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

[Aba Incieni]

Not by illegals.

there is no express immigration clause; what illegals are you referring to?

Those without immigration papers.

show me the immigration clause. get legal to Constitutional law, right wingers. don't be practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy but blame the less fortunate.

They're deporting illegals by the tens of thousands. Maybe you should sue. haha

only illegals don't care about the law.

That's why they're illegal.

 

[danielpalos]

there is no express immigration clause; what illegals are you referring to?

Those without immigration papers.

show me the immigration clause. get legal to Constitutional law, right wingers. don't be practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy but blame the less fortunate.

They're deporting illegals by the tens of thousands. Maybe you should sue. haha

only illegals don't care about the law.

That's why they're illegal.

attention span challenged?

show me the immigration clause. get legal to Constitutional law, right wingers. don't be practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy but blame the less fortunate.

 

[jc456]

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

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

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

I'd say that would be a deterrent, don't you?

 

[danielpalos]

the right wing only cares about natural rights in abortion threads. how amoral is that.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Those without immigration papers.

show me the immigration clause. get legal to Constitutional law, right wingers. don't be practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy but blame the less fortunate.

They're deporting illegals by the tens of thousands. Maybe you should sue. haha

only illegals don't care about the law.

That's why they're illegal.

attention span challenged?

show me the immigration clause. get legal to Constitutional law, right wingers. don't be practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy but blame the less fortunate.

If you think they're being deported illegally, then sue to stop it.

 

[danielpalos]

show me the immigration clause. get legal to Constitutional law, right wingers. don't be practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy but blame the less fortunate.

They're deporting illegals by the tens of thousands. Maybe you should sue. haha

only illegals don't care about the law.

That's why they're illegal.

attention span challenged?

show me the immigration clause. get legal to Constitutional law, right wingers. don't be practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy but blame the less fortunate.

If you think they're being deported illegally, then sue to stop it.

it takes a petty cash fund for that purpose. maybe we can ask for community service for Mr. Avenati?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

If you read the damn link, it will answer your question... and no it don't have shit to do with slaves. Read beyond slavery. Chief Justice Taney explains citizenship and the rights of states in unequivocal language. I'm not going to summarize it so you can debate it. You'll have to read it on your own. If you want to be IN this discussion, at least know the very bare bones basics.

I've read the summary. Dred Scott v. Sandford - Case Summary and Case Brief
The issue is slavery as I first instantly surmised. If you think Scott v Sanford gives states the right to ignore federal immigration law (does Vermont have the right to begin admitting hundreds of Russians bypassing federal law...of course not) you should try to prove that though I understand why you won't try.

It's a crock!

 

[Aba Incieni]

They're deporting illegals by the tens of thousands. Maybe you should sue. haha

only illegals don't care about the law.

That's why they're illegal.

attention span challenged?

show me the immigration clause. get legal to Constitutional law, right wingers. don't be practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy but blame the less fortunate.

If you think they're being deported illegally, then sue to stop it.

it takes a petty cash fund for that purpose. maybe we can ask for community service for Mr. Avenati?

It's not my fault you're broke. See if you can get something from the Open Borders clause.

 

[danielpalos]

only illegals don't care about the law.

That's why they're illegal.

attention span challenged?

show me the immigration clause. get legal to Constitutional law, right wingers. don't be practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy but blame the less fortunate.

If you think they're being deported illegally, then sue to stop it.

it takes a petty cash fund for that purpose. maybe we can ask for community service for Mr. Avenati?

It's not my fault you're broke. See if you can get something from the Open Borders clause.

we have an express establishment clause for naturalization, every time we have to quibble about right wing motives and right wing bigotry.

 

[Aba Incieni]

That's why they're illegal.

attention span challenged?

show me the immigration clause. get legal to Constitutional law, right wingers. don't be practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy but blame the less fortunate.

If you think they're being deported illegally, then sue to stop it.

it takes a petty cash fund for that purpose. maybe we can ask for community service for Mr. Avenati?

It's not my fault you're broke. See if you can get something from the Open Borders clause.

we have an express establishment clause for naturalization, every time we have to quibble about right wing motives and right wing bigotry.

That's called the legal way. I went through it myself. You should advocate legality.

