thumping, pantload of political banter?  The situation is not related to the wages America makes because we are a nation that imports most of what we use.  We're perfectly capable of growing and manufacturing what we need.  So, Trump's been upping the ante.

With tariffs, those countries that pay their workers slave wages have to pay their workers more in order to get them to work.  Americans will have to generate more jobs since the cost of goods will exceed our willingness to pay for things we can produce at home.  Now we've eliminated jobs and wages.

The problem is *NOT *about taxes.  Surely you are not going to start throwing that illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, indefensible, unnecessary plank out of the Communist Manifesto at me... surely to God you aren't going to throw that at me with the FAIR TAX on the table that can resolve the federal income tax.  Are you?

This isn't about welfare as it's already illegal for undocumented foreigners to get most welfare and your National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify crap was supposed to stop any fraud there.  So, what, after implementing Orwellian National ID, you're admitting *THAT* was a failure?  It damn sure cannot be about a piddly ass violation of a civil misdemeanor of Improper Entry... not unless you're admitting your side consists of absolute idiots.  They could have made it a crime - a felony with real consequences, but your side hasn't done that. 

The real no bullshit story is that the current flood is a pre-planned event, most likely financed by George Soros and Donald Trump in an effort to play you.  The real story is, this legal v. illegal cow manure shouldn't be fed to people with a brain.  You look at what Kamala Harris is advocating for this country - and she is a second generation "_legal"_ immigrant (as you erroneously call them.)  What does she have planned for America and why?  How about people like Nidal Hasan and Omar Mateen?  Can you see the long term effects of so - called _"legal_" immigration?  The real war is about our culture.  And you're going to have to rebuild that culture while fighting the war as you have *NO* troops to put on your front lines.

The real war ought to be about protecting, preserving and advancing the constitutional Republic that our forefathers created when they fought, bled and died in order to secure our Liberty.  In order to do that we have to save the posterity of the Constitution.  We have to incentivize people to work and to want for themselves a life beyond a government check and / or a prison cell.  We have to incentivize employers to hire Americans and those Americans have to resemble something like a human freaking being, not a circus clown.  And, at the end of the day, you have to be prepared for war if you want peace.  In the end, people won't leave - nor even keep coming because you passed a law.  As long as your countrymen want drugs and a government check for not working, the bottom line does not change.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeatedly answered this question.
> 
> My answer is, I don't know and I don't care.
> 
> 
> These are minor quibbles beside the importance of the rapid and extreme changes being forced onto US, by massive Third World immigration, legal and illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are unable to understand the law because you don't understand history NOR the history of that law.  All you understand is that you want what you want, the consequences be damned.  Therein lies your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not caring about the law is not being unable to understand it. I am not a lawyer. If a lawyer or a judge can demonstrate that the law says something obviously wrong and/or stupid, that is not to me, a reason to do wrong and/or stupid shit, like let millions and millions of unwanted foreigners enter and live in our country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you want has far reaching effects.  Infringe upon the Rights of another human being, *YOUR* Rights are affected in ways you cannot fathom.  You've never been a victim of your own bad legislative lobbying efforts; I have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about massive immigration and demographic change. EVERYTHING THAT EVERYONE WANTS, regarding this, has "far reaching effects.
> 
> I'm sorry you have been screwed by bad law. That is not a reason to let in millions of unwanted foreigners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next, in studying the past, you can pretty much predict the future.  America was founded on the English Common Law known as stare decisis.  That's a fancy Latin term meaning let the decision stand.   When you advocate things like denying Due Process to undocumented foreigners, you set the precedent where *YOUR* Due Process may be denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The system has been purposefully overwhelmed by enemies of America coaching illegals to falsely claim asylum. To allow that tactic to work, is to surrender and allow the enemies of America to destroy that which made America, America, and remake it as a defacto One Party Third World Hellhole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, our forefathers warned over and over and over again about the dangers of usurpation.  You don't give a damn what happens provided you get what you want.  The truth of the matter is that the current laws are unconstitutional and there is a danger in allowing the United States Supreme Court to grant powers they had no authority to grant.  There is a dangerous precedent when Congress gives the Executive department carte blanche to do what they want.  One day you wake up in an absolute dictatorship, asking yourself how it happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I want a secure border and to send unwanted foreigners home. If America is shaky that we can't survive doing that, then we were doomed anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration is but a symptom of a deeper problem.  The fact that you do not understand that immigration is an assault on your culture and you think preserving such culture is racist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that immigration, at least as it is being done now, is an assault on our culture. I do not think that preserving such culture is racist. Try to not make such crazy assumptions about me, and also, respect when I correct you, instead of pretending that you know me better than I know myself.
> 
> Cause you do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> only insures that the courts are going to over-turn most of what you think you're winning and you will be stuck with those portions of the law that took something away from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite likely. One the other hand, your plan of just letting them win, will only cost them the time it takes to ignore those laws they don't like, which is zero.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupidity and apathy are costly.  As an example only: the courts will* NEVER* allow the separation of families of foreigners (you saw that aspect tested recently.)  What good is a wall in that instance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most illegals are young males. It will keep out the vast majority of illegals. Also, there will be plenty of times, that we can send the whole familiy home. NOt every child is an anchor baby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The courts are never going to keep people out permanently for violation a federal civil misdemeanor like Improper Entry as it would be deemed to be cruel and unusual punishment AND a tool to separate families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Giving up, is a sure fire way to lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once you understand the history and the law, you begin to understand your best options.  Serious people are not going to follow you to a path of certain defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is the path to certain defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know I don't play games.  *YOUR* path is the one to certain defeat.  The side you're on has bullshitted the people for over 15 years now.  This multi quote stuff you do is only proof that you are on the ropes, readying for the final count.  Here it comes:
> 
> The side you're on has sent more people to prison, jail, Hell, and had more patriots flipped to work as snitch bitches than any effort in the history of American Political Action Committees.  OTOH, after 11 years of study and research, working for really smart guys, I helped organize the Militia of Georgia in 1987.  It was big enough and savvy enough so that the ADL and so forth never challenged us nor reported on the leadership.  It is the oldest and most continuous militia in the United States.  To date (as I was informed yesterday on a pending action) I've had 35 cases that have been won in court; I've never been over-turned on appeal.
> 
> As for the thousands of people I've crossed paths with, not one person has spent a single night in jail - nor ever been arrested for that matter for taking my advice.  That's a pretty damn good record for 32 years of service.  In addition, I've been on two legal teams where the cases went to the United States Supreme Court.  Both of those cases were won.  I studied with another guy who got charged with sedition.  He represented himself in court - federal court son.  He won the case.
> 
> You've admitted that you don't know shit about the law; you've never studied history; you don't have a clue about immigration law and its legal development.  So, you don't understand the parameters from which we have to work within.  Most of the shit you come up with has been tried in court or put before the masses.  Your side has one consistency - they have lost over and over and over again.  The anti-immigrant wallists emptied out *ALL* the civilian militias.  The leaders who rose up against the original Militia of Georgia and did not take the advice of the state headquarters, but followed the leadership you do are today in jail, prison, dead, or working as Confidential Informants... *ALL* of them.    You might want to try peddling your magic elixir somewhere else.
> 
> You say stupid shit on this board because you have the luxury of remaining anonymous and you've never been a physical *ACTIVIST.  *You are a keyboard commando who has tried to criticize my life without knowing the specific fights I've been in (fist fights, stand-offs, court-room battles, media battles, and political action just as highlights.)  You haven't earned the Right to criticize me because you haven't done shit with your life save of posting in the general area of 100,000 posts on this board under different board names.  You've admitted your inexperience.  And, like I told you, we had this fight won until the wallist religion was financed by billionaires.  More than fifteen years later, you're still bitching about so - called _"illegals_" after blowing more than *2 TRILLION DOLLARS* in tax money and forfeiting God only knows how many of our Liberties.
> 
> The political pendulum swings back and forth.  All you did was help the left.  I've not backed down, compromised, nor done anything that helped the left (though you have - and you've done so through stupidity.)  The difference is, we did not get any media attention.  They focus on dumb shits like you for headlines.  Meanwhile, the real fight goes on and is ignored by the media since they cannot demonize what we do.  That may seem like little, but people DO read these threads and those who want to *WIN *instead of reading your criticisms will do what it takes to be effective.  Know this:  What you've done here and with your life has benefited the so - called "_illegals_" more than what the ADL and SCLC *COMBINED* have done for them.  That's fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not trying to criticize your life buddy, but to discuss the current situation, which is not good. The status quo is killing this country.
> 
> 
> That you take it personally, and/or make it personal in your attacks on me, is your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were the one who made it personal with *YOUR* insults, attacks, and ignorant criticisms.  *If* the status quo is killing this country, it is due to the simple fact that under the watch of *your leadership* things didn't get any better.  The people who believe as you do have had the major headlines for over 15 years at this point.  They've spent *2 TRILLION DOLLARS*; they have co-opted the democrats talking points; emptied the civilian militias and conservative Political Action Committees... *AND YOU'RE STILL LOSING!!!!
> *
> OTOH, you cannot articulate what it is that is killing this country.  You cannot claim it is the job situation as Trump is claiming he's putting America back to work.  Or is that a bullshit, chest thumping, pantload of political banter?  The situation is not related to the wages America makes because we are a nation that imports most of what we use.  We're perfectly capable of growing and manufacturing what we need.  So, Trump's been upping the ante.
> 
> With tariffs, those countries that pay their workers slave wages have to pay their workers more in order to get them to work.  Americans will have to generate more jobs since the cost of goods will exceed our willingness to pay for things we can produce at home.  Now we've eliminated jobs and wages.
> 
> The problem is *NOT *about taxes.  Surely you are not going to start throwing that illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, indefensible, unnecessary plank out of the Communist Manifesto at me... surely to God you aren't going to throw that at me with the FAIR TAX on the table that can resolve the federal income tax.  Are you?
> 
> This isn't about welfare as it's already illegal for undocumented foreigners to get most welfare and your National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify crap was supposed to stop any fraud there.  So, what, after implementing Orwellian National ID, you're admitting *THAT* was a failure?  It damn sure cannot be about a piddly ass violation of a civil misdemeanor of Improper Entry... not unless you're admitting your side consists of absolute idiots.  They could have made it a crime - a felony with real consequences, but your side hasn't done that.
> 
> The real no bullshit story is that the current flood is a pre-planned event, most likely financed by George Soros and Donald Trump in an effort to play you.  The real story is, this legal v. illegal cow manure shouldn't be fed to people with a brain.  You look at what Kamala Harris is advocating for this country - and she is a second generation "_legal"_ immigrant (as you erroneously call them.)  What does she have planned for America and why?  How about people like Nidal Hasan and Omar Mateen?  Can you see the long term effects of so - called _"legal_" immigration?  The real war is about our culture.  And you're going to have to rebuild that culture while fighting the war as you have *NO* troops to put on your front lines.
> 
> The real war ought to be about protecting, preserving and advancing the constitutional Republic that our forefathers created when they fought, bled and died in order to secure our Liberty.  In order to do that we have to save the posterity of the Constitution.  We have to incentivize people to work and to want for themselves a life beyond a government check and / or a prison cell.  We have to incentivize employers to hire Americans and those Americans have to resemble something like a human freaking being, not a circus clown.  And, at the end of the day, you have to be prepared for war if you want peace.  In the end, people won't leave - nor even keep coming because you passed a law.  As long as your countrymen want drugs and a government check for not working, the bottom line does not change.
Click to expand...




1. Nope. YOu insulted me, so I insulted you back. THe difference is that your insults are based on crazy Kevin Bacon games.

2. The status quo is not my immigration policy. 

3. YOur points about the various issues, some of them, are generally wrong. 

4. Incentiving people to work, is not going to save the Constitution, especially if we keep importing the Third World who don't give a fly f***k about it.

