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

[Indeependent]

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Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.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.

If you cannot understand the relevancy, you should never challenge anyone here on what is legal or illegal.

I guess that’s why we have entire legal libraries filled with case law.

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.

Translation:
Your feelings got hurt.

 

[Indeependent]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

“I’m a Liberal; if you disagree with me, you’re a Nazi!”.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

If you cannot understand the relevancy, you should never challenge anyone here on what is legal or illegal.

I guess that’s why we have entire legal libraries filled with case law.

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.

Translation:
Your feelings got hurt.

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]

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.

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.

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.

Jewish communist wannabe wants to use words he don't know the definition of... you don't impress me Groucho.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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!”.

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]

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.

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.

Nope. That is Rush Limbaugh's imaginary definition of "Sanctuary city"

 

[Vandalshandle]

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.

 

[Indeependent]

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.

I guess that’s why we have entire legal libraries filled with case law.

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.

Translation:
Your feelings got hurt.

Translation: You want to pick an Internet fight because you don't have the balls to go out in public with that attitude.

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]

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.

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.

“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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

Groucho had a way of cutting to the truth.
The ramifications of off-shoring, Business Visas and illegals are destructive.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

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!”.

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.

You are only consistent with inconsistency. No wall and statistical zero unemployment. Conclusion: states are right.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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]

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.

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.

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.

You believe in communism so your opinions don't count to me.

 

[Indeependent]

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.

“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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

From which post did you derive your ad hominem?
Answer without using yet another ad hominem.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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!

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.