 

[danielpalos]

attention span challenged?

show me the immigration clause. get legal to Constitutional law, right wingers. don't be practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy but blame the less fortunate.

If you think they're being deported illegally, then sue to stop it.

it takes a petty cash fund for that purpose. maybe we can ask for community service for Mr. Avenati?

It's not my fault you're broke. See if you can get something from the Open Borders clause.

we have an express establishment clause for naturalization, every time we have to quibble about right wing motives and right wing bigotry.

That's called the legal way. I went through it myself. You should advocate legality.

there is no immigration clause.

 

[Aba Incieni]

If you think they're being deported illegally, then sue to stop it.

it takes a petty cash fund for that purpose. maybe we can ask for community service for Mr. Avenati?

It's not my fault you're broke. See if you can get something from the Open Borders clause.

we have an express establishment clause for naturalization, every time we have to quibble about right wing motives and right wing bigotry.

That's called the legal way. I went through it myself. You should advocate legality.

there is no immigration clause.

Nor Open International Border clause.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

WRONG. Many people get an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number. That is how they end up getting money back on their American born children.

There is something wrong with you for making National Socialist talking points sound like that's all you know AND then not reading a single link. Can you wallists be any more uneducated!!!!

Let's go you one better. Undocumented foreigners pay $13 BILLION DOLLARS every year into Socialist Security. They will not draw out one thin dime in retirement. When you guys start screwing with the checks of people on Socialist Security and disability - making their checks go south, they will have yet another reason to vote your side out of office.

Why in the Hell do you keep defending a plank out of the Communist Manifesto?

Sorry, illegally entering the country, working under the table, using false SS#s, are all theft.

No matter how hard you stomp your foot.

I'm not stomping my feet. I'm watching desperate people squirm, as they realize they are trying to justify communism on their support of the income tax. An Individual Taxpayer Identification Number is NOT working under the table. Furthermore, the 16th Amendment was illegally ratified.

As I keep telling Correll, we almost got rid of the Socialist Surveillance Number (Social Security Number) until the National Socialists showed up and got the National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify crap implemented. Had we gotten rid of the SSN and the income tax, everybody would pay a small tax and it would have been unavoidable (no big tax write offs for the rich, no child care advantages for the third worlders with half a dozen kids) But, your side didn't like that. With no federal income tax to bitch about, it began to destroy the pretext you hide behind in order to turn America into a socialist shithole. Your support of a plank out of the Communist Manifesto is duly noted.

Thank you for confirming what I've been saying.

Illegal is theft. Backing thieves is no way to go through life, son.

Stealing the fruits of my labor via an illegally ratified Amendment which was taken from the Communist Manifesto is theft. So son, if you are backing the "law" on that point, you ARE a thief. You are also a traitor to this country.

Says the payaso with papers. lol

Now you're just trolling.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

If you read the damn link, it will answer your question... and no it don't have shit to do with slaves. Read beyond slavery. Chief Justice Taney explains citizenship and the rights of states in unequivocal language. I'm not going to summarize it so you can debate it. You'll have to read it on your own. If you want to be IN this discussion, at least know the very bare bones basics.

I've read the summary. Dred Scott v. Sandford - Case Summary and Case Brief
The issue is slavery as I first instantly surmised. If you think Scott v Sanford gives states the right to ignore federal immigration law (does Vermont have the right to begin admitting hundreds of Russians bypassing federal law...of course not) you should try to prove that though I understand why you won't try.

It's a crock!

You read a summary? Really? That's what you're building your case on? What fucking idiocy! You're about as qualified to discuss this topic as Nancy Pelosi is qualified to talk about gun Rights.

Chief Justice Taney, in that opinion of the court, spends approximately twenty or so pages talking about things related to this subject and has nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with the subject at hand.

In order for federal immigration laws to be valid, they must follow the Constitution. Otherwise, the United States Supreme Court has opined that you have no obligation to obey them. So, no matter WHO subverts the Constitution (and the United States Supreme Court subverted the immigration laws), the law is invalid if it doesn't follow the Constitution.

What Taney wrote gave a great insight to our laws and it is worth reading it unless you want to do the same research he did. We're talking bare bones with that opinion. I worked in immigration law for six years before I fully understood it and all you read is the summary of ONE CASE? You don't even have the mental capacity to read the case and what the Chief Justice wrote?