5. People will leave, when we deport their asses, and/or don't let them work here.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are unable to understand the law because you don't understand history NOR the history of that law.  All you understand is that you want what you want, the consequences be damned.  Therein lies your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not caring about the law is not being unable to understand it. I am not a lawyer. If a lawyer or a judge can demonstrate that the law says something obviously wrong and/or stupid, that is not to me, a reason to do wrong and/or stupid shit, like let millions and millions of unwanted foreigners enter and live in our country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you want has far reaching effects.  Infringe upon the Rights of another human being, *YOUR* Rights are affected in ways you cannot fathom.  You've never been a victim of your own bad legislative lobbying efforts; I have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We are talking about massive immigration and demographic change. EVERYTHING THAT EVERYONE WANTS, regarding this, has "far reaching effects.
> 
> I'm sorry you have been screwed by bad law. That is not a reason to let in millions of unwanted foreigners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next, in studying the past, you can pretty much predict the future.  America was founded on the English Common Law known as stare decisis.  That's a fancy Latin term meaning let the decision stand.   When you advocate things like denying Due Process to undocumented foreigners, you set the precedent where *YOUR* Due Process may be denied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The system has been purposefully overwhelmed by enemies of America coaching illegals to falsely claim asylum. To allow that tactic to work, is to surrender and allow the enemies of America to destroy that which made America, America, and remake it as a defacto One Party Third World Hellhole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, our forefathers warned over and over and over again about the dangers of usurpation.  You don't give a damn what happens provided you get what you want.  The truth of the matter is that the current laws are unconstitutional and there is a danger in allowing the United States Supreme Court to grant powers they had no authority to grant.  There is a dangerous precedent when Congress gives the Executive department carte blanche to do what they want.  One day you wake up in an absolute dictatorship, asking yourself how it happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I want a secure border and to send unwanted foreigners home. If America is shaky that we can't survive doing that, then we were doomed anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Immigration is but a symptom of a deeper problem.  The fact that you do not understand that immigration is an assault on your culture and you think preserving such culture is racist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that immigration, at least as it is being done now, is an assault on our culture. I do not think that preserving such culture is racist. Try to not make such crazy assumptions about me, and also, respect when I correct you, instead of pretending that you know me better than I know myself.
> 
> Cause you do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> only insures that the courts are going to over-turn most of what you think you're winning and you will be stuck with those portions of the law that took something away from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite likely. One the other hand, your plan of just letting them win, will only cost them the time it takes to ignore those laws they don't like, which is zero.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupidity and apathy are costly.  As an example only: the courts will* NEVER* allow the separation of families of foreigners (you saw that aspect tested recently.)  What good is a wall in that instance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most illegals are young males. It will keep out the vast majority of illegals. Also, there will be plenty of times, that we can send the whole familiy home. NOt every child is an anchor baby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The courts are never going to keep people out permanently for violation a federal civil misdemeanor like Improper Entry as it would be deemed to be cruel and unusual punishment AND a tool to separate families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Giving up, is a sure fire way to lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once you understand the history and the law, you begin to understand your best options.  Serious people are not going to follow you to a path of certain defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is the path to certain defeat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know I don't play games.  *YOUR* path is the one to certain defeat.  The side you're on has bullshitted the people for over 15 years now.  This multi quote stuff you do is only proof that you are on the ropes, readying for the final count.  Here it comes:
> 
> The side you're on has sent more people to prison, jail, Hell, and had more patriots flipped to work as snitch bitches than any effort in the history of American Political Action Committees.  OTOH, after 11 years of study and research, working for really smart guys, I helped organize the Militia of Georgia in 1987.  It was big enough and savvy enough so that the ADL and so forth never challenged us nor reported on the leadership.  It is the oldest and most continuous militia in the United States.  To date (as I was informed yesterday on a pending action) I've had 35 cases that have been won in court; I've never been over-turned on appeal.
> 
> As for the thousands of people I've crossed paths with, not one person has spent a single night in jail - nor ever been arrested for that matter for taking my advice.  That's a pretty damn good record for 32 years of service.  In addition, I've been on two legal teams where the cases went to the United States Supreme Court.  Both of those cases were won.  I studied with another guy who got charged with sedition.  He represented himself in court - federal court son.  He won the case.
> 
> You've admitted that you don't know shit about the law; you've never studied history; you don't have a clue about immigration law and its legal development.  So, you don't understand the parameters from which we have to work within.  Most of the shit you come up with has been tried in court or put before the masses.  Your side has one consistency - they have lost over and over and over again.  The anti-immigrant wallists emptied out *ALL* the civilian militias.  The leaders who rose up against the original Militia of Georgia and did not take the advice of the state headquarters, but followed the leadership you do are today in jail, prison, dead, or working as Confidential Informants... *ALL* of them.    You might want to try peddling your magic elixir somewhere else.
> 
> You say stupid shit on this board because you have the luxury of remaining anonymous and you've never been a physical *ACTIVIST.  *You are a keyboard commando who has tried to criticize my life without knowing the specific fights I've been in (fist fights, stand-offs, court-room battles, media battles, and political action just as highlights.)  You haven't earned the Right to criticize me because you haven't done shit with your life save of posting in the general area of 100,000 posts on this board under different board names.  You've admitted your inexperience.  And, like I told you, we had this fight won until the wallist religion was financed by billionaires.  More than fifteen years later, you're still bitching about so - called _"illegals_" after blowing more than *2 TRILLION DOLLARS* in tax money and forfeiting God only knows how many of our Liberties.
> 
> The political pendulum swings back and forth.  All you did was help the left.  I've not backed down, compromised, nor done anything that helped the left (though you have - and you've done so through stupidity.)  The difference is, we did not get any media attention.  They focus on dumb shits like you for headlines.  Meanwhile, the real fight goes on and is ignored by the media since they cannot demonize what we do.  That may seem like little, but people DO read these threads and those who want to *WIN *instead of reading your criticisms will do what it takes to be effective.  Know this:  What you've done here and with your life has benefited the so - called "_illegals_" more than what the ADL and SCLC *COMBINED* have done for them.  That's fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not trying to criticize your life buddy, but to discuss the current situation, which is not good. The status quo is killing this country.
> 
> 
> That you take it personally, and/or make it personal in your attacks on me, is your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were the one who made it personal with *YOUR* insults, attacks, and ignorant criticisms.  *If* the status quo is killing this country, it is due to the simple fact that under the watch of *your leadership* things didn't get any better.  The people who believe as you do have had the major headlines for over 15 years at this point.  They've spent *2 TRILLION DOLLARS*; they have co-opted the democrats talking points; emptied the civilian militias and conservative Political Action Committees... *AND YOU'RE STILL LOSING!!!!
> *
> OTOH, you cannot articulate what it is that is killing this country.  You cannot claim it is the job situation as Trump is claiming he's putting America back to work.  Or is that a bullshit, chest thumping, pantload of political banter?  The situation is not related to the wages America makes because we are a nation that imports most of what we use.  We're perfectly capable of growing and manufacturing what we need.  So, Trump's been upping the ante.
> 
> With tariffs, those countries that pay their workers slave wages have to pay their workers more in order to get them to work.  Americans will have to generate more jobs since the cost of goods will exceed our willingness to pay for things we can produce at home.  Now we've eliminated jobs and wages.
> 
> The problem is *NOT *about taxes.  Surely you are not going to start throwing that illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, indefensible, unnecessary plank out of the Communist Manifesto at me... surely to God you aren't going to throw that at me with the FAIR TAX on the table that can resolve the federal income tax.  Are you?
> 
> This isn't about welfare as it's already illegal for undocumented foreigners to get most welfare and your National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify crap was supposed to stop any fraud there.  So, what, after implementing Orwellian National ID, you're admitting *THAT* was a failure?  It damn sure cannot be about a piddly ass violation of a civil misdemeanor of Improper Entry... not unless you're admitting your side consists of absolute idiots.  They could have made it a crime - a felony with real consequences, but your side hasn't done that.
> 
> The real no bullshit story is that the current flood is a pre-planned event, most likely financed by George Soros and Donald Trump in an effort to play you.  The real story is, this legal v. illegal cow manure shouldn't be fed to people with a brain.  You look at what Kamala Harris is advocating for this country - and she is a second generation "_legal"_ immigrant (as you erroneously call them.)  What does she have planned for America and why?  How about people like Nidal Hasan and Omar Mateen?  Can you see the long term effects of so - called _"legal_" immigration?  The real war is about our culture.  And you're going to have to rebuild that culture while fighting the war as you have *NO* troops to put on your front lines.
> 
> The real war ought to be about protecting, preserving and advancing the constitutional Republic that our forefathers created when they fought, bled and died in order to secure our Liberty.  In order to do that we have to save the posterity of the Constitution.  We have to incentivize people to work and to want for themselves a life beyond a government check and / or a prison cell.  We have to incentivize employers to hire Americans and those Americans have to resemble something like a human freaking being, not a circus clown.  And, at the end of the day, you have to be prepared for war if you want peace.  In the end, people won't leave - nor even keep coming because you passed a law.  As long as your countrymen want drugs and a government check for not working, the bottom line does not change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Nope. YOu insulted me, so I insulted you back. THe difference is that your insults are based on crazy Kevin Bacon games.
> 
> 2. The status quo is not my immigration policy.
> 
> 3. YOur points about the various issues, some of them, are generally wrong.
> 
> 4. Incentiving people to work, is not going to save the Constitution, especially if we keep importing the Third World who don't give a fly f***k about it.
> 
> 5. People will leave, when we deport their asses, and/or don't let them work here.
Click to expand...


1)  You lie.  I have a policy to never draw first blood.  Your initial posts were aimed at taking pot shots at my intelligence.  It doesn't matter because you have not shown to be much of a man of integrity or honor

2)  The status quo exists due to the talking points made by a group of individuals that have been exposed time and time again.  You choose to limit yourself to their solutions

4)  Incentivizing people to go back to work will not save the Constitution nor our culture, but it will provide the ground troops it takes to sustain political battles and build foot soldiers for future fights - be they political, legal, or physical

5)  You cannot keep people from coming here and working as long as you have the 14th Amendment absolutely guaranteeing them Liberty and the equal protection of the laws.

You cannot keep people out of this country when a sizable number of your own citizenry are hooked on drugs and the suppliers live outside the U.S.

You cannot keep people out of this country when the primary goal of business is to keep expanding.  People are commodities not self sufficient / self reliant human beings with a sense of self worth.  It's up to you to change that dynamic if you think you're going to win any freaking war: political, legal, or physical

You are not going to win as long as just anyone can become a citizen. We are at the tipping point where foreigners hold as much of the balance of power as do people who believe like you.  About 12 percent of the federally elected officials are immigrants or second generation immigrants (most being immigrants.)  The blacks took America when they represented 16 percent of the population.  Foreigners are way the Hell beyond that point right now.

All you're getting right now is a reprieve with Donald Trump.  When he's gone, you have no billionaires; no guys with stellar records (like war heroes or statesmen to replace him.)  You're going to have a Congress full of pissed off liberals and lefties with an agenda that will destroy this country forever.  Look what this thread is about, son.  You want some more examples just like this?  I won't even wander out of my home state.  I'll do a few that lived within a half hour drive from me:

Militia Extremist Convicted of Attempting to Cause a Civil Disturbance While Armed

Trucker with illicit tastes led FBI to Georgia militia plot

Waffle House Terrorists - Waffle House Terrorist Plot

GOP 'deportation bus' candidate in Georgia pleads guilty

The irony is I knew all of them and all of them were warned by the state leaders at the Militia of Georgia where their activities and political ties would lead.  You come here and tell people that listening to me will send people to jail. Think again.  *ALL* of those people above followed the same leadership as you; they made the same arguments; they pretended to be above anyone giving them sound counsel.  And just like the founders of the wallist religion you follow, they *all *ended up in prison.  Now kid you can talk all the shit you like, but I knew all those guys and watched them try to talk down to people like me - people telling them what was going to happen.  So, you talk your shit on this board.  Be a nice little subject and hide behind your keyboard.  I'll do the fighting.  And if anyone entertains the idea of taking you serious, all they have to do is look at those links.  ALL those guys lived within a half hour's drive from me.  Do you want about ten times that many links of people I knew from adjoining states or TWENTY times that number from across the U.S?


