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

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

LOL.........over 70 million Americans think Larry is a hero!!Definitely a fuck the limpwristers moment!

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]

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]

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!

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]

With the examples of IM2, and Paul on this very site you can say that? LOL!!!!!

Yep

 

[Correll]

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.

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?

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.

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]

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.

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.

You sir, are a pathological liar.

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.

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.

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.

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!!!

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.

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]

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]

With the examples of IM2, and Paul on this very site you can say that? LOL!!!!!

Yep

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]

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?

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.

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.

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]

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.

You sir, are a pathological liar.

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.

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.

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!!!

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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?

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.

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.

1. I grant the many benefits of getting rid of the IRS.

2. But how do you consider that winning the immigration issue?

 

[Correll]

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.

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.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

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.

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?

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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;

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.

Only when called up for such service; otherwise it is merely a Citizen's arrest.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

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.

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?

Abolish our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror to stop creating so many refugees.

 

[Natural Citizen]

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]

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]

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.

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.