Don't shit yourself. You are not in my league. Once you've read a couple of hundred books on American history, jurisprudence, citizenship, immigration law, unconstitutional Amendments, and what the founders thought about Freedom, Liberty, and unalienable Rights will you be able to compete in this discussion. If all your mental capacity can handle is one case summary (not the case itself) you are not mentally / academically unqualified to be IN this discussion.

I'll post the links once more and you will see that you don't know what the Hell you're talking about and changing the subject, deflecting, using straw man arguments and non sequitirs won't save you. SOME people ARE accessing the links and figuring out what a dolt you really are:

Scott v. Sandford

http://understandcontractlawandyouw...e/1/state-citizenship-federal-citizenship.pdf

State Citizenship Has Roots in American History - NYTimes.com

American Citizen, or U.S. citizen?


http://understandcontractlawandyouw...e/1/state-citizenship-federal-citizenship.pdf

It wasn't until 1875 that an illegal action (on the Judicial Dept.'s side) took place before the federal government could claim any power on the issue. So, they have lots of power - just NO authority and you cannot show me different in the Constitution. You are pushing this country toward the NEW WORLD ORDER / One World Government - POLICE STATE that goes beyond Orwellian proportions. And all your education allowed you to be able to read is a summary of ONE CASE??? What a joke!

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You're such an impressive authority on the matter ( ) yet you cannot boil the issue down to it's essential and relevant points when it comes to a state's ability to override federal authority on the matter?
Why do your claims and bloviating seem like such blustering bullshit? Because they are and you've not demonstrated otherwise. You only claim you know best and that's not good enough.

I will take it for granted that any reasonably sharp thinker can easily and empirically reason that if you were remotely correct California would not be constrained at all by who they let cross their borders. And yet they are. The federal government controls who gets into California or any other state that shares a border with another nation. It's not up to California. Or Washington. Or Maine. Or Alaska. The feds are in control.

I guess your long pointless posts must be therapeutic for you in some way but they mean nothing to me or anyone else as long as you insist you know something but won't specifically state what that is. Rave on!

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You're such an impressive authority on the matter ( ) yet you cannot boil the issue down to it's essential and relevant points when it comes to a state's ability to override federal authority on the matter?
Why do your claims and bloviating seem like such blustering bullshit? Because they are and you've not demonstrated otherwise. You only claim you know best and that's not good enough.

I will take it for granted that any reasonably sharp thinker can easily and empirically reason that if you were remotely correct California would not be constrained at all by who they let cross their borders. And yet they are. The federal government controls who gets into California or any other state that shares a border with another nation. It's not up to California. Or Washington. Or Maine. Or Alaska. The feds are in control.

I guess your long pointless posts must be therapeutic for you in some way but they mean nothing to me or anyone else as long as you insist you know something but won't specifically state what that is. Rave on!

A poster made a vague reference here that he thought I was too afraid to say things to his face. I assured him I have never backed down from anybody. As a matter of FACT, rather than "bloviate" as you think a couple of paragraphs are doing, I'd rather face someone than to do ten paragraphs (which should take less than three minutes to read.) You want a college degree in the form of a Tweet. I'm going to answer all your questions. Pay close attention:

1) If you think 10 or less paragraphs are bloviating (sic) and you're too lazy to read, you should stay off the Internet and not pretend to discuss issues. You don't pack the gear

2) The relationship between the government and the states is simple:

The federal government lacks the AUTHORITY to do a lot of what it does. They get away with it because they are bigger than the states and, consequently, have the POWER. The feds and the liberals say fuck the law. I don't want to read it. I want what I want; I'll pass a law and then do what I want.

Today, the right has become lap dogs for the left and they do the same thing. I still recall George W saying "the Constitution wasn't anything a god damned piece of paper." So, hiding behind the law is dishonest, cowardly and as low as you can go. If you cannot find it in the Constitution, you owe it to yourself to find out WHY

3) America has two separate and distinct governments competing inside it. One is a de facto / illegal / unconstitutional Federal - Legislative Democracy (owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations) while the other is the de jure / legal / constitutional Republic guaranteed in Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution. I represent the de jure / legal / constitutional Republic; you represent the de facto / illegal / Federal Legislative Democracy

4) You started out insulting me and pretending to know more than you do. Now you're too lazy to read a link and you want me to do your work for you and summarize it? Trying to be a smart ass toward me isn't going to work for you. What it says is that you are lazy, unqualified, uninformed, and little more than a shill for the National Socialists OR maybe one of their useful idiots.