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not caring about the law is not being unable to understand it. I am not a lawyer. If a lawyer or a judge can demonstrate that the law says something obviously wrong and/or stupid, that is not to me, a reason to do wrong and/or stupid shit, like let millions and millions of unwanted foreigners enter and live in our country.
> 
> 
> We are talking about massive immigration and demographic change. EVERYTHING THAT EVERYONE WANTS, regarding this, has "far reaching effects.
> 
> I'm sorry you have been screwed by bad law. That is not a reason to let in millions of unwanted foreigners.
> 
> 
> The system has been purposefully overwhelmed by enemies of America coaching illegals to falsely claim asylum. To allow that tactic to work, is to surrender and allow the enemies of America to destroy that which made America, America, and remake it as a defacto One Party Third World Hellhole.
> 
> 
> 
> I want a secure border and to send unwanted foreigners home. If America is shaky that we can't survive doing that, then we were doomed anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that immigration, at least as it is being done now, is an assault on our culture. I do not think that preserving such culture is racist. Try to not make such crazy assumptions about me, and also, respect when I correct you, instead of pretending that you know me better than I know myself.
> 
> Cause you do not.
> 
> 
> Quite likely. One the other hand, your plan of just letting them win, will only cost them the time it takes to ignore those laws they don't like, which is zero.
> 
> 
> Most illegals are young males. It will keep out the vast majority of illegals. Also, there will be plenty of times, that we can send the whole familiy home. NOt every child is an anchor baby.
> 
> 
> 
> Giving up, is a sure fire way to lose.
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is the path to certain defeat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know I don't play games.  *YOUR* path is the one to certain defeat.  The side you're on has bullshitted the people for over 15 years now.  This multi quote stuff you do is only proof that you are on the ropes, readying for the final count.  Here it comes:
> 
> The side you're on has sent more people to prison, jail, Hell, and had more patriots flipped to work as snitch bitches than any effort in the history of American Political Action Committees.  OTOH, after 11 years of study and research, working for really smart guys, I helped organize the Militia of Georgia in 1987.  It was big enough and savvy enough so that the ADL and so forth never challenged us nor reported on the leadership.  It is the oldest and most continuous militia in the United States.  To date (as I was informed yesterday on a pending action) I've had 35 cases that have been won in court; I've never been over-turned on appeal.
> 
> As for the thousands of people I've crossed paths with, not one person has spent a single night in jail - nor ever been arrested for that matter for taking my advice.  That's a pretty damn good record for 32 years of service.  In addition, I've been on two legal teams where the cases went to the United States Supreme Court.  Both of those cases were won.  I studied with another guy who got charged with sedition.  He represented himself in court - federal court son.  He won the case.
> 
> You've admitted that you don't know shit about the law; you've never studied history; you don't have a clue about immigration law and its legal development.  So, you don't understand the parameters from which we have to work within.  Most of the shit you come up with has been tried in court or put before the masses.  Your side has one consistency - they have lost over and over and over again.  The anti-immigrant wallists emptied out *ALL* the civilian militias.  The leaders who rose up against the original Militia of Georgia and did not take the advice of the state headquarters, but followed the leadership you do are today in jail, prison, dead, or working as Confidential Informants... *ALL* of them.    You might want to try peddling your magic elixir somewhere else.
> 
> You say stupid shit on this board because you have the luxury of remaining anonymous and you've never been a physical *ACTIVIST.  *You are a keyboard commando who has tried to criticize my life without knowing the specific fights I've been in (fist fights, stand-offs, court-room battles, media battles, and political action just as highlights.)  You haven't earned the Right to criticize me because you haven't done shit with your life save of posting in the general area of 100,000 posts on this board under different board names.  You've admitted your inexperience.  And, like I told you, we had this fight won until the wallist religion was financed by billionaires.  More than fifteen years later, you're still bitching about so - called _"illegals_" after blowing more than *2 TRILLION DOLLARS* in tax money and forfeiting God only knows how many of our Liberties.
> 
> The political pendulum swings back and forth.  All you did was help the left.  I've not backed down, compromised, nor done anything that helped the left (though you have - and you've done so through stupidity.)  The difference is, we did not get any media attention.  They focus on dumb shits like you for headlines.  Meanwhile, the real fight goes on and is ignored by the media since they cannot demonize what we do.  That may seem like little, but people DO read these threads and those who want to *WIN *instead of reading your criticisms will do what it takes to be effective.  Know this:  What you've done here and with your life has benefited the so - called "_illegals_" more than what the ADL and SCLC *COMBINED* have done for them.  That's fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not trying to criticize your life buddy, but to discuss the current situation, which is not good. The status quo is killing this country.
> 
> 
> That you take it personally, and/or make it personal in your attacks on me, is your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were the one who made it personal with *YOUR* insults, attacks, and ignorant criticisms.  *If* the status quo is killing this country, it is due to the simple fact that under the watch of *your leadership* things didn't get any better.  The people who believe as you do have had the major headlines for over 15 years at this point.  They've spent *2 TRILLION DOLLARS*; they have co-opted the democrats talking points; emptied the civilian militias and conservative Political Action Committees... *AND YOU'RE STILL LOSING!!!!
> *
> OTOH, you cannot articulate what it is that is killing this country.  You cannot claim it is the job situation as Trump is claiming he's putting America back to work.  Or is that a bullshit, chest thumping, pantload of political banter?  The situation is not related to the wages America makes because we are a nation that imports most of what we use.  We're perfectly capable of growing and manufacturing what we need.  So, Trump's been upping the ante.
> 
> With tariffs, those countries that pay their workers slave wages have to pay their workers more in order to get them to work.  Americans will have to generate more jobs since the cost of goods will exceed our willingness to pay for things we can produce at home.  Now we've eliminated jobs and wages.
> 
> The problem is *NOT *about taxes.  Surely you are not going to start throwing that illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, indefensible, unnecessary plank out of the Communist Manifesto at me... surely to God you aren't going to throw that at me with the FAIR TAX on the table that can resolve the federal income tax.  Are you?
> 
> This isn't about welfare as it's already illegal for undocumented foreigners to get most welfare and your National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify crap was supposed to stop any fraud there.  So, what, after implementing Orwellian National ID, you're admitting *THAT* was a failure?  It damn sure cannot be about a piddly ass violation of a civil misdemeanor of Improper Entry... not unless you're admitting your side consists of absolute idiots.  They could have made it a crime - a felony with real consequences, but your side hasn't done that.
> 
> The real no bullshit story is that the current flood is a pre-planned event, most likely financed by George Soros and Donald Trump in an effort to play you.  The real story is, this legal v. illegal cow manure shouldn't be fed to people with a brain.  You look at what Kamala Harris is advocating for this country - and she is a second generation "_legal"_ immigrant (as you erroneously call them.)  What does she have planned for America and why?  How about people like Nidal Hasan and Omar Mateen?  Can you see the long term effects of so - called _"legal_" immigration?  The real war is about our culture.  And you're going to have to rebuild that culture while fighting the war as you have *NO* troops to put on your front lines.
> 
> The real war ought to be about protecting, preserving and advancing the constitutional Republic that our forefathers created when they fought, bled and died in order to secure our Liberty.  In order to do that we have to save the posterity of the Constitution.  We have to incentivize people to work and to want for themselves a life beyond a government check and / or a prison cell.  We have to incentivize employers to hire Americans and those Americans have to resemble something like a human freaking being, not a circus clown.  And, at the end of the day, you have to be prepared for war if you want peace.  In the end, people won't leave - nor even keep coming because you passed a law.  As long as your countrymen want drugs and a government check for not working, the bottom line does not change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Nope. YOu insulted me, so I insulted you back. THe difference is that your insults are based on crazy Kevin Bacon games.
> 
> 2. The status quo is not my immigration policy.
> 
> 3. YOur points about the various issues, some of them, are generally wrong.
> 
> 4. Incentiving people to work, is not going to save the Constitution, especially if we keep importing the Third World who don't give a fly f***k about it.
> 
> 5. People will leave, when we deport their asses, and/or don't let them work here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  You lie.  I have a policy to never draw first blood.  Your initial posts were aimed at taking pot shots at my intelligence.  It doesn't matter because you have not shown to be much of a man of integrity or honor
> 
> 2)  The status quo exists due to the talking points made by a group of individuals that have been exposed time and time again.  You choose to limit yourself to their solutions
> 
> 4)  Incentivizing people to go back to work will not save the Constitution nor our culture, but it will provide the ground troops it takes to sustain political battles and build foot soldiers for future fights - be they political, legal, or physical
> 
> 5)  You cannot keep people from coming here and working as long as you have the 14th Amendment absolutely guaranteeing them Liberty and the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> You cannot keep people out of this country when a sizable number of your own citizenry are hooked on drugs and the suppliers live outside the U.S.
> 
> You cannot keep people out of this country when the primary goal of business is to keep expanding.  People are commodities not self sufficient / self reliant human beings with a sense of self worth.  It's up to you to change that dynamic if you think you're going to win any freaking war: political, legal, or physical
> 
> You are not going to win as long as just anyone can become a citizen. We are at the tipping point where foreigners hold as much of the balance of power as do people who believe like you.  About 12 percent of the federally elected officials are immigrants or second generation immigrants (most being immigrants.)  The blacks took America when they represented 16 percent of the population.  Foreigners are way the Hell beyond that point right now.
> 
> All you're getting right now is a reprieve with Donald Trump.  When he's gone, you have no billionaires; no guys with stellar records (like war heroes or statesmen to replace him.)  You're going to have a Congress full of pissed off liberals and lefties with an agenda that will destroy this country forever.  Look what this thread is about, son.  You want some more examples just like this?  I won't even wander out of my home state.  I'll do a few that lived within a half hour drive from me:
> 
> Militia Extremist Convicted of Attempting to Cause a Civil Disturbance While Armed
> 
> Trucker with illicit tastes led FBI to Georgia militia plot
> 
> Waffle House Terrorists - Waffle House Terrorist Plot
> 
> GOP 'deportation bus' candidate in Georgia pleads guilty
> 
> The irony is I knew all of them and all of them were warned by the state leaders at the Militia of Georgia where their activities and political ties would lead.  You come here and tell people that listening to me will send people to jail. Think again.  *ALL* of those people above followed the same leadership as you; they made the same arguments; they pretended to be above anyone giving them sound counsel.  And just like the founders of the wallist religion you follow, they *all *ended up in prison.  Now kid you can talk all the shit you like, but I knew all those guys and watched them try to talk down to people like me - people telling them what was going to happen.  So, you talk your shit on this board.  Be a nice little subject and hide behind your keyboard.  I'll do the fighting.  And if anyone entertains the idea of taking you serious, all they have to do is look at those links.  ALL those guys lived within a half hour's drive from me.  Do you want about ten times that many links of people I knew from adjoining states or TWENTY times that number from across the U.S?
Click to expand...




1. Then you dropped the ball this time. 


2. The status quo exists because of a the complete failure of our political class. My talking points are not the cause of the problem. 

4. People are already Incentivized to work. Increasing employment is not a bad idea, but it, at best, would reduce the demand for illegals, somewhat.

5. The misapplication of the 14th, is a big part of the problem, and undoing that would be a large help. But regardless of whether that happens or not, we need to deport those we can, and secure the border to greatly reduce those coming. 


6. I am well aware of how late in the game it is. Allowing them to keep coming in, basically unchecked, is only going to make it worse.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know I don't play games.  *YOUR* path is the one to certain defeat.  The side you're on has bullshitted the people for over 15 years now.  This multi quote stuff you do is only proof that you are on the ropes, readying for the final count.  Here it comes:
> 
> The side you're on has sent more people to prison, jail, Hell, and had more patriots flipped to work as snitch bitches than any effort in the history of American Political Action Committees.  OTOH, after 11 years of study and research, working for really smart guys, I helped organize the Militia of Georgia in 1987.  It was big enough and savvy enough so that the ADL and so forth never challenged us nor reported on the leadership.  It is the oldest and most continuous militia in the United States.  To date (as I was informed yesterday on a pending action) I've had 35 cases that have been won in court; I've never been over-turned on appeal.
> 
> As for the thousands of people I've crossed paths with, not one person has spent a single night in jail - nor ever been arrested for that matter for taking my advice.  That's a pretty damn good record for 32 years of service.  In addition, I've been on two legal teams where the cases went to the United States Supreme Court.  Both of those cases were won.  I studied with another guy who got charged with sedition.  He represented himself in court - federal court son.  He won the case.
> 
> You've admitted that you don't know shit about the law; you've never studied history; you don't have a clue about immigration law and its legal development.  So, you don't understand the parameters from which we have to work within.  Most of the shit you come up with has been tried in court or put before the masses.  Your side has one consistency - they have lost over and over and over again.  The anti-immigrant wallists emptied out *ALL* the civilian militias.  The leaders who rose up against the original Militia of Georgia and did not take the advice of the state headquarters, but followed the leadership you do are today in jail, prison, dead, or working as Confidential Informants... *ALL* of them.    You might want to try peddling your magic elixir somewhere else.
> 
> You say stupid shit on this board because you have the luxury of remaining anonymous and you've never been a physical *ACTIVIST.  *You are a keyboard commando who has tried to criticize my life without knowing the specific fights I've been in (fist fights, stand-offs, court-room battles, media battles, and political action just as highlights.)  You haven't earned the Right to criticize me because you haven't done shit with your life save of posting in the general area of 100,000 posts on this board under different board names.  You've admitted your inexperience.  And, like I told you, we had this fight won until the wallist religion was financed by billionaires.  More than fifteen years later, you're still bitching about so - called _"illegals_" after blowing more than *2 TRILLION DOLLARS* in tax money and forfeiting God only knows how many of our Liberties.
> 
> The political pendulum swings back and forth.  All you did was help the left.  I've not backed down, compromised, nor done anything that helped the left (though you have - and you've done so through stupidity.)  The difference is, we did not get any media attention.  They focus on dumb shits like you for headlines.  Meanwhile, the real fight goes on and is ignored by the media since they cannot demonize what we do.  That may seem like little, but people DO read these threads and those who want to *WIN *instead of reading your criticisms will do what it takes to be effective.  Know this:  What you've done here and with your life has benefited the so - called "_illegals_" more than what the ADL and SCLC *COMBINED* have done for them.  That's fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not trying to criticize your life buddy, but to discuss the current situation, which is not good. The status quo is killing this country.
> 
> 
> That you take it personally, and/or make it personal in your attacks on me, is your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were the one who made it personal with *YOUR* insults, attacks, and ignorant criticisms.  *If* the status quo is killing this country, it is due to the simple fact that under the watch of *your leadership* things didn't get any better.  The people who believe as you do have had the major headlines for over 15 years at this point.  They've spent *2 TRILLION DOLLARS*; they have co-opted the democrats talking points; emptied the civilian militias and conservative Political Action Committees... *AND YOU'RE STILL LOSING!!!!
> *
> OTOH, you cannot articulate what it is that is killing this country.  You cannot claim it is the job situation as Trump is claiming he's putting America back to work.  Or is that a bullshit, chest thumping, pantload of political banter?  The situation is not related to the wages America makes because we are a nation that imports most of what we use.  We're perfectly capable of growing and manufacturing what we need.  So, Trump's been upping the ante.
> 
> With tariffs, those countries that pay their workers slave wages have to pay their workers more in order to get them to work.  Americans will have to generate more jobs since the cost of goods will exceed our willingness to pay for things we can produce at home.  Now we've eliminated jobs and wages.
> 
> The problem is *NOT *about taxes.  Surely you are not going to start throwing that illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, indefensible, unnecessary plank out of the Communist Manifesto at me... surely to God you aren't going to throw that at me with the FAIR TAX on the table that can resolve the federal income tax.  Are you?
> 
> This isn't about welfare as it's already illegal for undocumented foreigners to get most welfare and your National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify crap was supposed to stop any fraud there.  So, what, after implementing Orwellian National ID, you're admitting *THAT* was a failure?  It damn sure cannot be about a piddly ass violation of a civil misdemeanor of Improper Entry... not unless you're admitting your side consists of absolute idiots.  They could have made it a crime - a felony with real consequences, but your side hasn't done that.
> 
> The real no bullshit story is that the current flood is a pre-planned event, most likely financed by George Soros and Donald Trump in an effort to play you.  The real story is, this legal v. illegal cow manure shouldn't be fed to people with a brain.  You look at what Kamala Harris is advocating for this country - and she is a second generation "_legal"_ immigrant (as you erroneously call them.)  What does she have planned for America and why?  How about people like Nidal Hasan and Omar Mateen?  Can you see the long term effects of so - called _"legal_" immigration?  The real war is about our culture.  And you're going to have to rebuild that culture while fighting the war as you have *NO* troops to put on your front lines.
> 
> The real war ought to be about protecting, preserving and advancing the constitutional Republic that our forefathers created when they fought, bled and died in order to secure our Liberty.  In order to do that we have to save the posterity of the Constitution.  We have to incentivize people to work and to want for themselves a life beyond a government check and / or a prison cell.  We have to incentivize employers to hire Americans and those Americans have to resemble something like a human freaking being, not a circus clown.  And, at the end of the day, you have to be prepared for war if you want peace.  In the end, people won't leave - nor even keep coming because you passed a law.  As long as your countrymen want drugs and a government check for not working, the bottom line does not change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Nope. YOu insulted me, so I insulted you back. THe difference is that your insults are based on crazy Kevin Bacon games.
> 
> 2. The status quo is not my immigration policy.
> 
> 3. YOur points about the various issues, some of them, are generally wrong.
> 
> 4. Incentiving people to work, is not going to save the Constitution, especially if we keep importing the Third World who don't give a fly f***k about it.
> 
> 5. People will leave, when we deport their asses, and/or don't let them work here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  You lie.  I have a policy to never draw first blood.  Your initial posts were aimed at taking pot shots at my intelligence.  It doesn't matter because you have not shown to be much of a man of integrity or honor
> 
> 2)  The status quo exists due to the talking points made by a group of individuals that have been exposed time and time again.  You choose to limit yourself to their solutions
> 
> 4)  Incentivizing people to go back to work will not save the Constitution nor our culture, but it will provide the ground troops it takes to sustain political battles and build foot soldiers for future fights - be they political, legal, or physical
> 
> 5)  You cannot keep people from coming here and working as long as you have the 14th Amendment absolutely guaranteeing them Liberty and the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> You cannot keep people out of this country when a sizable number of your own citizenry are hooked on drugs and the suppliers live outside the U.S.
> 
> You cannot keep people out of this country when the primary goal of business is to keep expanding.  People are commodities not self sufficient / self reliant human beings with a sense of self worth.  It's up to you to change that dynamic if you think you're going to win any freaking war: political, legal, or physical
> 
> You are not going to win as long as just anyone can become a citizen. We are at the tipping point where foreigners hold as much of the balance of power as do people who believe like you.  About 12 percent of the federally elected officials are immigrants or second generation immigrants (most being immigrants.)  The blacks took America when they represented 16 percent of the population.  Foreigners are way the Hell beyond that point right now.
> 
> All you're getting right now is a reprieve with Donald Trump.  When he's gone, you have no billionaires; no guys with stellar records (like war heroes or statesmen to replace him.)  You're going to have a Congress full of pissed off liberals and lefties with an agenda that will destroy this country forever.  Look what this thread is about, son.  You want some more examples just like this?  I won't even wander out of my home state.  I'll do a few that lived within a half hour drive from me:
> 
> Militia Extremist Convicted of Attempting to Cause a Civil Disturbance While Armed
> 
> Trucker with illicit tastes led FBI to Georgia militia plot
> 
> Waffle House Terrorists - Waffle House Terrorist Plot
> 
> GOP 'deportation bus' candidate in Georgia pleads guilty
> 
> The irony is I knew all of them and all of them were warned by the state leaders at the Militia of Georgia where their activities and political ties would lead.  You come here and tell people that listening to me will send people to jail. Think again.  *ALL* of those people above followed the same leadership as you; they made the same arguments; they pretended to be above anyone giving them sound counsel.  And just like the founders of the wallist religion you follow, they *all *ended up in prison.  Now kid you can talk all the shit you like, but I knew all those guys and watched them try to talk down to people like me - people telling them what was going to happen.  So, you talk your shit on this board.  Be a nice little subject and hide behind your keyboard.  I'll do the fighting.  And if anyone entertains the idea of taking you serious, all they have to do is look at those links.  ALL those guys lived within a half hour's drive from me.  Do you want about ten times that many links of people I knew from adjoining states or TWENTY times that number from across the U.S?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Then you dropped the ball this time.
> 
> 
> 2. The status quo exists because of a the complete failure of our political class. My talking points are not the cause of the problem.
> 
> 4. People are already Incentivized to work. Increasing employment is not a bad idea, but it, at best, would reduce the demand for illegals, somewhat.
> 
> 5. The misapplication of the 14th, is a big part of the problem, and undoing that would be a large help. But regardless of whether that happens or not, we need to deport those we can, and secure the border to greatly reduce those coming.
> 
> 
> 6. I am well aware of how late in the game it is. Allowing them to keep coming in, basically unchecked, is only going to make it worse.
Click to expand...


