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

[Porter Rockwell]

I'm thinking YOU are the real lefty. Isn't THIS what you want to hear?



Just cause you drank the Kool Aid doesn't mean I'm going to.

1. THe bit where you slander me as a kool aid drinker? That is just you being afraid to debate me on the issue, based on the merits or lack there of, of YOUR position vs mine.

2. That bit where you use Bill CLinton to try to cause an emotional reaction from people on the right? That is you playing a emotional game, instead of defending your position on it's merits, or honestly addressing our position.

You don't have a position. You lost the debate when you failed to cite a single sentence from the Constitution to support your claim.

If you truly thought that, you would not play a the emotional card of citing Bill Clinton.

Do you make this shit up as you go along?

Correll, you are much like Larry Hopkins of the United Constitutional Patriots who, BTW, is the subject of this thread, not me.

I'm not playing any emotional card. I'm telling the people that the solutions and strategies you use are based upon SOCIALISM. Karl Marx is credited with being the father of socialism. ....

You posted a video of Bill Clinton stating a policy similar to what I want, to support your claim that what I want is "socialism".


The thing is, that Bill Clinton was lying his ass off in that clip and his policies were the exact opposite. He did not secure the border, nor did he deport the illegals.


Having an immigration policy is not socialism. Talking a lot about Karl Marx or other people does not change that. It is irrelevant.

Are you really that freaking stupid?

Donald Trump is talking trash that HE don't believe. How can you tell when a politician is lying? His lips are moving.

Trump has lost more times in court selling you B.S. that simply cannot pass constitutional muster than he's won. Furthermore, when anybody changes their mind, they are moving to the far left. Trump has caused politicians to switch parties. News flash: It happened again just this week!!!!

I don't hold out much hope for you. In order to understand politics and legal actions, the most important thing you can consider is the Cost / Benefits Analysis equation. That you do not do. You don't look at the long term ramifications of your actions; don't consider their impact of your Liberty; don't understand that empowering a government the way you do means that when YOU become the hunted, you will not have the ability or resources to resist tyranny.

What the courts don't over-turn, rest assured the masses WILL change when the liberals come back to power. The challenge is to come up with ideas to get America back to America without losing on all these bass ackward Art of the Deal negotiations wherein the American people lose more times than they win... and what little they win is insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I'm thinking YOU are the real lefty. Isn't THIS what you want to hear?



Just cause you drank the Kool Aid doesn't mean I'm going to.

1. THe bit where you slander me as a kool aid drinker? That is just you being afraid to debate me on the issue, based on the merits or lack there of, of YOUR position vs mine.

2. That bit where you use Bill CLinton to try to cause an emotional reaction from people on the right? That is you playing a emotional game, instead of defending your position on it's merits, or honestly addressing our position.

You don't have a position. You lost the debate when you failed to cite a single sentence from the Constitution to support your claim.

If you truly thought that, you would not play a the emotional card of citing Bill Clinton.

Do you make this shit up as you go along?

Correll, you are much like Larry Hopkins of the United Constitutional Patriots who, BTW, is the subject of this thread, not me.

I'm not playing any emotional card. I'm telling the people that the solutions and strategies you use are based upon SOCIALISM. Karl Marx is credited with being the father of socialism. ....

You posted a video of Bill Clinton stating a policy similar to what I want, to support your claim that what I want is "socialism".


The thing is, that Bill Clinton was lying his ass off in that clip and his policies were the exact opposite. He did not secure the border, nor did he deport the illegals.


Having an immigration policy is not socialism. Talking a lot about Karl Marx or other people does not change that. It is irrelevant.

What IS relevant is that your proposed solutions are rooted in textbook socialism. Period.

 

[Correll]

1. You can shove your Godwins, back up your ass where you pulled them from.

2. Your pretense that you care about the institution of America and/or "white Christians" is proved to be false, by your support of polices that, you yourself admit are existential threats to them.

3. Most of the above post was unneeded filler. The only purpose it served was to take up additional time of mine to wade though to find your actual points. Please stop that.

I've bled more blood for this country than you've said words in defense of it. I stand for the principles our forefathers fought and died for and you stupid mother ****** - I manned that border before you were a gleam in your daddy's eyes. And you don't have what it takes to shove a damn thing up my ass. If you disagree, PM me. I'd give my front seat in HELL to give you that opportunity.

You should be wary of who you threaten. I just called your bluff snowflake.