Other people may read this exchange; they might access the links are read them. Then they will understand that you were trying to blow smoke up their ass and that the wallists only understand their religion. They are basically high school dropouts that are frustrated due to their own failures in life. But, in answer to your question: If a man runs into a restaurant and pulls out a pistol and tells the patrons to empty their pockets, they're going to do it. He has the POWER. It's illegal, but he has the POWER. He doesn't have the AUTHORITY, but he has the POWER.

You cannot find the shit you're arguing for in the Constitution and you have NO CLUE as to when and under what circumstances the government began usurping POWER and now nobody wants to tell the town bully they don't have the AUTHORITY. If you cannot show me your position in the Constitution, then you should read the Tenth Amendment.


Scott v. Sandford

http://understandcontractlawandyouwin.com/state-citizenship-federal-citizenship/

State Citizenship Has Roots in American History - NYTimes.com

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

2) The relationship between the government and the states is simple:

The federal government lacks the AUTHORITY to do a lot of what it does. They get away with it because they are bigger than the states and, consequently, have the POWER. The feds and the liberals say fuck the law. I don't want to read it. I want what I want; I'll pass a law and then do what I want.

Today, the right has become lap dogs for the left and they do the same thing. I still recall George W saying "the Constitution wasn't anything a god damned piece of paper." So, hiding behind the law is dishonest, cowardly and as low as you can go. If you cannot find it in the Constitution, you owe it to yourself to find out WHY

I remember covering this point many days ago. I'll cover it one last time and then just assume when you ignore it that you are a raving lunatic and not worth anyone's time.

The primary responsibility of the federal government is to defend and protect the constituent states from outside threats. AND from each other. A Constitutional Basis for Defense

So that means if California decides it would be a good idea if they simply let the uneducated unskilled peasant underclass of Mexico and Central America flow unregulated into their state, the more the better, then there is someone there to protect the other states from this invasion when they, foreign nationals, flow outside of California's border and spread throughout the land (which is more or less what is happening now).
That's insanity.

4) You started out insulting me and pretending to know more than you do. Now you're too lazy to read a link and you want me to do your work for you and summarize it? Trying to be a smart ass toward me isn't going to work for you. What it says is that you are lazy, unqualified, uninformed, and little more than a shill for the National Socialists OR maybe one of their useful idiots.

I'm not too lazy to read something that doesn't waste my time and is worthwhile!!

You haven't given me the slightest reason to believe your Dred Scott nonsense is worth going over. You could simply produce the pertinent parts of your argument but you haven't so fuck you....I'm not wasting my time on your say so which, if you don't mind, has yet to make me think for a second you know what you're talking about.

If you're good insisting you know what you are talking about despite all I know the Constitution (as reflected in my link) and the fact that you won't produce a single thought of your own explaining your views then I'm very happy to write you off as far right winger, I think, who is so far down his own personal rabbit hole he will never reappear.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

2) The relationship between the government and the states is simple:

The federal government lacks the AUTHORITY to do a lot of what it does. They get away with it because they are bigger than the states and, consequently, have the POWER. The feds and the liberals say fuck the law. I don't want to read it. I want what I want; I'll pass a law and then do what I want.

Today, the right has become lap dogs for the left and they do the same thing. I still recall George W saying "the Constitution wasn't anything a god damned piece of paper." So, hiding behind the law is dishonest, cowardly and as low as you can go. If you cannot find it in the Constitution, you owe it to yourself to find out WHY

I remember covering this point many days ago. I'll cover it one last time and then just assume when you ignore it that you are a raving lunatic and not worth anyone's time.

The primary responsibility of the federal government is to defend and protect the constituent states from outside threats. AND from each other. A Constitutional Basis for Defense

So that means if California decides it would be a good idea if they simply let the uneducated unskilled peasant underclass of Mexico and Central America flow unregulated into their state, the more the better, then there is someone there to protect the other states from this invasion when they, foreign nationals, flow outside of California's border and spread throughout the land (which is more or less what is happening now).
That's insanity.