1)  Sorry, dude.  I didn't drop any ball.  You thought it would be cool to disrespect me out of the chute.  Fuck with me again and I'll prove to every poster that stops by that you're a liar.  I *WILL* take the time to reread the thread.  You haven't read it *ONCE* yet.

2)   Your talking points ARE the reason nothing gets done.  You've admitted that you are wholly ignorant of both immigration laws and history.  I'm not

3)  You had no number 3 to respond to

4)  If people are so incentivized, why do we have more people on drugs than any country in the world?  Work with me and I'll teach you how to dispel that myth.  I know a LOT of guys in their 20s through their 50s who don't have an education, no job skills, no drivers license in many cases, and have NO INTENTION OF EVER GOING TO WORK.  Their mothers feed and house them; Uncle Scam gives them a welfare check and there is no reason on God's green earth they cannot work a job.  What you believe from the security of your keyboard is inconsistent with the real world.  That is why I challenge you every day to work with me for a week.  You could be sad to learn you've spouted absolute horseshit

5)  There is no misapplication of the 14th Amendment.  It's doing exactly what its authors intended.  The problem is, the Amendment was illegally ratified

6)   There is no way you "_check_" people coming in.  Their government is not likely to give you the straight skinny; many things that are crimes here are NOT crimes in foreign countries; under the 14th Amendment everyone is given the *equal protection of the laws*.  If the Right to Privacy cannot protect the foreigner, it damn well cannot protect you.  If the foreigner has no presupposition of innocence, neither do you.  I don't like your trade-off. 

If one employer can hire a foreigner and another cannot, then quotas fail the employer's Right to the equal protection of the laws.  Either every person has a guarantee of Liberty or they don't.  So, which is it? 

You're either a Preamble Citizen where the Constitution is about you and your Rights *OR *you are a subject under the 14th Amendment with limited privileges and immunities that the government doles out to foreigners as well as the citizenry.  There is NO provision in the 14th Amendment allowing the government to limit Liberty or the equal protection of the laws to what you erroneously call _"legal_" citizens.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not trying to criticize your life buddy, but to discuss the current situation, which is not good. The status quo is killing this country.
> 
> 
> That you take it personally, and/or make it personal in your attacks on me, is your choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were the one who made it personal with *YOUR* insults, attacks, and ignorant criticisms.  *If* the status quo is killing this country, it is due to the simple fact that under the watch of *your leadership* things didn't get any better.  The people who believe as you do have had the major headlines for over 15 years at this point.  They've spent *2 TRILLION DOLLARS*; they have co-opted the democrats talking points; emptied the civilian militias and conservative Political Action Committees... *AND YOU'RE STILL LOSING!!!!
> *
> OTOH, you cannot articulate what it is that is killing this country.  You cannot claim it is the job situation as Trump is claiming he's putting America back to work.  Or is that a bullshit, chest thumping, pantload of political banter?  The situation is not related to the wages America makes because we are a nation that imports most of what we use.  We're perfectly capable of growing and manufacturing what we need.  So, Trump's been upping the ante.
> 
> With tariffs, those countries that pay their workers slave wages have to pay their workers more in order to get them to work.  Americans will have to generate more jobs since the cost of goods will exceed our willingness to pay for things we can produce at home.  Now we've eliminated jobs and wages.
> 
> The problem is *NOT *about taxes.  Surely you are not going to start throwing that illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, indefensible, unnecessary plank out of the Communist Manifesto at me... surely to God you aren't going to throw that at me with the FAIR TAX on the table that can resolve the federal income tax.  Are you?
> 
> This isn't about welfare as it's already illegal for undocumented foreigners to get most welfare and your National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify crap was supposed to stop any fraud there.  So, what, after implementing Orwellian National ID, you're admitting *THAT* was a failure?  It damn sure cannot be about a piddly ass violation of a civil misdemeanor of Improper Entry... not unless you're admitting your side consists of absolute idiots.  They could have made it a crime - a felony with real consequences, but your side hasn't done that.
> 
> The real no bullshit story is that the current flood is a pre-planned event, most likely financed by George Soros and Donald Trump in an effort to play you.  The real story is, this legal v. illegal cow manure shouldn't be fed to people with a brain.  You look at what Kamala Harris is advocating for this country - and she is a second generation "_legal"_ immigrant (as you erroneously call them.)  What does she have planned for America and why?  How about people like Nidal Hasan and Omar Mateen?  Can you see the long term effects of so - called _"legal_" immigration?  The real war is about our culture.  And you're going to have to rebuild that culture while fighting the war as you have *NO* troops to put on your front lines.
> 
> The real war ought to be about protecting, preserving and advancing the constitutional Republic that our forefathers created when they fought, bled and died in order to secure our Liberty.  In order to do that we have to save the posterity of the Constitution.  We have to incentivize people to work and to want for themselves a life beyond a government check and / or a prison cell.  We have to incentivize employers to hire Americans and those Americans have to resemble something like a human freaking being, not a circus clown.  And, at the end of the day, you have to be prepared for war if you want peace.  In the end, people won't leave - nor even keep coming because you passed a law.  As long as your countrymen want drugs and a government check for not working, the bottom line does not change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Nope. YOu insulted me, so I insulted you back. THe difference is that your insults are based on crazy Kevin Bacon games.
> 
> 2. The status quo is not my immigration policy.
> 
> 3. YOur points about the various issues, some of them, are generally wrong.
> 
> 4. Incentiving people to work, is not going to save the Constitution, especially if we keep importing the Third World who don't give a fly f***k about it.
> 
> 5. People will leave, when we deport their asses, and/or don't let them work here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  You lie.  I have a policy to never draw first blood.  Your initial posts were aimed at taking pot shots at my intelligence.  It doesn't matter because you have not shown to be much of a man of integrity or honor
> 
> 2)  The status quo exists due to the talking points made by a group of individuals that have been exposed time and time again.  You choose to limit yourself to their solutions
> 
> 4)  Incentivizing people to go back to work will not save the Constitution nor our culture, but it will provide the ground troops it takes to sustain political battles and build foot soldiers for future fights - be they political, legal, or physical
> 
> 5)  You cannot keep people from coming here and working as long as you have the 14th Amendment absolutely guaranteeing them Liberty and the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> You cannot keep people out of this country when a sizable number of your own citizenry are hooked on drugs and the suppliers live outside the U.S.
> 
> You cannot keep people out of this country when the primary goal of business is to keep expanding.  People are commodities not self sufficient / self reliant human beings with a sense of self worth.  It's up to you to change that dynamic if you think you're going to win any freaking war: political, legal, or physical
> 
> You are not going to win as long as just anyone can become a citizen. We are at the tipping point where foreigners hold as much of the balance of power as do people who believe like you.  About 12 percent of the federally elected officials are immigrants or second generation immigrants (most being immigrants.)  The blacks took America when they represented 16 percent of the population.  Foreigners are way the Hell beyond that point right now.
> 
> All you're getting right now is a reprieve with Donald Trump.  When he's gone, you have no billionaires; no guys with stellar records (like war heroes or statesmen to replace him.)  You're going to have a Congress full of pissed off liberals and lefties with an agenda that will destroy this country forever.  Look what this thread is about, son.  You want some more examples just like this?  I won't even wander out of my home state.  I'll do a few that lived within a half hour drive from me:
> 
> Militia Extremist Convicted of Attempting to Cause a Civil Disturbance While Armed
> 
> Trucker with illicit tastes led FBI to Georgia militia plot
> 
> Waffle House Terrorists - Waffle House Terrorist Plot
> 
> GOP 'deportation bus' candidate in Georgia pleads guilty
> 
> The irony is I knew all of them and all of them were warned by the state leaders at the Militia of Georgia where their activities and political ties would lead.  You come here and tell people that listening to me will send people to jail. Think again.  *ALL* of those people above followed the same leadership as you; they made the same arguments; they pretended to be above anyone giving them sound counsel.  And just like the founders of the wallist religion you follow, they *all *ended up in prison.  Now kid you can talk all the shit you like, but I knew all those guys and watched them try to talk down to people like me - people telling them what was going to happen.  So, you talk your shit on this board.  Be a nice little subject and hide behind your keyboard.  I'll do the fighting.  And if anyone entertains the idea of taking you serious, all they have to do is look at those links.  ALL those guys lived within a half hour's drive from me.  Do you want about ten times that many links of people I knew from adjoining states or TWENTY times that number from across the U.S?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Then you dropped the ball this time.
> 
> 
> 2. The status quo exists because of a the complete failure of our political class. My talking points are not the cause of the problem.
> 
> 4. People are already Incentivized to work. Increasing employment is not a bad idea, but it, at best, would reduce the demand for illegals, somewhat.
> 
> 5. The misapplication of the 14th, is a big part of the problem, and undoing that would be a large help. But regardless of whether that happens or not, we need to deport those we can, and secure the border to greatly reduce those coming.
> 
> 
> 6. I am well aware of how late in the game it is. Allowing them to keep coming in, basically unchecked, is only going to make it worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  Sorry, dude.  I didn't drop any ball.  You thought it would be cool to disrespect me out of the chute.  Fuck with me again and I'll prove to every poster that stops by that you're a liar.  I *WILL* take the time to reread the thread.  You haven't read it *ONCE* yet.
> 
> 2)   Your talking points ARE the reason nothing gets done.  You've admitted that you are wholly ignorant of both immigration laws and history.  I'm not
> 
> 3)  You had no number 3 to respond to
> 
> 4)  If people are so incentivized, why do we have more people on drugs than any country in the world?  Work with me and I'll teach you how to dispel that myth.  I know a LOT of guys in their 20s through their 50s who don't have an education, no job skills, no drivers license in many cases, and have NO INTENTION OF EVER GOING TO WORK.  Their mothers feed and house them; Uncle Scam gives them a welfare check and there is no reason on God's green earth they cannot work a job.  What you believe from the security of your keyboard is inconsistent with the real world.  That is why I challenge you every day to work with me for a week.  You could be sad to learn you've spouted absolute horseshit
> 
> 5)  There is no misapplication of the 14th Amendment.  It's doing exactly what its authors intended.  The problem is, the Amendment was illegally ratified
> 
> 6)   There is no way you "_check_" people coming in.  Their government is not likely to give you the straight skinny; many things that are crimes here are NOT crimes in foreign countries; under the 14th Amendment everyone is given the *equal protection of the laws*.  If the Right to Privacy cannot protect the foreigner, it damn well cannot protect you.  If the foreigner has no presupposition of innocence, neither do you.  I don't like your trade-off.
> 
> If one employer can hire a foreigner and another cannot, then quotas fail the employer's Right to the equal protection of the laws.  Either every person has a guarantee of Liberty or they don't.  So, which is it?
> 
> You're either a Preamble Citizen where the Constitution is about you and your Rights *OR *you are a subject under the 14th Amendment with limited privileges and immunities that the government doles out to foreigners as well as the citizenry.  There is NO provision in the 14th Amendment allowing the government to limit Liberty or the equal protection of the laws to what you erroneously call _"legal_" citizens.
Click to expand...




