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

[Porter Rockwell]

The confused gentleman seems to be saying that if New Mexico or California want to let half of Mexico into their state
we have no business trying to stop them. That seems on the face of things to be absolute bullshit.

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

Your avatar pretty well told me that you were a liberal. But, unfortunately your mental disorder is not the issue.

The real issue is that the civilian militias got hoodwinked by the far left and now the whole militia concept is being ridiculed because of the wallists willingness to violate the Constitution they pretend to care about.

Illegals have caused massive unemployment amongst almost every blue collar worker and construction business owner I know.
Thanks to Trump, they are all making money after many years of GW and Obama.

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

Silence is superior to ad libbing nonsense when you have nothing factual to say.
The millions who have been adversely affected by globalism will once again vote for Trump and a border wall.

Trump IS a globalist. Those who want globalism are in favor of a wall.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

**** you and the horse you rode in on.

There are no "illegals" since we have a presumption of innocence.

You are a cancer on the face of humanity; you're a traitor; worse you are a political propaganda prostitute and a hate monger. You didn't impress me one damn bit.

Ad hominem coming from someone as dignified as yourself.
Color me shocked.
I’d appreciate your paying my property taxes to pay for their shelter, clothing, food and hospital emergency room use.

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

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

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

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

Yawn. What does your personal attack have to with the OP?

 

[Indeependent]

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

Your avatar pretty well told me that you were a liberal. But, unfortunately your mental disorder is not the issue.

The real issue is that the civilian militias got hoodwinked by the far left and now the whole militia concept is being ridiculed because of the wallists willingness to violate the Constitution they pretend to care about.

Illegals have caused massive unemployment amongst almost every blue collar worker and construction business owner I know.
Thanks to Trump, they are all making money after many years of GW and Obama.

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

Silence is superior to ad libbing nonsense when you have nothing factual to say.
The millions who have been adversely affected by globalism will once again vote for Trump and a border wall.

Trump IS a globalist. Those who want globalism are in favor of a wall.

Are you on drugs?
I have an idea...
Why don’t you define globalism?

 

[Indeependent]

Ad hominem coming from someone as dignified as yourself.
Color me shocked.
I’d appreciate your paying my property taxes to pay for their shelter, clothing, food and hospital emergency room use.

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

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

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

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

Yawn. What does your personal attack have to with the OP?

Uh, are you on drugs?
You’re the one attacking everyone who disagrees with you.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Your avatar pretty well told me that you were a liberal. But, unfortunately your mental disorder is not the issue.

The real issue is that the civilian militias got hoodwinked by the far left and now the whole militia concept is being ridiculed because of the wallists willingness to violate the Constitution they pretend to care about.

Illegals have caused massive unemployment amongst almost every blue collar worker and construction business owner I know.
Thanks to Trump, they are all making money after many years of GW and Obama.

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

Silence is superior to ad libbing nonsense when you have nothing factual to say.
The millions who have been adversely affected by globalism will once again vote for Trump and a border wall.

Trump IS a globalist. Those who want globalism are in favor of a wall.

Are you on drugs?
I have an idea...
Why don’t you define globalism?

I do not and have never taken drugs. How is that related to the thread?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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

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

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

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

Yawn. What does your personal attack have to with the OP?

Uh, are you on drugs?
You’re the one attacking everyone who disagrees with you.

I'm not attacking anyone. I met your criticisms tit for tat and challenged Correll on his stupid logic that, unless you're buying his magic elixir, you are against having a secure border.

Do you have something related to the OP or do you want to continue the pissing match? If you have something related to the OP, spit it out; if you need to speak with me one on one, PM me. But, if you insist on having a personality contest with me, you can expect me to ignore you. Unlike you, at least I HAVE a personality.

 

[Correll]

Local officials are under no obligation to enforce federal laws. The Supreme Court made it clear that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. It has nothing to do with Jim Crow laws.

It has everything to do with Jim Crow laws! You can't choose which laws you will observe and which laws you will ignore.
You have to be an absolute moron to deny that. No one is asking Libby Schaff or Gavin Newsom or Michelle Lujan-Grisham to conduct ICE raids themselves or track down the immigration status of the people they give cover to.

The very word "sanctuary" itself means a safe haven from the law. It means the law doesn't matter to sanctuary quislings in California or New Mexico or wherever it happens to be.

Can you let a rapist live in your home because you are under no obligation to help the police? You know damned well you would be arrested as an accessory to a crime if you did that. Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration shouldn't be an option
and show me any other law that you can choose not to observe. Name one! Go ahead.