4) You started out insulting me and pretending to know more than you do. Now you're too lazy to read a link and you want me to do your work for you and summarize it? Trying to be a smart ass toward me isn't going to work for you. What it says is that you are lazy, unqualified, uninformed, and little more than a shill for the National Socialists OR maybe one of their useful idiots.

I'm not too lazy to read something that doesn't waste my time and is worthwhile!!

You haven't given me the slightest reason to believe your Dred Scott nonsense is worth going over. You could simply produce the pertinent parts of your argument but you haven't so fuck you....I'm not wasting my time on your say so which, if you don't mind, has yet to make me think for a second you know what you're talking about.

If you're good insisting you know what you are talking about despite all I know the Constitution (as reflected in my link) and the fact that you won't produce a single thought of your own explaining your views then I'm very happy to write you off as far right winger, I think, who is so far down his own personal rabbit hole he will never reappear.

I'm not wasting time with your dumb ass either. If the governor of California says he does not have a National Emergency, the president cannot will one on him.

Donald Trump could then ask Congress for a Declaration of War, but he has no constitutional jurisdiction to dictate to California...

Your questions will all be answered in the links provided. If you're too lazy to read, your side will ultimately lose because Donald Trump cannot disagree with the governors of states and impose his will. Let me rephrase: He cannot do it constitutionally - which is why the governors are telling him to go pound sand.

Your claim is groundless. The American people in all the affected states willingly do business with the foreigners. You may perceive it as insanity, but when the public is willingly hiring, renting to, buying from and otherwise doing business with those foreigners, you don't have a case. Wanting to punish those Americans who do engage in free trade with them shows your true colors. There are solutions and remedies, but if you are not informed and educated, bumper sticker solutions aren't going to get you anywhere. Enjoy this election cycle because you are going to cost the Republicans the next one and then you will have NO RECOURSE and a bunch of pissed off third worlders.


Scott v. Sandford

http://understandcontractlawandyouw...e/1/state-citizenship-federal-citizenship.pdf

State Citizenship Has Roots in American History - NYTimes.com

American Citizen, or U.S. citizen?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I'm not wasting time with your dumb ass either. If the governor of California says he does not have a National Emergency, the president cannot will one on him.

Just as the governor of California cannot control who comes into his state from Mexico. The feds do that and if someone isn't legally entitled to enter he or she may not do so.
Newsom and his largely illegal base can go pound sand.

Donald Trump could then ask Congress for a Declaration of War, but he has no constitutional jurisdiction to dictate to California.

Straw man. I haven't claimed otherwise.

Your questions will all be answered in the links provided. If you're too lazy to read, your side will ultimately lose because Donald Trump cannot disagree with the governors of states and impose his will. Let me rephrase: He cannot do it constitutionally - which is why the governors are telling him to go pound sand.

A few are, like Lujan -Grisham of New Mexico. That's for the voters of New Mexico to rectify. The other governors not at all.
Border security is a very strong issue that will sweep Trump back into office, among others.
Suck on that, greedy turncoat.

Your claim is groundless. The American people in all the affected states willingly do business with the foreigners. You may perceive it as insanity, but when the public is willingly hiring, renting to, buying from and otherwise doing business with those foreigners, you don't have a case. Wanting to punish those Americans who do engage in free trade with them shows your true colors.

Yes. I moved from one of these sanctuary counties in California and I've seen all the native American workers displaced and put out of business. Don't talk to me about "true colors" you shitbag!

You hold the flag in one hand spouting your "good American values" and talk of the Constitution while you stick a knife in the back of American taxpayers and workers with the other. You sound like those asshole Chamber of Commerce republicans whose first and only allegiance is to their own bank account.
Finally you identify yourself and where your interests lie and it's enough to make someone puke.

There are solutions and remedies, but if you are not informed and educated, bumper sticker solutions aren't going to get you anywhere. Enjoy this election cycle because you are going to cost the Republicans the next one and then you will have NO RECOURSE and a bunch of pissed off third worlders.

I think not you greedy coward.

 

[Correll]

Let me assure you son, I would have NO trouble calling you a neo nazi to your face. I've marched in more marches, fought in more fights, and went face to face with the best the left or the right had to offer.