1. Post 658, you were unable to make the connection between your use of "their" and my use of "they". I asked if you were stupid, or just playing stupid. I'm still a little suspicious of your confusion, but I was the first to insult. My Bad. 

2. What should be happening is that the government should be enforcing the freaking laws. That that is not happening is not because I saying that I want it to be done. Your explanation makes no sense.

4. A number of factors, one of the big ones is that we have had such long wage stagnation that unskilled or semiskilled people have great difficulty finding a job with any prospects, imo. Let's fix that and see if it encourages people to build lives instead of doing drugs.

5. It was written so that the children of slaves would be treated as citizens. It is not doing that. It is being misused.

6. If a government will not work with US, in doing back ground checks on it's citizens who want to move here, than we should not accept ANY of their citizens who want to come here. That is not a violation of equal protection, because they have no right to come here. We have to be convinced that they are someone we want to be part of our community. 


7. I don't see why a limited number of foreigners, so that some employers can hire a foreigner and some of forced to hire Americans, because their are no foreigners available for them, is a violation of equal protection.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were the one who made it personal with *YOUR* insults, attacks, and ignorant criticisms.  *If* the status quo is killing this country, it is due to the simple fact that under the watch of *your leadership* things didn't get any better.  The people who believe as you do have had the major headlines for over 15 years at this point.  They've spent *2 TRILLION DOLLARS*; they have co-opted the democrats talking points; emptied the civilian militias and conservative Political Action Committees... *AND YOU'RE STILL LOSING!!!!
> *
> OTOH, you cannot articulate what it is that is killing this country.  You cannot claim it is the job situation as Trump is claiming he's putting America back to work.  Or is that a bullshit, chest thumping, pantload of political banter?  The situation is not related to the wages America makes because we are a nation that imports most of what we use.  We're perfectly capable of growing and manufacturing what we need.  So, Trump's been upping the ante.
> 
> With tariffs, those countries that pay their workers slave wages have to pay their workers more in order to get them to work.  Americans will have to generate more jobs since the cost of goods will exceed our willingness to pay for things we can produce at home.  Now we've eliminated jobs and wages.
> 
> The problem is *NOT *about taxes.  Surely you are not going to start throwing that illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, indefensible, unnecessary plank out of the Communist Manifesto at me... surely to God you aren't going to throw that at me with the FAIR TAX on the table that can resolve the federal income tax.  Are you?
> 
> This isn't about welfare as it's already illegal for undocumented foreigners to get most welfare and your National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify crap was supposed to stop any fraud there.  So, what, after implementing Orwellian National ID, you're admitting *THAT* was a failure?  It damn sure cannot be about a piddly ass violation of a civil misdemeanor of Improper Entry... not unless you're admitting your side consists of absolute idiots.  They could have made it a crime - a felony with real consequences, but your side hasn't done that.
> 
> The real no bullshit story is that the current flood is a pre-planned event, most likely financed by George Soros and Donald Trump in an effort to play you.  The real story is, this legal v. illegal cow manure shouldn't be fed to people with a brain.  You look at what Kamala Harris is advocating for this country - and she is a second generation "_legal"_ immigrant (as you erroneously call them.)  What does she have planned for America and why?  How about people like Nidal Hasan and Omar Mateen?  Can you see the long term effects of so - called _"legal_" immigration?  The real war is about our culture.  And you're going to have to rebuild that culture while fighting the war as you have *NO* troops to put on your front lines.
> 
> The real war ought to be about protecting, preserving and advancing the constitutional Republic that our forefathers created when they fought, bled and died in order to secure our Liberty.  In order to do that we have to save the posterity of the Constitution.  We have to incentivize people to work and to want for themselves a life beyond a government check and / or a prison cell.  We have to incentivize employers to hire Americans and those Americans have to resemble something like a human freaking being, not a circus clown.  And, at the end of the day, you have to be prepared for war if you want peace.  In the end, people won't leave - nor even keep coming because you passed a law.  As long as your countrymen want drugs and a government check for not working, the bottom line does not change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Nope. YOu insulted me, so I insulted you back. THe difference is that your insults are based on crazy Kevin Bacon games.
> 
> 2. The status quo is not my immigration policy.
> 
> 3. YOur points about the various issues, some of them, are generally wrong.
> 
> 4. Incentiving people to work, is not going to save the Constitution, especially if we keep importing the Third World who don't give a fly f***k about it.
> 
> 5. People will leave, when we deport their asses, and/or don't let them work here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  You lie.  I have a policy to never draw first blood.  Your initial posts were aimed at taking pot shots at my intelligence.  It doesn't matter because you have not shown to be much of a man of integrity or honor
> 
> 2)  The status quo exists due to the talking points made by a group of individuals that have been exposed time and time again.  You choose to limit yourself to their solutions
> 
> 4)  Incentivizing people to go back to work will not save the Constitution nor our culture, but it will provide the ground troops it takes to sustain political battles and build foot soldiers for future fights - be they political, legal, or physical
> 
> 5)  You cannot keep people from coming here and working as long as you have the 14th Amendment absolutely guaranteeing them Liberty and the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> You cannot keep people out of this country when a sizable number of your own citizenry are hooked on drugs and the suppliers live outside the U.S.
> 
> You cannot keep people out of this country when the primary goal of business is to keep expanding.  People are commodities not self sufficient / self reliant human beings with a sense of self worth.  It's up to you to change that dynamic if you think you're going to win any freaking war: political, legal, or physical
> 
> You are not going to win as long as just anyone can become a citizen. We are at the tipping point where foreigners hold as much of the balance of power as do people who believe like you.  About 12 percent of the federally elected officials are immigrants or second generation immigrants (most being immigrants.)  The blacks took America when they represented 16 percent of the population.  Foreigners are way the Hell beyond that point right now.
> 
> All you're getting right now is a reprieve with Donald Trump.  When he's gone, you have no billionaires; no guys with stellar records (like war heroes or statesmen to replace him.)  You're going to have a Congress full of pissed off liberals and lefties with an agenda that will destroy this country forever.  Look what this thread is about, son.  You want some more examples just like this?  I won't even wander out of my home state.  I'll do a few that lived within a half hour drive from me:
> 
> Militia Extremist Convicted of Attempting to Cause a Civil Disturbance While Armed
> 
> Trucker with illicit tastes led FBI to Georgia militia plot
> 
> Waffle House Terrorists - Waffle House Terrorist Plot
> 
> GOP 'deportation bus' candidate in Georgia pleads guilty
> 
> The irony is I knew all of them and all of them were warned by the state leaders at the Militia of Georgia where their activities and political ties would lead.  You come here and tell people that listening to me will send people to jail. Think again.  *ALL* of those people above followed the same leadership as you; they made the same arguments; they pretended to be above anyone giving them sound counsel.  And just like the founders of the wallist religion you follow, they *all *ended up in prison.  Now kid you can talk all the shit you like, but I knew all those guys and watched them try to talk down to people like me - people telling them what was going to happen.  So, you talk your shit on this board.  Be a nice little subject and hide behind your keyboard.  I'll do the fighting.  And if anyone entertains the idea of taking you serious, all they have to do is look at those links.  ALL those guys lived within a half hour's drive from me.  Do you want about ten times that many links of people I knew from adjoining states or TWENTY times that number from across the U.S?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Then you dropped the ball this time.
> 
> 
> 2. The status quo exists because of a the complete failure of our political class. My talking points are not the cause of the problem.
> 
> 4. People are already Incentivized to work. Increasing employment is not a bad idea, but it, at best, would reduce the demand for illegals, somewhat.
> 
> 5. The misapplication of the 14th, is a big part of the problem, and undoing that would be a large help. But regardless of whether that happens or not, we need to deport those we can, and secure the border to greatly reduce those coming.
> 
> 
> 6. I am well aware of how late in the game it is. Allowing them to keep coming in, basically unchecked, is only going to make it worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  Sorry, dude.  I didn't drop any ball.  You thought it would be cool to disrespect me out of the chute.  Fuck with me again and I'll prove to every poster that stops by that you're a liar.  I *WILL* take the time to reread the thread.  You haven't read it *ONCE* yet.
> 
> 2)   Your talking points ARE the reason nothing gets done.  You've admitted that you are wholly ignorant of both immigration laws and history.  I'm not
> 
> 3)  You had no number 3 to respond to
> 
> 4)  If people are so incentivized, why do we have more people on drugs than any country in the world?  Work with me and I'll teach you how to dispel that myth.  I know a LOT of guys in their 20s through their 50s who don't have an education, no job skills, no drivers license in many cases, and have NO INTENTION OF EVER GOING TO WORK.  Their mothers feed and house them; Uncle Scam gives them a welfare check and there is no reason on God's green earth they cannot work a job.  What you believe from the security of your keyboard is inconsistent with the real world.  That is why I challenge you every day to work with me for a week.  You could be sad to learn you've spouted absolute horseshit
> 
> 5)  There is no misapplication of the 14th Amendment.  It's doing exactly what its authors intended.  The problem is, the Amendment was illegally ratified
> 
> 6)   There is no way you "_check_" people coming in.  Their government is not likely to give you the straight skinny; many things that are crimes here are NOT crimes in foreign countries; under the 14th Amendment everyone is given the *equal protection of the laws*.  If the Right to Privacy cannot protect the foreigner, it damn well cannot protect you.  If the foreigner has no presupposition of innocence, neither do you.  I don't like your trade-off.
> 
> If one employer can hire a foreigner and another cannot, then quotas fail the employer's Right to the equal protection of the laws.  Either every person has a guarantee of Liberty or they don't.  So, which is it?
> 
> You're either a Preamble Citizen where the Constitution is about you and your Rights *OR *you are a subject under the 14th Amendment with limited privileges and immunities that the government doles out to foreigners as well as the citizenry.  There is NO provision in the 14th Amendment allowing the government to limit Liberty or the equal protection of the laws to what you erroneously call _"legal_" citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Post 658, you were unable to make the connection between your use of "their" and my use of "they". I asked if you were stupid, or just playing stupid. I'm still a little suspicious of your confusion, but I was the first to insult. My Bad.
> 
> 2. What should be happening is that the government should be enforcing the freaking laws. That that is not happening is not because I saying that I want it to be done. Your explanation makes no sense.
> 
> 4. A number of factors, one of the big ones is that we have had such long wage stagnation that unskilled or semiskilled people have great difficulty finding a job with any prospects, imo. Let's fix that and see if it encourages people to build lives instead of doing drugs.
> 
> 5. It was written so that the children of slaves would be treated as citizens. It is not doing that. It is being misused.
> 
> 6. If a government will not work with US, in doing back ground checks on it's citizens who want to move here, than we should not accept ANY of their citizens who want to come here. That is not a violation of equal protection, because they have no right to come here. We have to be convinced that they are someone we want to be part of our community.
> 
> 
> 7. I don't see why a limited number of foreigners, so that some employers can hire a foreigner and some of forced to hire Americans, because their are no foreigners available for them, is a violation of equal protection.
Click to expand...