Your lies are tiresome and bullshit. They aren't even effective as rhetorical devices. You cannot selectively apply the law!
Stop pretending, you ass!

I don't agree with some posters on their political stances many times. I do disagree with you on your knowledge of the law. Some of us have actually studied and worked in that field. Now, I've heard your opinion about this subject and I've looked into how the United States Supreme Court would answer you. Here it is:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

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

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Are you trying to imply that Immigration laws are unconstitutional and thus it is ok for sanctuary cities to ignore them?

How many times have I asked you to show me that section of the Constitution that gives the federal government jurisdiction over the states to invite whomever they choose to let in?

You try to make your life all about what you believe with this garden variety of questions like when did you quit beating your wife. What you need to do is step back and examine the issue from the perspective of others. The left and the right have appealed to each other. I'm on the outside, looking in. BOTH of you are going to the same destination, just by different routes. So, let me dumb this down for you.

There was a time in America when we respected the constitutional Rights of individuals and the federal government had some modicum of respect for states rights.
......

If the constitution does not have in it, any power granted to the federal government to control immigration, that is a failure of the Constitution.


We, as a nation, cannot survive in any meaningful way, without control of the flow of people across our borders.


Do the American people have the RIght to Self Determination, in your opinion?

 

[Correll]

I'm supporting the enforcement of our border, to prevent unlimited and unvetted Third World immigration into our nation.

YOu are attacking those who are tying to do that and supporting those who are encouraging the illegal immigration.


Please explain how you reached your above conclusion.

I reached my conclusion by working all sides of the immigration issue. I volunteered to work in a non-profit group that helped foreigners with immigration issues. In addition to that I spent a number of years manning the border with civilian border patrols. My resume would include having done research for John Tanton (who founded and runs such nonprofits as CIS, (Center for Immigration Studies), FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform), and Numbers USA. Much of my research from the late 1970s is STILL used by the neo-nazi groups that permeate the wallist propaganda machine. I know most of the movers and shakers on a first name basis.

I developed a number of research papers for right wing organizations over an 11 year period and spent 6 years working with foreigners in order to get a complete picture of the situation.

As a civilian militia member and officer, I watched the neo nazis drain militia personnel into immigration causes and abandon their posts that were necessary to retain our constitutional Liberties. Having been on all sides I watched the left flip the right and today the wallists are doing exactly what Benjamin Franklin warned us NOT to do. We are forfeiting Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety.

The primary way I reached my conclusions came back in the early 2000s when a group of Salvadorans tried to enter the United States by trespassing over private property. They were met by Ranch Rescue, a civilian border group protecting property at the behest of the property owner, Jack Foote. An altercation took place and the Salvadorans came out second best in round one.

In round two, the matter ended up in court with Ranch Rescue members ending up in prison and the property owner losing his home and land to the Salvadorans. The judge ruled that the civilian border patrol had violated the "civil rights" of the Salvadorans. Those "civil rights" obviously trumped the private property Rights of land owners (thanks to the illegally ratified 14th Amendment.)

Leiva v. Ranch Rescue

Bear in mind I was with the legal team that begged Foote and Ranch Rescue to appeal that decision. They refused. So, when the wallists tell you about your property Rights and duty to protect borders, they are feeding you a load of pure horse shit. It was not the left or Democrats; liberals or "open border" types; it wasn't even Nancy Pelosi supporters that insured the foreigners would have "civil rights" regardless of whether they had papers or not. That ruling was made possible by the neo nazis that developed the wall worship idea.

In 2004, the border patrols were organized by neo nazis (honest to God real nazis) into an organization called the MinutemeTn. Ever since, these people have worked day and night to screw you out of your unalienable Rights. They lie to you (yes, due to the actions of the wallists, undocumented foreigners DO have rights.) They propose solutions that are calculated so as to deprive you of your Rights and dismantle the Constitution. While you are focused on foreigners - who are economically profitable for business, your Rights and your culture are disappearing from right under your nose. In the case of that background check argument, you are helping destroy the militia, the Right to Privacy, the ability of free men to revolt against tyranny, and you are nullifying the Fourth Amendment. Now, do you require proof of what I just said?

I do not support giving the land of citizens to foreigners based on situations like you describe, so presenting that as an answer to why you think I support a million immigrants a year, makes no sense.


NONE.

Whether you support a given principle or not is irrelevant. If / when you don't understand the law and you don't know from whence the political propaganda you spew originated from, you can unwittingly become part and parcel of an effort that may have unintended consequences for you. Would you like a couple of examples?