1. THe claim that violence, at least from the right, is on the rise, is vile demagogue panic mongering.

2. Trump is not responsible for the little violence coming from the right.

3. My political support of Trump is quite reasonable, considering his policies support my interests and the nation's. You are an asshole.

4. Just review his wikapedia page. Saw no connections to white supremacists. Pointing out that "half the violence" at charlottesville was from the Left, is hardly "ties to white supremacists. Support your vile claim or apologize.

Did it ever dawn on you that you can never make your point without being the first to start name calling? Did you ever think that maybe you're projecting and it's really YOU that is an asshole? Of course you didn't. You didn't think. That's why you still support Trump after he took a giant dump on the Constitution.

If not for white supremacists, Trump would have NO support for the nutty wall idea which is the

The massive immigration is handing this country over to the Third World.

It's YOUR side that wants to make citizens out of them; it's YOUR side that let the precedent stand that undocumented foreigners had civil rights that trumped private property owners rights. It was YOUR side that lost the United States Supreme Court case wherein the high Court ruled that being in the United States without documentation is not a crime. Additionally Printz v. U.S. was started by conservative right wingers and the United States Supreme Court ruled in that case that state and local governments cannot be forced into enforcing federal laws.

So, we're agreed on the problem, but you think you're entitled to avoid being held accountable for the strategies of YOUR side???

Immigration = citizenship. That is how the third world is taking over and THAT is the primary disagreement we have.

1. When some asshole starts throwing around the racist or the white supremacist accusation based on nothing but shit, they are the ones being assholes, and I respond accordingly.


2. I do not want to make citizens out of them. That is just something you keep trying to assign to me, based on your odd game of 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon. My point stands. The massive immigration is handing this country over to the Third World, and your game of blaming me for it, is irrelevant to that.

1) You cannot change what IS. Your position has its roots in National Socialist think tanks. It is not bullshit my man, but cold hard facts. And if you ever want to grow a set of balls and go with me, I can introduce you to them as I debated and discussed these issues with them, face to face, decades ago. You persistently denying what is true makes you look like an idiot, so you resort to calling people names - names you don't call people in public... for if you did, we'd be reading about how someone fed you your teeth

2) The ONLY thing you crow about is this "legal" angle. You claim to have no problem if people come here "legally." It's a bullshit argument since it does not exist in constitutional law (as the Constitution was originally written and intended.)

If you don't understand the immigration laws, get with me in PM and I can start educating you. What you advocate ultimately ends in citizenship. THAT, sir, where your "legal" bullshit argument ultimately ends up at.

1. The idea of controlling borders is not a Nazi idea. I have never had some one call me a nazi or a racist in public the way that some are so comfortable doing here. It seems that the assholes that like to call other people such names, are the ones that behave differently face to face.


2. This thread is about illegal immigration, hence my discussion of illegal immigration. But I do not support legal Third World immigration either. Indeed, i believe that we have had too much of all forms of immigration over the last 50 years.

1. THe claim that violence, at least from the right, is on the rise, is vile demagogue panic mongering.

2. Trump is not responsible for the little violence coming from the right.

3. My political support of Trump is quite reasonable, considering his policies support my interests and the nation's. You are an asshole.

4. Just review his wikapedia page. Saw no connections to white supremacists. Pointing out that "half the violence" at charlottesville was from the Left, is hardly "ties to white supremacists. Support your vile claim or apologize.

Did it ever dawn on you that you can never make your point without being the first to start name calling? Did you ever think that maybe you're projecting and it's really YOU that is an asshole? Of course you didn't. You didn't think. That's why you still support Trump after he took a giant dump on the Constitution.

If not for white supremacists, Trump would have NO support for the nutty wall idea which is the

The massive immigration is handing this country over to the Third World.

It's YOUR side that wants to make citizens out of them; it's YOUR side that let the precedent stand that undocumented foreigners had civil rights that trumped private property owners rights. It was YOUR side that lost the United States Supreme Court case wherein the high Court ruled that being in the United States without documentation is not a crime. Additionally Printz v. U.S. was started by conservative right wingers and the United States Supreme Court ruled in that case that state and local governments cannot be forced into enforcing federal laws.

So, we're agreed on the problem, but you think you're entitled to avoid being held accountable for the strategies of YOUR side???