It's almost funny that in saying you're sorry, you have to insult me.  Be that as it may, I'll answer your responses once again:

1)  The government does enforce the laws.  It's just that the law does not say what you want it to say.  Unless the immigration officials interact with a foreigner at the border, that foreigner has the same basic rights as you do.  The United States Supreme Court has ruled that being in the United States without papers is not a crime.  

Since about 1804 (IIRC) when the United States Supreme Court (questionably) declared themselves to be the final arbiter of the law, not even God almighty has seen fit to over-rule them.  In my mind it should not take a law degree from Harvard to understand that if you deny to *ALL* foreigners the equal protection of the laws, *YOUR* Rights are then in jeopardy.  But, sadly, that is a fact nobody seems to appreciate until it's *THEIR ass *on the line.  If you were looking at 25 to life and the government did not extend Due Process to you, your personal outlook would be different.

Next, when a law violates the Constitution, the people are not required to obey it.  Again, that is the word of the United States Supreme Court.  I suppose you want people *forced* to obey every law ever passed?  How do you suppose that the blacks got to be so politically powerful AND without a war in this country?  What this boils down to is either you believe that *everybody* in this country is due the guarantee of Liberty *OR *you believe that the Constitution is specific to the posterity of the Constitution in the Preamble.  It can't be both.

2)  The 14th Amendment has been ruled by the United States Supreme Court, the final arbiters of what the law is (Google Marbury v. Madison), that anyone born in the United States is a citizen.  No branch of government, certainly no LEO has the authority or the power to over-rule the United States Supreme Court.  FWIW, Wikipedia has this to say:

"_The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship for nearly all individuals born in the United States, provided that their parents are foreign citizens, have permanent domicile status in the United States, and are engaging in business in the United States except performing in a diplomatic or official capacity of a foreign power_."

Anchor baby - Wikipedia

3)  To your credit, you did preface your notions about employment with _"imo._"  What I can say to you is that I work full time trying to get Americans, mostly white, to go back to work.  If you work with me for one week I will fix your erroneous opinion.  There is nothing like real hard core experience - and some of my own opinions were put to the test some years ago.  I got involved so that critics could not call me dumb, stupid, uneducated... or their favorites neo- nazi, prejudiced, racist, bigot.  So, I did it.  I challenge you to work with me for one week and you'll see the sorriest sons of bitches on God's green earth.  They will be Americans

4)  If any employer is denied the same Right to hire a foreigner, then he does not have an equal opportunity.  When I was 17, they implemented racial quotas and affirmative action.  I lost my job due to the color of my skin.  That winter I spent it in a mobile home with no electricity or running water.  Since that time I have not supported preferential hiring schemes.

Furthermore, carrying your logic to its final destination, if we "enforced" the laws as it applies to foreigners the way you demand, millions of homes and apartments would belong to the government; most corporations would be shut down; *YOU* would probably be in prison... because Walmart was *convicted* of knowingly using subcontractors that hired undocumented workers.  So, if the government owns the jobs as you contend and an undocumented foreigner got hired by that corporation (or its subsidiaries) and you shopped there, then you just received stolen property (since the profit belonged to the subjects of the state as opposed to the business.)


----------



## danielpalos

Mike Dwight said:


> Danielpalos?! Really?! We are the only Country in the World with a Revolutionary, Civil War reactionary Idea, one of many I presume, called Naturalized Citizenship. You've heard all over the news that People come here and have a baby who is then an American, and Europeans point and have no idea whats going on, because its totally American. Naturalized Citizenship I believe is the 13th amendment bundled tightly with freeing the slaves, disallowing the rebel government from returning to Office, and etc.
> 
> Well hey, the First "Citizen" and the "Last" will come with the implication of joined membership. The Romans in 200 BC are recorded as having the "most miraculous and amazing possession in the entire world" which was Roman Citizenship. You could join the army as an auxiliary a decade and Gain citizenship, lands even, go anywhere. The very first European Citizenship again, to be copying the Romans heavily too, was France Revolutionaries started a "Citizenship" in 1806 leading to 1812. Many many groups o the United States of America had no trust in the idea of Citizenship, its a very specific idea historically that we are Currently globalizing!


i have no idea where you get your propaganda and rhetoric.  simply appealing to ignorance of the law, Constitutional or otherwise, is why we don't take the right wing seriously.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

After all these back and forth postings, I'm getting the impression that the wallists believe if we ship all the foreigners out and put up a wall, it will miraculously make Americans a better class of people.

Having spent over *$2 TRILLION DOLLARS*, implementing the initial stages of a One World Government, and severely restricting the *unalienable* Rights of the people, one would think the wallists would reassess what is going on and then look at their real options.

NO democratic vote can change the interpretation of the Constitution.  Only by amending the Constitution will the wallists get what they think they want.  The *real *solution is that you need a strong, vibrant, and aggressive culture wherein the citizenry wants independence, Freedom and Liberty along with the opportunity to become self reliant are you going to see a real change in the status quo.  When Americans figure out that Mickey Ds is not a career and Uber is just an entry level job while you study and learn a trade will we start going in another direction.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Nope. YOu insulted me, so I insulted you back. THe difference is that your insults are based on crazy Kevin Bacon games.
> 
> 2. The status quo is not my immigration policy.
> 
> 3. YOur points about the various issues, some of them, are generally wrong.
> 
> 4. Incentiving people to work, is not going to save the Constitution, especially if we keep importing the Third World who don't give a fly f***k about it.
> 
> 5. People will leave, when we deport their asses, and/or don't let them work here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You lie.  I have a policy to never draw first blood.  Your initial posts were aimed at taking pot shots at my intelligence.  It doesn't matter because you have not shown to be much of a man of integrity or honor
> 
> 2)  The status quo exists due to the talking points made by a group of individuals that have been exposed time and time again.  You choose to limit yourself to their solutions
> 
> 4)  Incentivizing people to go back to work will not save the Constitution nor our culture, but it will provide the ground troops it takes to sustain political battles and build foot soldiers for future fights - be they political, legal, or physical
> 
> 5)  You cannot keep people from coming here and working as long as you have the 14th Amendment absolutely guaranteeing them Liberty and the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> You cannot keep people out of this country when a sizable number of your own citizenry are hooked on drugs and the suppliers live outside the U.S.
> 
> You cannot keep people out of this country when the primary goal of business is to keep expanding.  People are commodities not self sufficient / self reliant human beings with a sense of self worth.  It's up to you to change that dynamic if you think you're going to win any freaking war: political, legal, or physical
> 
> You are not going to win as long as just anyone can become a citizen. We are at the tipping point where foreigners hold as much of the balance of power as do people who believe like you.  About 12 percent of the federally elected officials are immigrants or second generation immigrants (most being immigrants.)  The blacks took America when they represented 16 percent of the population.  Foreigners are way the Hell beyond that point right now.
> 
> All you're getting right now is a reprieve with Donald Trump.  When he's gone, you have no billionaires; no guys with stellar records (like war heroes or statesmen to replace him.)  You're going to have a Congress full of pissed off liberals and lefties with an agenda that will destroy this country forever.  Look what this thread is about, son.  You want some more examples just like this?  I won't even wander out of my home state.  I'll do a few that lived within a half hour drive from me:
> 
> Militia Extremist Convicted of Attempting to Cause a Civil Disturbance While Armed
> 
> Trucker with illicit tastes led FBI to Georgia militia plot
> 
> Waffle House Terrorists - Waffle House Terrorist Plot
> 
> GOP 'deportation bus' candidate in Georgia pleads guilty
> 
> The irony is I knew all of them and all of them were warned by the state leaders at the Militia of Georgia where their activities and political ties would lead.  You come here and tell people that listening to me will send people to jail. Think again.  *ALL* of those people above followed the same leadership as you; they made the same arguments; they pretended to be above anyone giving them sound counsel.  And just like the founders of the wallist religion you follow, they *all *ended up in prison.  Now kid you can talk all the shit you like, but I knew all those guys and watched them try to talk down to people like me - people telling them what was going to happen.  So, you talk your shit on this board.  Be a nice little subject and hide behind your keyboard.  I'll do the fighting.  And if anyone entertains the idea of taking you serious, all they have to do is look at those links.  ALL those guys lived within a half hour's drive from me.  Do you want about ten times that many links of people I knew from adjoining states or TWENTY times that number from across the U.S?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Then you dropped the ball this time.
> 
> 
> 2. The status quo exists because of a the complete failure of our political class. My talking points are not the cause of the problem.
> 
> 4. People are already Incentivized to work. Increasing employment is not a bad idea, but it, at best, would reduce the demand for illegals, somewhat.
> 
> 5. The misapplication of the 14th, is a big part of the problem, and undoing that would be a large help. But regardless of whether that happens or not, we need to deport those we can, and secure the border to greatly reduce those coming.
> 
> 
> 6. I am well aware of how late in the game it is. Allowing them to keep coming in, basically unchecked, is only going to make it worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  Sorry, dude.  I didn't drop any ball.  You thought it would be cool to disrespect me out of the chute.  Fuck with me again and I'll prove to every poster that stops by that you're a liar.  I *WILL* take the time to reread the thread.  You haven't read it *ONCE* yet.
> 
> 2)   Your talking points ARE the reason nothing gets done.  You've admitted that you are wholly ignorant of both immigration laws and history.  I'm not
> 
> 3)  You had no number 3 to respond to
> 
> 4)  If people are so incentivized, why do we have more people on drugs than any country in the world?  Work with me and I'll teach you how to dispel that myth.  I know a LOT of guys in their 20s through their 50s who don't have an education, no job skills, no drivers license in many cases, and have NO INTENTION OF EVER GOING TO WORK.  Their mothers feed and house them; Uncle Scam gives them a welfare check and there is no reason on God's green earth they cannot work a job.  What you believe from the security of your keyboard is inconsistent with the real world.  That is why I challenge you every day to work with me for a week.  You could be sad to learn you've spouted absolute horseshit
> 
> 5)  There is no misapplication of the 14th Amendment.  It's doing exactly what its authors intended.  The problem is, the Amendment was illegally ratified
> 
> 6)   There is no way you "_check_" people coming in.  Their government is not likely to give you the straight skinny; many things that are crimes here are NOT crimes in foreign countries; under the 14th Amendment everyone is given the *equal protection of the laws*.  If the Right to Privacy cannot protect the foreigner, it damn well cannot protect you.  If the foreigner has no presupposition of innocence, neither do you.  I don't like your trade-off.
> 
> If one employer can hire a foreigner and another cannot, then quotas fail the employer's Right to the equal protection of the laws.  Either every person has a guarantee of Liberty or they don't.  So, which is it?
> 
> You're either a Preamble Citizen where the Constitution is about you and your Rights *OR *you are a subject under the 14th Amendment with limited privileges and immunities that the government doles out to foreigners as well as the citizenry.  There is NO provision in the 14th Amendment allowing the government to limit Liberty or the equal protection of the laws to what you erroneously call _"legal_" citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Post 658, you were unable to make the connection between your use of "their" and my use of "they". I asked if you were stupid, or just playing stupid. I'm still a little suspicious of your confusion, but I was the first to insult. My Bad.
> 
> 2. What should be happening is that the government should be enforcing the freaking laws. That that is not happening is not because I saying that I want it to be done. Your explanation makes no sense.
> 
> 4. A number of factors, one of the big ones is that we have had such long wage stagnation that unskilled or semiskilled people have great difficulty finding a job with any prospects, imo. Let's fix that and see if it encourages people to build lives instead of doing drugs.
> 
> 5. It was written so that the children of slaves would be treated as citizens. It is not doing that. It is being misused.
> 
> 6. If a government will not work with US, in doing back ground checks on it's citizens who want to move here, than we should not accept ANY of their citizens who want to come here. That is not a violation of equal protection, because they have no right to come here. We have to be convinced that they are someone we want to be part of our community.
> 
> 
> 7. I don't see why a limited number of foreigners, so that some employers can hire a foreigner and some of forced to hire Americans, because their are no foreigners available for them, is a violation of equal protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's almost funny that in saying you're sorry, you have to insult me.  Be that as it may, I'll answer your responses once again:
> 
> 1)  The government does enforce the laws.  It's just that the law does not say what you want it to say.  Unless the immigration officials interact with a foreigner at the border, that foreigner has the same basic rights as you do.  The United States Supreme Court has ruled that being in the United States without papers is not a crime.
> 
> Since about 1804 (IIRC) when the United States Supreme Court (questionably) declared themselves to be the final arbiter of the law, not even God almighty has seen fit to over-rule them.  In my mind it should not take a law degree from Harvard to understand that if you deny to *ALL* foreigners the equal protection of the laws, *YOUR* Rights are then in jeopardy.  But, sadly, that is a fact nobody seems to appreciate until it's *THEIR ass *on the line.  If you were looking at 25 to life and the government did not extend Due Process to you, your personal outlook would be different.
> 
> Next, when a law violates the Constitution, the people are not required to obey it.  Again, that is the word of the United States Supreme Court.  I suppose you want people *forced* to obey every law ever passed?  How do you suppose that the blacks got to be so politically powerful AND without a war in this country?  What this boils down to is either you believe that *everybody* in this country is due the guarantee of Liberty *OR *you believe that the Constitution is specific to the posterity of the Constitution in the Preamble.  It can't be both.
> 
> 2)  The 14th Amendment has been ruled by the United States Supreme Court, the final arbiters of what the law is (Google Marbury v. Madison), that anyone born in the United States is a citizen.  No branch of government, certainly no LEO has the authority or the power to over-rule the United States Supreme Court.  FWIW, Wikipedia has this to say:
> 
> "_The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship for nearly all individuals born in the United States, provided that their parents are foreign citizens, have permanent domicile status in the United States, and are engaging in business in the United States except performing in a diplomatic or official capacity of a foreign power_."
> 
> Anchor baby - Wikipedia
> 
> 3)  To your credit, you did preface your notions about employment with _"imo._"  What I can say to you is that I work full time trying to get Americans, mostly white, to go back to work.  If you work with me for one week I will fix your erroneous opinion.  There is nothing like real hard core experience - and some of my own opinions were put to the test some years ago.  I got involved so that critics could not call me dumb, stupid, uneducated... or their favorites neo- nazi, prejudiced, racist, bigot.  So, I did it.  I challenge you to work with me for one week and you'll see the sorriest sons of bitches on God's green earth.  They will be Americans
> 
> 4)  If any employer is denied the same Right to hire a foreigner, then he does not have an equal opportunity.  When I was 17, they implemented racial quotas and affirmative action.  I lost my job due to the color of my skin.  That winter I spent it in a mobile home with no electricity or running water.  Since that time I have not supported preferential hiring schemes.
> 
> Furthermore, carrying your logic to its final destination, if we "enforced" the laws as it applies to foreigners the way you demand, millions of homes and apartments would belong to the government; most corporations would be shut down; *YOU* would probably be in prison... because Walmart was *convicted* of knowingly using subcontractors that hired undocumented workers.  So, if the government owns the jobs as you contend and an undocumented foreigner got hired by that corporation (or its subsidiaries) and you shopped there, then you just received stolen property (since the profit belonged to the subjects of the state as opposed to the business.)
Click to expand...