1. Calling my posts "political propaganda" instead of addressing what I actually say, is just you being rude.


2 REfuseing to address what I actually say, and trying to tie what I said in with other people that you see some similarity to, is you being dishonest.

3. If you disagree with what I say, explain why, as concisely as you can.

4. Save the name calling for the tourists. iF you see your fingers typing "nazis" or "wallist" give yourself a hard shake, and try again.

Son, what I said about wallists is true. If you challenge me again, you will be introduced to a long post that will prove, unequivocally who it is running the show. They aren't just racists or left of center. They are bonafide real life nazis.

YOur inability to address what I actually say, is the point.

Playing some "seven degrees of separation" game with my words, to reach some one you claim is a "nazis" is not an answer to a challenge.


It is irrelevant pap.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

The more you post, the more you show your lack of maturity and your lack of a solid knowledge base.

You cannot cite one, single, solitary sentence in the entire Constitution that supports your xenophobia. Apparently, you were a member in the militia the OP began this thread about.

Make up your diseased defective tiny mind.
Am I am liberal, as you claimed a short time ago? Or am I a militia member?
Whichever it is I am clearly much brighter than you though I take no special pride in that.

My "fear of barriers" as you call it brings me to the point of educating your dumb ass since trying to be civil didn't work. In order for a wall to be effective, it relies on the background checks you thrive on. You are simply too stupid to understand that we cannot devise a background check system that applies to undocumented foreigners only.

A barrier does not need a system of background checks to simply stop law breakers.
It's very effective all on it's own simply by being a large physical barrier.
How stupid are you?


It's very hard to smuggle drugs over a wall. It's hard to get your family over a wall. It's very hard to cross over through gaps in the border while climbing over a wall.
It's basic border interdiction that funnels people through border check points making the screening of illegals more efficient. Did you read my link about all the countries who have built border walls?
Am I the stupid one here? It doesn't look like it.

That being the case, Americans are subject to endless background checks that have been employed for ulterior motives (i.e. locking millions of white Americans out of the job market.) Today, 97 percent of the public wants to have a background check in order to buy a firearm. However, in order for the background check to be worth a shit, that means National Gun Registration. The background check to purchase weapons is worthless without the National Gun Registration.

Registration is the precursor to weapon confiscation. The fact that you cannot follow your own line of reasoning says more about you than all the name calling I can engage in here on USM.

Your increasing use of ad homs shows a rising level of desperation and frustration on your part.Not mine.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Trump IS a globalist. Those who want globalism are in favor of a wall.

Well that's just absolute idiocy. It's nonsense.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Your little cartoon isn't a reply of any sort to all the points I made about the arrested militia leader. It's a cowardly brainless cop out. You've identified yourself as a gutless shitbag.
I'm hardly surprised.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

If the constitution does not have in it, any power granted to the federal government to control immigration, that is a failure of the Constitution.


We, as a nation, cannot survive in any meaningful way, without control of the flow of people across our borders.


Do the American people have the RIght to Self Determination, in your opinion?

Clearly the Constitution gives to the federal government the right and responsibility to protect the nation.
And clearly controlling the border and who may enter the nation and not is a facet of national defense.

 

[Indeependent]

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

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

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

Yawn. What does your personal attack have to with the OP?

Uh, are you on drugs?
You’re the one attacking everyone who disagrees with you.

I'm not attacking anyone. I met your criticisms tit for tat and challenged Correll on his stupid logic that, unless you're buying his magic elixir, you are against having a secure border.

Do you have something related to the OP or do you want to continue the pissing match? If you have something related to the OP, spit it out; if you need to speak with me one on one, PM me. But, if you insist on having a personality contest with me, you can expect me to ignore you. Unlike you, at least I HAVE a personality.

It’s nice to know how such an accomplished litigator as yourself disregards how he presents to others.
You disregard case law and you have bad temper.

 

[Indeependent]

Illegals have caused massive unemployment amongst almost every blue collar worker and construction business owner I know.
Thanks to Trump, they are all making money after many years of GW and Obama.

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

Silence is superior to ad libbing nonsense when you have nothing factual to say.
The millions who have been adversely affected by globalism will once again vote for Trump and a border wall.

Trump IS a globalist. Those who want globalism are in favor of a wall.

Are you on drugs?
I have an idea...
Why don’t you define globalism?

I do not and have never taken drugs. How is that related to the thread?

How are your ad hominems related to this thread?
Anyone who disagrees with you is automatically relegated by you to the “Idiot” heap.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

How are your ad hominems related to this thread?
Anyone who disagrees with you is automatically relegated by you to the “Idiot” heap.