Immigration = citizenship. That is how the third world is taking over and THAT is the primary disagreement we have.

1. When some asshole starts throwing around the racist or the white supremacist accusation based on nothing but shit, they are the ones being assholes, and I respond accordingly.


2. I do not want to make citizens out of them. That is just something you keep trying to assign to me, based on your odd game of 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon. My point stands. The massive immigration is handing this country over to the Third World, and your game of blaming me for it, is irrelevant to that.

1) You cannot change what IS. Your position has its roots in National Socialist think tanks. It is not bullshit my man, but cold hard facts. And if you ever want to grow a set of balls and go with me, I can introduce you to them as I debated and discussed these issues with them, face to face, decades ago. You persistently denying what is true makes you look like an idiot, so you resort to calling people names - names you don't call people in public... for if you did, we'd be reading about how someone fed you your teeth

2) The ONLY thing you crow about is this "legal" angle. You claim to have no problem if people come here "legally." It's a bullshit argument since it does not exist in constitutional law (as the Constitution was originally written and intended.)

If you don't understand the immigration laws, get with me in PM and I can start educating you. What you advocate ultimately ends in citizenship. THAT, sir, where your "legal" bullshit argument ultimately ends up at.

1. The idea of controlling borders is not a Nazi idea. I have never had some one call me a nazi or a racist in public the way that some are so comfortable doing here. It seems that the assholes that like to call other people such names, are the ones that behave differently face to face.


2. This thread is about illegal immigration, hence my discussion of illegal immigration. But I do not support legal Third World immigration either. Indeed, i believe that we have had too much of all forms of immigration over the last 50 years.

Son, let me assure you that I have marched in more marches, been in more fights, even participated in an armed stand-off at one point in defense of what I believe. I've even manned that damn border. You haven't. When the Georgia Patriot Network used to meet in the Atlanta area not only did I finance the meetings, but I attended and at each meeting, I offered the mic both before and after each meeting. There is not a swinging dick on the face of this earth that I will not meet face to face.

So that you understand that, I have appeared on radio, tv and in newspapers. I publicly debated Hosea Williams, face to face on his tv show. He lost so decisively that they did not renew his show for another season. Ike Newkirk, a former radio talk show host on WSB had me on his radio program. He remarked that I was the first white guy willing to appear on his show, alone, and discuss racial issues from a conservative viewpoint.

IF I can get someone to help me get a podcast going, I will be doing that and setting up in public venues so that if / when people have an issue with me, I won't hide like a fucking rat. I keep hinting that these matters are better served in PM. That way if someone tells me to name the time and the place, no moderator will ban us for what goes on in PM. Make no mistake, I have never backed down from a challenge and I've had the cream of the crop (even alphabet agencies) go for the jugular.

Defending the border against threats and using the military to do domestic law enforcement are worlds apart. There is a law called the Posse Comitatus Act that prohibits the federal government from using federal military personnel in the enforcement of domestic policies within the United States. What you've been proposing is exactly that.

You want the military to do a job it is expressly forbidden to do. If you want a declaration of war, then lobby for one. I will not stand idly by while you and your ilk suggest illegal ways to enforce your concepts of right and wrong on the states. MAYBE if your dumb ass took a few weeks to study and research the links I leave for you, it might sink in.

Proof has been offered on this and many other threads that what you support is National Socialism. It's not a false allegation. It is FACT. It is an absolute FACT that you cannot dispute. When you advocate that the government control labor and distribution, that is the accepted definition of socialism. The FACT that the people you get your talking points from are Nazis is irrefutable. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has webbed feet and hangs out at the pond, it's probably not an elephant.

What you want is to impose on states rights and take a giant shit on the Bill of Rights. So far you've proven too ignorant to understand that, but you're the kind of guy that could be talked into selling Drano to brush teeth with. Yeah, it will get your teeth lily white, but at a cost of poisoning your brain. Now, if you had an IQ above your shoe size, you would take heed and access the following links and spend the day reading them before you continue that line of thought. I do have the ability to PM in addition to that:

Scott v. Sandford

http://understandcontractlawandyouwin.com/state-citizenship-federal-citizenship/

State Citizenship Has Roots in American History - NYTimes.com

A lot of talk to hide the fact that you are pretending that securing a border is a nazi idea.


It is not.