1. The millions of illegals that cross the border without being interacted with by the government is not "enforcing". THe millions that come here and over stay, without ever being followed up on, without or without due process, is not "Enforcing".


2. THe ruling was a stupid and wrong rulings. Whether it is overturned  or not, that is still the case. Hopefully it will be reversed at somepoint, though the damage to the nation my already be mortal.


3. Labor participation is rising steadily. We must be doing something right. Let's keep doing it, and see what happens. I am happy to consider reforms on criminal records, as an additional help. 

4 . Not allowing foreigners to flood the US labor market, is not a racial or ethnic quota system.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll my quote reply feature isn't working.  But here is your reply


Correll,

You and I will *NEVER* agree. At the founding of this country the Declaration of Independence proclaimed:

"_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that *all men*are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable Rights*, that among these are Life, *Liberty* and the pursuit of Happiness_."

By the time we get to the Constitution, our ancestors had this to say:

"_We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the* Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.*_.."

There are two interpretations between these two. In the Declaration of Independence, Liberty is a gift from the Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) It is *unalienable* which means it is above the reach of government. Government has NO JURISDICTION over *unalienable* Rights.

In the Constitution, we created the equivalent of a contract between we, the people, and that entity called government. That contract applied only to the posterity of the white race and that entity called government. (See the United States Supreme Court decision Dred Scott v. Sanford)

The 14th Amendment nullified the ruling in Dred Scott v. Sanford. The 14th Amendment guarantees to ALL PERSONS (not citizens) the now privilege (NOT RIGHT) of*Liberty*. 

It's obvious to me that you have not studied law or history so you don't know which of those positions you are taking. But, so far what you articulate is the third position. Government grants you your rights? Is that your position? So, you have NO Rights... no Right to own a firearm, no Right to choose your own religion (or no religion), no Right to Freedom of Speech or Privacy; no Right to Due Process, etc. You're going to put government in charge of that? Really? So, what you're arguing is that government is in the Rights granting business? I want you think about where you stand on this and get back to me. The balance of your post is in my next reply.


3. Labor participation is rising steadily. We must be doing something right. Let's keep doing it, and see what happens. I am happy to consider reforms on criminal records, as an additional help.

4 . Not allowing foreigners to flood the US labor market, is not a racial or ethnic quota system.


Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  You lie.  I have a policy to never draw first blood.  Your initial posts were aimed at taking pot shots at my intelligence.  It doesn't matter because you have not shown to be much of a man of integrity or honor
> 
> 2)  The status quo exists due to the talking points made by a group of individuals that have been exposed time and time again.  You choose to limit yourself to their solutions
> 
> 4)  Incentivizing people to go back to work will not save the Constitution nor our culture, but it will provide the ground troops it takes to sustain political battles and build foot soldiers for future fights - be they political, legal, or physical
> 
> 5)  You cannot keep people from coming here and working as long as you have the 14th Amendment absolutely guaranteeing them Liberty and the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> You cannot keep people out of this country when a sizable number of your own citizenry are hooked on drugs and the suppliers live outside the U.S.
> 
> You cannot keep people out of this country when the primary goal of business is to keep expanding.  People are commodities not self sufficient / self reliant human beings with a sense of self worth.  It's up to you to change that dynamic if you think you're going to win any freaking war: political, legal, or physical
> 
> You are not going to win as long as just anyone can become a citizen. We are at the tipping point where foreigners hold as much of the balance of power as do people who believe like you.  About 12 percent of the federally elected officials are immigrants or second generation immigrants (most being immigrants.)  The blacks took America when they represented 16 percent of the population.  Foreigners are way the Hell beyond that point right now.
> 
> All you're getting right now is a reprieve with Donald Trump.  When he's gone, you have no billionaires; no guys with stellar records (like war heroes or statesmen to replace him.)  You're going to have a Congress full of pissed off liberals and lefties with an agenda that will destroy this country forever.  Look what this thread is about, son.  You want some more examples just like this?  I won't even wander out of my home state.  I'll do a few that lived within a half hour drive from me:
> 
> Militia Extremist Convicted of Attempting to Cause a Civil Disturbance While Armed
> 
> Trucker with illicit tastes led FBI to Georgia militia plot
> 
> Waffle House Terrorists - Waffle House Terrorist Plot
> 
> GOP 'deportation bus' candidate in Georgia pleads guilty
> 
> The irony is I knew all of them and all of them were warned by the state leaders at the Militia of Georgia where their activities and political ties would lead.  You come here and tell people that listening to me will send people to jail. Think again.  *ALL* of those people above followed the same leadership as you; they made the same arguments; they pretended to be above anyone giving them sound counsel.  And just like the founders of the wallist religion you follow, they *all *ended up in prison.  Now kid you can talk all the shit you like, but I knew all those guys and watched them try to talk down to people like me - people telling them what was going to happen.  So, you talk your shit on this board.  Be a nice little subject and hide behind your keyboard.  I'll do the fighting.  And if anyone entertains the idea of taking you serious, all they have to do is look at those links.  ALL those guys lived within a half hour's drive from me.  Do you want about ten times that many links of people I knew from adjoining states or TWENTY times that number from across the U.S?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Then you dropped the ball this time.
> 
> 
> 2. The status quo exists because of a the complete failure of our political class. My talking points are not the cause of the problem.
> 
> 4. People are already Incentivized to work. Increasing employment is not a bad idea, but it, at best, would reduce the demand for illegals, somewhat.
> 
> 5. The misapplication of the 14th, is a big part of the problem, and undoing that would be a large help. But regardless of whether that happens or not, we need to deport those we can, and secure the border to greatly reduce those coming.
> 
> 
> 6. I am well aware of how late in the game it is. Allowing them to keep coming in, basically unchecked, is only going to make it worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1)  Sorry, dude.  I didn't drop any ball.  You thought it would be cool to disrespect me out of the chute.  Fuck with me again and I'll prove to every poster that stops by that you're a liar.  I *WILL* take the time to reread the thread.  You haven't read it *ONCE* yet.
> 
> 2)   Your talking points ARE the reason nothing gets done.  You've admitted that you are wholly ignorant of both immigration laws and history.  I'm not
> 
> 3)  You had no number 3 to respond to
> 
> 4)  If people are so incentivized, why do we have more people on drugs than any country in the world?  Work with me and I'll teach you how to dispel that myth.  I know a LOT of guys in their 20s through their 50s who don't have an education, no job skills, no drivers license in many cases, and have NO INTENTION OF EVER GOING TO WORK.  Their mothers feed and house them; Uncle Scam gives them a welfare check and there is no reason on God's green earth they cannot work a job.  What you believe from the security of your keyboard is inconsistent with the real world.  That is why I challenge you every day to work with me for a week.  You could be sad to learn you've spouted absolute horseshit
> 
> 5)  There is no misapplication of the 14th Amendment.  It's doing exactly what its authors intended.  The problem is, the Amendment was illegally ratified
> 
> 6)   There is no way you "_check_" people coming in.  Their government is not likely to give you the straight skinny; many things that are crimes here are NOT crimes in foreign countries; under the 14th Amendment everyone is given the *equal protection of the laws*.  If the Right to Privacy cannot protect the foreigner, it damn well cannot protect you.  If the foreigner has no presupposition of innocence, neither do you.  I don't like your trade-off.
> 
> If one employer can hire a foreigner and another cannot, then quotas fail the employer's Right to the equal protection of the laws.  Either every person has a guarantee of Liberty or they don't.  So, which is it?
> 
> You're either a Preamble Citizen where the Constitution is about you and your Rights *OR *you are a subject under the 14th Amendment with limited privileges and immunities that the government doles out to foreigners as well as the citizenry.  There is NO provision in the 14th Amendment allowing the government to limit Liberty or the equal protection of the laws to what you erroneously call _"legal_" citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Post 658, you were unable to make the connection between your use of "their" and my use of "they". I asked if you were stupid, or just playing stupid. I'm still a little suspicious of your confusion, but I was the first to insult. My Bad.
> 
> 2. What should be happening is that the government should be enforcing the freaking laws. That that is not happening is not because I saying that I want it to be done. Your explanation makes no sense.
> 
> 4. A number of factors, one of the big ones is that we have had such long wage stagnation that unskilled or semiskilled people have great difficulty finding a job with any prospects, imo. Let's fix that and see if it encourages people to build lives instead of doing drugs.
> 
> 5. It was written so that the children of slaves would be treated as citizens. It is not doing that. It is being misused.
> 
> 6. If a government will not work with US, in doing back ground checks on it's citizens who want to move here, than we should not accept ANY of their citizens who want to come here. That is not a violation of equal protection, because they have no right to come here. We have to be convinced that they are someone we want to be part of our community.
> 
> 
> 7. I don't see why a limited number of foreigners, so that some employers can hire a foreigner and some of forced to hire Americans, because their are no foreigners available for them, is a violation of equal protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's almost funny that in saying you're sorry, you have to insult me.  Be that as it may, I'll answer your responses once again:
> 
> 1)  The government does enforce the laws.  It's just that the law does not say what you want it to say.  Unless the immigration officials interact with a foreigner at the border, that foreigner has the same basic rights as you do.  The United States Supreme Court has ruled that being in the United States without papers is not a crime.
> 
> Since about 1804 (IIRC) when the United States Supreme Court (questionably) declared themselves to be the final arbiter of the law, not even God almighty has seen fit to over-rule them.  In my mind it should not take a law degree from Harvard to understand that if you deny to *ALL* foreigners the equal protection of the laws, *YOUR* Rights are then in jeopardy.  But, sadly, that is a fact nobody seems to appreciate until it's *THEIR ass *on the line.  If you were looking at 25 to life and the government did not extend Due Process to you, your personal outlook would be different.
> 
> Next, when a law violates the Constitution, the people are not required to obey it.  Again, that is the word of the United States Supreme Court.  I suppose you want people *forced* to obey every law ever passed?  How do you suppose that the blacks got to be so politically powerful AND without a war in this country?  What this boils down to is either you believe that *everybody* in this country is due the guarantee of Liberty *OR *you believe that the Constitution is specific to the posterity of the Constitution in the Preamble.  It can't be both.
> 
> 2)  The 14th Amendment has been ruled by the United States Supreme Court, the final arbiters of what the law is (Google Marbury v. Madison), that anyone born in the United States is a citizen.  No branch of government, certainly no LEO has the authority or the power to over-rule the United States Supreme Court.  FWIW, Wikipedia has this to say:
> 
> "_The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship for nearly all individuals born in the United States, provided that their parents are foreign citizens, have permanent domicile status in the United States, and are engaging in business in the United States except performing in a diplomatic or official capacity of a foreign power_."
> 
> Anchor baby - Wikipedia
> 
> 3)  To your credit, you did preface your notions about employment with _"imo._"  What I can say to you is that I work full time trying to get Americans, mostly white, to go back to work.  If you work with me for one week I will fix your erroneous opinion.  There is nothing like real hard core experience - and some of my own opinions were put to the test some years ago.  I got involved so that critics could not call me dumb, stupid, uneducated... or their favorites neo- nazi, prejudiced, racist, bigot.  So, I did it.  I challenge you to work with me for one week and you'll see the sorriest sons of bitches on God's green earth.  They will be Americans
> 
> 4)  If any employer is denied the same Right to hire a foreigner, then he does not have an equal opportunity.  When I was 17, they implemented racial quotas and affirmative action.  I lost my job due to the color of my skin.  That winter I spent it in a mobile home with no electricity or running water.  Since that time I have not supported preferential hiring schemes.
> 
> Furthermore, carrying your logic to its final destination, if we "enforced" the laws as it applies to foreigners the way you demand, millions of homes and apartments would belong to the government; most corporations would be shut down; *YOU* would probably be in prison... because Walmart was *convicted* of knowingly using subcontractors that hired undocumented workers.  So, if the government owns the jobs as you contend and an undocumented foreigner got hired by that corporation (or its subsidiaries) and you shopped there, then you just received stolen property (since the profit belonged to the subjects of the state as opposed to the business.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The millions of illegals that cross the border without being interacted with by the government is not "enforcing". THe millions that come here and over stay, without ever being followed up on, without or without due process, is not "Enforcing".
> 
> 
> 2. THe ruling was a stupid and wrong rulings. Whether it is overturned  or not, that is still the case. Hopefully it will be reversed at somepoint, though the damage to the nation my already be mortal.
> 
> 
> 3. Labor participation is rising steadily. We must be doing something right. Let's keep doing it, and see what happens. I am happy to consider reforms on criminal records, as an additional help.
> 
> 4 . Not allowing foreigners to flood the US labor market, is not a racial or ethnic quota system.
Click to expand...