Is Porter Rockwell a shill for American Nazi Party reptilian germ George Lincoln Rockwell?

It wold explain much.

 

[Correll]

Are you trying to imply that Immigration laws are unconstitutional and thus it is ok for sanctuary cities to ignore them?

How many times have I asked you to show me that section of the Constitution that gives the federal government jurisdiction over the states to invite whomever they choose to let in?

You try to make your life all about what you believe with this garden variety of questions like when did you quit beating your wife. What you need to do is step back and examine the issue from the perspective of others. The left and the right have appealed to each other. I'm on the outside, looking in. BOTH of you are going to the same destination, just by different routes. So, let me dumb this down for you.

There was a time in America when we respected the constitutional Rights of individuals and the federal government had some modicum of respect for states rights.

Back then employers hired whomever they chose. Since that was the case, they relied on what neighbors and former employers had to say with respect to a job candidate. Today, people like you want to "vet" potential workers. Part of your religion says that government is God. And so, you want to take the word of liars in government. Adding insult to injury, you are naive enough to think that a foreign government that lies to us and disagrees with us is going to give us the straight skinny about some individual they want to pawn off on us OR an individual that is going to do us harm.

When employers were required to hire X number of blacks, Y number of women, Z number of gays / transgender, etc. it took away the private property Rights of Americans. An American owns the job as much as a writer owns the words to the music or manuscript they wrote. When ANY law puts those Rights into jeopardy, they are unconstitutional. When you limit the private sector's ability to get government records about an individual, then you have to rely on people who actually KNOW the person you want to do business with.

There are times when it is applicable to have information on potential workers: you don't want pedophiles watching your kids and you don't want a bank robber to work in a bank. But, in your world, those people cannot find ANY job since ANY criminal act precludes those people from finding ANY job. Employers are able to access records that are irrelevant to their needs. Americans get locked out of jobs due to these background checks and MILLIONS wind up on welfare.

I might be wrong, but I don't think you're so stupid that you don't realize that a background check cannot be limited to people you don't like and just of the purpose of delving into their immigration status (and yes, those laws are unconstitutional.) The background check, as applied by employers, is a clear cut violation of the Fourth Amendment. We may try to make bogus arguments that the limitation applies to the government; however, what you want is for the employer to an agent of law enforcement for federal officials. THAT is what makes it unconstitutional.

As to federal law, the federal government has NO jurisdiction in who may or may not be invited into a state. This bogus B.S. about "vetting" foreigners is about as worthless as tits on a boar hog. What you are advocating is pure socialism. Background checks did not stop the parents of Nidal Hasan from brainwashing their son with Muslim crap that led him to kill 13 of his fellow soldiers and injure 30 more. It did not stop the Boston Marathon Bombers; had no effect on stopping the son of a Muslim politician from killing 49 people in a bar in Florida. It did not stop the San Bernadino shooters. Even the 9 / 11 attackers were background checked. Bottom line: background checks are ineffective AND there are better ways.

If you still do not understand why I'm against background checks, I will do yet another long winded diatribe on the effects they've had on the Bill of Rights. Quit asking rhetorical questions suggesting you have the only answer - you don't. Quit being a liar and suggesting that those who disagree with your solutions want to flood this country with foreigners. Your strategies are going to fail; you're going to make enemies when some day you might need the support of constitutionalists.

Kewl...anyone who harbors illegals is not objective.
Your state is merely a corridor to states that don’t want them.

If / when communities and states in particular are left to act in their own best interests AND when the government is limited as to how much money they can waste under any pretext to influence the people, the situation balances itself out. IF Trump cuts off federal funds to Sanctuary Cities for harboring undocumented foreigners, you get to see where Pelosi's real beliefs are. Either she wants them and can afford them or she can't. Her attitude will be adjusted accordingly.

Save your bullshit for yourself.
Pelosi changes her mind every time MSNBC criticizes her.
When you can contain illegals in your border, get back to us minus your bleeding heart nonsense.

**** you and the horse you rode in on.

There are no "illegals" since we have a presumption of innocence.

You are a cancer on the face of humanity; you're a traitor; worse you are a political propaganda prostitute and a hate monger. You didn't impress me one damn bit.

The legal "presumption of innocence" is not a reason to claim that we have no illegal aliens living among US.

It is not propaganda nor hate to have a problem with that.


Your position makes no sense.