1. You call me a nazi, you don't get to whine about me using harsh language on you in return, old man.

2. Your claim to stand for those principles. But your position on them is self defeating to say the least.

...
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.

"The ruling was made possible by the "neo nazis"?


The people being arrested are not responsible for the ruling against them.

That you take that, as a given, and then build on it, is just one of the many flaws in your reasoning.

In 2004, the border patrols were organized by neo nazis (honest to God real nazis) into an organization called the Minutemen.

So you claim, and sorry, I don't care. All you are doing here is attacking the messenger, instead of addressing the message.


That is a logical fallacy and not a valid argument.

Ever since, these people have worked day and night to screw you out of your unalienable Rights. They lie to you (yes, due to the actions of the wallists, undocumented foreigners DO have rights.) They propose solutions that are calculated so as to deprive you of your Rights and dismantle the Constitution.

THat sounds like your opinion of other people's motives.

While you are focused on foreigners - who are economically profitable for business,

Those business's desire for profit does not give them the right to ignore the law, nor does it trump the rights of Americans to have economic and trade policies designed to serve their interests.

your

Rights and your culture are disappearing from right under your nose. In the case of that background check argument, you are helping destroy the militia, the Right to Privacy, the ability of free men to revolt against tyranny, and you are nullifying the Fourth Amendment. Now, do you require proof of what I just said?

None of that is caused by my desire for immigration policies that serve my interests. That you try to put that on me, because I want immigration policy that serves my interests is confusing at best.

'''

Now, let us continue:

When Ranch Rescue lost and decided to ignore the advice of U.S. Militias and the Militia of Georgia, suddenly the so - called Minutemen popped up Started in 2004, the Minutemen tried to use the regurgitated Border Watch idea that David Duke of the KKK in the 1970s. Correll parrots their talking points and you are invited to Google all the names and positions of the following principal players to see whether or not I told you the truth.

Logical Fallacy of attacking the messenger, and Logical Fallacy of Guilt by Association. As weak association at that.

Both invalid arguments.

Other than David Duke, you will find no other border watch group advocating what Gilchrist and Chris Simcox made famous. So, let me introduce you to the players:

Jim Gilchrist and Chris Simcox were the founders of the so - called Minutemen. According to one liberal site (largely because Correll and his ilk like to hide their past):

"Jim Gilchrist truly believes he's an American hero. Gilchrist—a co-founder of the Minutemen Project, a now-defunct civilian border militia—insists it was his group's actions that led to the conservative fervor over cracking down on illegal immigration. He traces the current Republican discourse on the issue—Donald Trump's infamous wall, the renewed interest in revoking birthright citizenship, and the calls for mass deportations back to his movement, which mobilized hundreds of armed vigilantes to fend off migrants at the US-Mexico border back in the spring of 2005."

Whatever Happened to Arizona's Minutemen?

Minuteman Project

Jim Gilchrist who was so screwed up, nazis kicked him out of his own organization. Let's learn a little about the pioneers of this effort:

"In addition to border watching, the project (The Minutemen) created a political action committee lobbying for representatives supporting proactive immigration law enforcement and border security issues. Members believe government officials have failed to protect the country from foreign enemy invasion.[4] They strongly support building a wall and placing additional border patrol agents or involving the military to curb free movement across the Mexico-United States border."

Minuteman Project - Wikipedia

If you access that article, you find that Gilchrist's co founder was Chris Simcox. Chris Simcox was both a pedophile AND a neo-nazi:

Alleged Pedophile Chris Simcox Drops Bid to Personally Cross-Examine Child Victims

Minuteman Co-Founder Sentenced to 19½ Years for Molesting 5-Year-Old

Simcox would recruit fellow neo nazi sympathizer, J.T. Ready (who became a mass murderer) to join him in the build the wall effort.

Neo-Nazi Killed Family During 911 Call



Jim Gilchrist also recruited Shawna Forde and she was convicted of a double murder:



Notice she is ALSO a FAIR spokesperson

Minuteman Leader Jim Gilchrist's Ties To Shawna Forde's Gang Of Killers Finally Catch Up With Him

State's Rights -

New Mexico governor orders withdrawal of National Guard border troops, citing no "national security crisis"

At a national level, John Tanton, who founded and funds FAIR, CIS, NumbersUSA and about a dozen anti immigrant non-profits combined has some questionable ties:

American Renaissance (magazine) - Wikipedia

* Note in the article that the Pioneer Fund was generous to David Duke and "eugenicists." According to Wikipedia:

"Under Tanton's leadership FAIR was criticized for taking funding for many years from the Pioneer Fund, a non-profit foundation dedicated to "improving the character of the American people" by, among other things, promoting the practice of eugenics, or selective breeding."