I am responding to numbers 2 through 4, my first reply to number precedes this.  Hopefully this works:

2)  I have quoted United States Supreme Court rulings.  Under our Constitution the United States Supreme Court does not have the authority to reverse their rulings.  That is legislating from the bench.  Yes, they do it and yes, Trump stacked the Court hoping they would change precedents.  I know this will fly over your head, but Kamala Harris has said if she becomes president, she will use Executive Orders to put America out of the gun business... she won't stop there.  Being a second generation immigrant, she disagrees with you 100 percent.

There will be life after Trump.  A Democrat will eventually come to power.  Now how much leeway you give them is up to you, but when the liberals use YOUR precedents against you, then you might begin to understand why what you're advocating is foolish

3)  If you think that we're doing is working, keep doing it and abandon this silliness that it can only take place with a wall.  You just testified against your own wallist religion

4)  Denying people the equal protection of the laws is unconstitutional, Correll.  Furthermore, the current laws were put into place to disenfranchise the white people and then those quotas would be used to help the Republic implode.  The laws did exactly what they were supposed to do.  You have to decide what side of the issue you're really on.  So far you've disagreed with real conservatives like Ronald Reagan - who opposed the nutty wall idea AND opposed quotas.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll my quote reply feature isn't working.  But here is your reply
> 
> 
> Correll,
> 
> You and I will *NEVER* agree. At the founding of this country the Declaration of Independence proclaimed:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that *all men*are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable Rights*, that among these are Life, *Liberty* and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> By the time we get to the Constitution, our ancestors had this to say:
> 
> "_We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the* Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.*_.."
> 
> There are two interpretations between these two. In the Declaration of Independence, Liberty is a gift from the Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) It is *unalienable* which means it is above the reach of government. Government has NO JURISDICTION over *unalienable* Rights.
> 
> In the Constitution, we created the equivalent of a contract between we, the people, and that entity called government. That contract applied only to the posterity of the white race and that entity called government. (See the United States Supreme Court decision Dred Scott v. Sanford)
> 
> The 14th Amendment nullified the ruling in Dred Scott v. Sanford. The 14th Amendment guarantees to ALL PERSONS (not citizens) the now privilege (NOT RIGHT) of*Liberty*.
> 
> It's obvious to me that you have not studied law or history so you don't know which of those positions you are taking. But, so far what you articulate is the third position. Government grants you your rights? Is that your position? So, you have NO Rights... no Right to own a firearm, no Right to choose your own religion (or no religion), no Right to Freedom of Speech or Privacy; no Right to Due Process, etc. You're going to put government in charge of that? Really? So, what you're arguing is that government is in the Rights granting business? I want you think about where you stand on this and get back to me. The balance of your post is in my next reply.
> 
> 
> 3. Labor participation is rising steadily. We must be doing something right. Let's keep doing it, and see what happens. I am happy to consider reforms on criminal records, as an additional help.
> 
> 4 . Not allowing foreigners to flood the US labor market, is not a racial or ethnic quota system.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Then you dropped the ball this time.
> 
> 
> 2. The status quo exists because of a the complete failure of our political class. My talking points are not the cause of the problem.
> 
> 4. People are already Incentivized to work. Increasing employment is not a bad idea, but it, at best, would reduce the demand for illegals, somewhat.
> 
> 5. The misapplication of the 14th, is a big part of the problem, and undoing that would be a large help. But regardless of whether that happens or not, we need to deport those we can, and secure the border to greatly reduce those coming.
> 
> 
> 6. I am well aware of how late in the game it is. Allowing them to keep coming in, basically unchecked, is only going to make it worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  Sorry, dude.  I didn't drop any ball.  You thought it would be cool to disrespect me out of the chute.  Fuck with me again and I'll prove to every poster that stops by that you're a liar.  I *WILL* take the time to reread the thread.  You haven't read it *ONCE* yet.
> 
> 2)   Your talking points ARE the reason nothing gets done.  You've admitted that you are wholly ignorant of both immigration laws and history.  I'm not
> 
> 3)  You had no number 3 to respond to
> 
> 4)  If people are so incentivized, why do we have more people on drugs than any country in the world?  Work with me and I'll teach you how to dispel that myth.  I know a LOT of guys in their 20s through their 50s who don't have an education, no job skills, no drivers license in many cases, and have NO INTENTION OF EVER GOING TO WORK.  Their mothers feed and house them; Uncle Scam gives them a welfare check and there is no reason on God's green earth they cannot work a job.  What you believe from the security of your keyboard is inconsistent with the real world.  That is why I challenge you every day to work with me for a week.  You could be sad to learn you've spouted absolute horseshit
> 
> 5)  There is no misapplication of the 14th Amendment.  It's doing exactly what its authors intended.  The problem is, the Amendment was illegally ratified
> 
> 6)   There is no way you "_check_" people coming in.  Their government is not likely to give you the straight skinny; many things that are crimes here are NOT crimes in foreign countries; under the 14th Amendment everyone is given the *equal protection of the laws*.  If the Right to Privacy cannot protect the foreigner, it damn well cannot protect you.  If the foreigner has no presupposition of innocence, neither do you.  I don't like your trade-off.
> 
> If one employer can hire a foreigner and another cannot, then quotas fail the employer's Right to the equal protection of the laws.  Either every person has a guarantee of Liberty or they don't.  So, which is it?
> 
> You're either a Preamble Citizen where the Constitution is about you and your Rights *OR *you are a subject under the 14th Amendment with limited privileges and immunities that the government doles out to foreigners as well as the citizenry.  There is NO provision in the 14th Amendment allowing the government to limit Liberty or the equal protection of the laws to what you erroneously call _"legal_" citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Post 658, you were unable to make the connection between your use of "their" and my use of "they". I asked if you were stupid, or just playing stupid. I'm still a little suspicious of your confusion, but I was the first to insult. My Bad.
> 
> 2. What should be happening is that the government should be enforcing the freaking laws. That that is not happening is not because I saying that I want it to be done. Your explanation makes no sense.
> 
> 4. A number of factors, one of the big ones is that we have had such long wage stagnation that unskilled or semiskilled people have great difficulty finding a job with any prospects, imo. Let's fix that and see if it encourages people to build lives instead of doing drugs.
> 
> 5. It was written so that the children of slaves would be treated as citizens. It is not doing that. It is being misused.
> 
> 6. If a government will not work with US, in doing back ground checks on it's citizens who want to move here, than we should not accept ANY of their citizens who want to come here. That is not a violation of equal protection, because they have no right to come here. We have to be convinced that they are someone we want to be part of our community.
> 
> 
> 7. I don't see why a limited number of foreigners, so that some employers can hire a foreigner and some of forced to hire Americans, because their are no foreigners available for them, is a violation of equal protection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's almost funny that in saying you're sorry, you have to insult me.  Be that as it may, I'll answer your responses once again:
> 
> 1)  The government does enforce the laws.  It's just that the law does not say what you want it to say.  Unless the immigration officials interact with a foreigner at the border, that foreigner has the same basic rights as you do.  The United States Supreme Court has ruled that being in the United States without papers is not a crime.
> 
> Since about 1804 (IIRC) when the United States Supreme Court (questionably) declared themselves to be the final arbiter of the law, not even God almighty has seen fit to over-rule them.  In my mind it should not take a law degree from Harvard to understand that if you deny to *ALL* foreigners the equal protection of the laws, *YOUR* Rights are then in jeopardy.  But, sadly, that is a fact nobody seems to appreciate until it's *THEIR ass *on the line.  If you were looking at 25 to life and the government did not extend Due Process to you, your personal outlook would be different.
> 
> Next, when a law violates the Constitution, the people are not required to obey it.  Again, that is the word of the United States Supreme Court.  I suppose you want people *forced* to obey every law ever passed?  How do you suppose that the blacks got to be so politically powerful AND without a war in this country?  What this boils down to is either you believe that *everybody* in this country is due the guarantee of Liberty *OR *you believe that the Constitution is specific to the posterity of the Constitution in the Preamble.  It can't be both.
> 
> 2)  The 14th Amendment has been ruled by the United States Supreme Court, the final arbiters of what the law is (Google Marbury v. Madison), that anyone born in the United States is a citizen.  No branch of government, certainly no LEO has the authority or the power to over-rule the United States Supreme Court.  FWIW, Wikipedia has this to say:
> 
> "_The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship for nearly all individuals born in the United States, provided that their parents are foreign citizens, have permanent domicile status in the United States, and are engaging in business in the United States except performing in a diplomatic or official capacity of a foreign power_."
> 
> Anchor baby - Wikipedia
> 
> 3)  To your credit, you did preface your notions about employment with _"imo._"  What I can say to you is that I work full time trying to get Americans, mostly white, to go back to work.  If you work with me for one week I will fix your erroneous opinion.  There is nothing like real hard core experience - and some of my own opinions were put to the test some years ago.  I got involved so that critics could not call me dumb, stupid, uneducated... or their favorites neo- nazi, prejudiced, racist, bigot.  So, I did it.  I challenge you to work with me for one week and you'll see the sorriest sons of bitches on God's green earth.  They will be Americans
> 
> 4)  If any employer is denied the same Right to hire a foreigner, then he does not have an equal opportunity.  When I was 17, they implemented racial quotas and affirmative action.  I lost my job due to the color of my skin.  That winter I spent it in a mobile home with no electricity or running water.  Since that time I have not supported preferential hiring schemes.
> 
> Furthermore, carrying your logic to its final destination, if we "enforced" the laws as it applies to foreigners the way you demand, millions of homes and apartments would belong to the government; most corporations would be shut down; *YOU* would probably be in prison... because Walmart was *convicted* of knowingly using subcontractors that hired undocumented workers.  So, if the government owns the jobs as you contend and an undocumented foreigner got hired by that corporation (or its subsidiaries) and you shopped there, then you just received stolen property (since the profit belonged to the subjects of the state as opposed to the business.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The millions of illegals that cross the border without being interacted with by the government is not "enforcing". THe millions that come here and over stay, without ever being followed up on, without or without due process, is not "Enforcing".
> 
> 
> 2. THe ruling was a stupid and wrong rulings. Whether it is overturned  or not, that is still the case. Hopefully it will be reversed at somepoint, though the damage to the nation my already be mortal.
> 
> 
> 3. Labor participation is rising steadily. We must be doing something right. Let's keep doing it, and see what happens. I am happy to consider reforms on criminal records, as an additional help.
> 
> 4 . Not allowing foreigners to flood the US labor market, is not a racial or ethnic quota system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am responding to numbers 2 through 4, my first reply to number precedes this.  Hopefully this works:
> 
> 2)  I have quoted United States Supreme Court rulings.  Under our Constitution the United States Supreme Court does not have the authority to reverse their rulings.  That is legislating from the bench.  Yes, they do it and yes, Trump stacked the Court hoping they would change precedents.  I know this will fly over your head, but Kamala Harris has said if she becomes president, she will use Executive Orders to put America out of the gun business... she won't stop there.  Being a second generation immigrant, she disagrees with you 100 percent.
> 
> There will be life after Trump.  A Democrat will eventually come to power.  Now how much leeway you give them is up to you, but when the liberals use YOUR precedents against you, then you might begin to understand why what you're advocating is foolish
> 
> 3)  If you think that we're doing is working, keep doing it and abandon this silliness that it can only take place with a wall.  You just testified against your own wallist religion
> 
> 4)  Denying people the equal protection of the laws is unconstitutional, Correll.  Furthermore, the current laws were put into place to disenfranchise the white people and then those quotas would be used to help the Republic implode.  The laws did exactly what they were supposed to do.  You have to decide what side of the issue you're really on.  So far you've disagreed with real conservatives like Ronald Reagan - who opposed the nutty wall idea AND opposed quotas.
Click to expand...




1.  The Declaration states that RIghts are god given. That the Constitution provides a "contract" between the people and the government to "secure the blessings" of those rights  is not the same as GRANTING those rights. I don't see a contradiction there.

2. A court can reverse previous rulings. That is NOT "legislating from the bench". Trump, filling vacancies is not "stacking" the court, but normal filling of vacancies. 

I reject your argument that the lefties care about precedence. When they get the power, they will use it, whether they have to ignore the law, and/or precedent or not. We already see this type of behavior. 


3. What we are doing in the context of labor participation is working and we should do more of it. That was unfair of you to take that out of context to another issue. A wall will help do more of restricting labor pool, to get rising wages. 


4. Foreigners do not have the right to come to this country. That is not an equal protection of the law issue. They have the full rights of citizens in their own countries. I have no right to move to, say Bermuda and become a citizen there.


----------