 

[Correll]

Totally false. They simply do not hold people in their jails for violating federal law. In short, if the feds are not there to do their job and take them into custody when the county releases them, the county is not going to do their job for them. You are a virtual encyclopedia of misinformation.

And you are a virtual encyclopedia of imagination.
Everyone knows a dump like San Francisco won't hold prisoners for the feds. But if the feds happen to call the county sheriff and just inquire about a certain prisoner being held and a release date the policy is to tell him to **** off (but perhaps not in those exact words).

Yes. Simply releasing information to federal agents is considered "doing the job of the federal government" and they are ordered not to comply.
That is going far beyond simply not doing the work ICE should be doing to actual hostile proactive non cooperation that intentionally violates federal immigration law. So in a very real sense sanctuary cities and counties are intentionally and
diligently breaking the law when they are sworn to uphold it.

I am still waiting for a link of the above embolden part of your post. In the meantime, I am trying to visualize this:

Caller" "Is Garcia getting out of jail today?"
San Francisco County cop: "Who is asking"
Caller, "Immigration"
San Francisco County cop, "**** off" (Click)

Yeah, I am sure that is exactly what is happening.

That is what Sanctuary City MEANS. That is what the stated policy of these cities and local governments ARE.

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

Ordering the people in the city government to not cooperate with the feds, that is not Rush Limbaugh's imagination, that is what the sanctuary cities are doing.

 

[Correll]

Save your bullshit for yourself.
Pelosi changes her mind every time MSNBC criticizes her.
When you can contain illegals in your border, get back to us minus your bleeding heart nonsense.

**** you and the horse you rode in on.

There are no "illegals" since we have a presumption of innocence.

You are a cancer on the face of humanity; you're a traitor; worse you are a political propaganda prostitute and a hate monger. You didn't impress me one damn bit.

Ad hominem coming from someone as dignified as yourself.
Color me shocked.
I’d appreciate your paying my property taxes to pay for their shelter, clothing, food and hospital emergency room use.

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

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

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

Weak dodge.

 

[Correll]

Your avatar pretty well told me that you were a liberal. But, unfortunately your mental disorder is not the issue.

George Orwell? He was an anti fascist, anti authoritarian and anti Communist. Yes...a real genuine leftist. You should be so "liberal".
Scan my posts and point out all the liberal ones you can find, dimwit.

Your carefully crafted personae is now being gutted by your own ad hom idiocy. If you let dumb people talk enough they will always tell you who they are.

The real issue is that the civilian militias got hoodwinked by the far left and now the whole militia concept is being ridiculed because of the wallists willingness to violate the Constitution they pretend to care about.

Your fear of barriers seems stupid, absurd and pointless. How 65 countries have erected security walls on their borders | Daily Mail Online

Your imbecilic view of the Constitution seems to be states can bring into the country whoever and however many people they wish. I don't know why any rational person would think that but you seem to really believe it.

The Federal Government, not California or New Mexico or New York, controls who gets in. **** off!

The more you post, the more you show your lack of maturity and your lack of a solid knowledge base.

You cannot cite one, single, solitary sentence in the entire Constitution that supports your xenophobia. Apparently, you were a member in the militia the OP began this thread about.

My "fear of barriers" as you call it brings me to the point of educating your dumb ass since trying to be civil didn't work. In order for a wall to be effective, it relies on the background checks you thrive on. You are simply too stupid to understand that we cannot devise a background check system that applies to undocumented foreigners only.

That being the case, Americans are subject to endless background checks that have been employed for ulterior motives (i.e. locking millions of white Americans out of the job market.) Today, 97 percent of the public wants to have a background check in order to buy a firearm. However, in order for the background check to be worth a shit, that means National Gun Registration. The background check to purchase weapons is worthless without the National Gun Registration.

Registration is the precursor to weapon confiscation. The fact that you cannot follow your own line of reasoning says more about you than all the name calling I can engage in here on USM.

YOur rhetoric apes that of the far right, but your position on the issues, is that of the far left,


ie unlimited unvetted Third World immigration.


That will, no, that IS destroying America and you are supporting it.


All your pretense of caring about American institutions, or culture or even "whites" is irrelevant window dressing to try to hide that fact.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

YOur rhetoric apes that of the far right, but your position on the issues, is that of the far left,


ie unlimited unvetted Third World immigration.


That will, no, that IS destroying America and you are supporting it.


All your pretense of caring about American institutions, or culture or even "whites" is irrelevant window dressing to try to hide that fact.

He is all over the lot. The bottom line is he seems to want what's not good for the country, and says we have no business telling states who they can let enter their borders. That's obviously and manifestly a lie.