John Tanton - Wikipedia

Walter Kistler financed the Pioneer Fund out his own pocket.

Pioneer Fund - RationalWiki

A little more about who the Pioneer Fund has financed:

"I know you guys don't want to misrepresent the Pioneer Fund, but prioritizing positions that they don't actually hold anymore over their actual positions does this and functions as a straw man logical fallacy.--Nectarflowed T 23:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Giving over a million dollar to the Nazist Roger Pearson in the eighties and nineties should clarify that this is a current issue. As well as having Rushton as head, his R/K theory for human races and his use of sources has been rejected as at best gross misrepresentation by every independent researcher. "

Talk:Pioneer Fund/Archive 1 - Wikipedia

No matter how many rocks you flip over, you continue to find nazis within the organizations that Correll is being a lap dog for.

All irrelevant and logical fallacies, even if true, which I am NOT granting.

I don't normally do replies to multi - quotes. It only says you are stupid and have NOTHING but logical fallacies upon which to build your case. I'm going to do a few responses. Afterward, if you have AN issue, we can discuss it.

That is an odd and unsupported claim coming from someone who's primary forms of attack are the logical fallacies of Attacking the messenger, Guilt by Association and Shotgun argument.

1) Ranch Rescue IS responsible for the ruling against them. When you get involved in legal matters, you are responsible for the outcome. In this case Ranch Rescue is MORE responsible since a ruling was made that affects YOU too and they failed to appeal the decision. Therefore, the ruling STANDS

Nope. The judges are responsible for their actions and their ruling.

2) You're using the term logical fallacy without a damn clue as to what it means so no response necessary except to say that birds of a feather flock together. You parrot the nazi party line - you're a nazi

Oh, the irony of you claiming I don't know what a logical fallacy is, and then using the logical fallacy of guild by association.



[

3) I am not judging peoples motives. I am observing their outcomes. The Orwellian National ID legislation and warrant less searches and seizures are what your buddies lobbied for - fact is INTRODUCED into Congress

[/QUOTE]

Making a claim about an outcome is one thing. Saying they did it FOR that reason, is mind reading. Unless you can show them stating that was their goal.

4) If one employer can avail themselves of foreign labor and another employer cannot due to a quota system wherein it is not allowable under the de jure interpretation of the Constitution, they have a duty, a Right and an obligation to ignore those laws.

No, they do not.

Until you can show us the provision in the Constitution that allows for treating some employers differently than others, you don't have shit except that irrelevant and repetitive nonsense of "logical fallacy."

I'm not sure of the legal basis for treating different fields differently, but certainly, it makes sense to treat different fields differently. A farmer asking for labor to get food crops in, is a different matter than a strip club asking for fresh dancers. Treating them differently seems completely reasonable.

5) Your lobbying efforts have only hurt the posterity of the founders. That is a plain and simple fact. Being repetitive with irrelevant references to the same objection and being redundant do NOT give your case any credibility

Calling something a fact, does not make it a fact. The "posterity of our founders" is taking a beating from several fronts, not the least of which is high levels of Third World Immigration, which I oppose and you are attacking me for opposing.

6) The balance of your criticisms are acts of desperation. You see, you wanted a debate. You cannot moderate your own debate, so you're assuming that others reading the debate are too freaking stupid to read the points and counter points in order to come to their own conclusions.

Logical fallacy of argument by ridicule. Invalid and meaningless.

Correll, if you lied down with dogs, you wind up with fleas. The neo-nazis pioneered the talking points to which you attach yourself.

Logical fallacy of guilt by association and attacking the messenger.

Sadly, those people do NOT hold a monopoly on potential solutions.

That bit where you insult me by pretending that my arguments are not my own? That is the logical fallacy of attacking the messenger and argument by ridicule.

You, instead of trying to find some credible and logical way to get people to see your point of view, rely on nothing more than mob rule.

a. I'm happy to argue the merits of my case. DO so all the time. You are the one that wants to play 7 degrees of separation games.

b. Your comment of mob rule I take it is an attack on my citing of democracy as a form of legitimacy? What form of legitimacy do you support then, and does it include respect for the Right of Self Determination?

Unless everybody sees the infallibility of your position, they are idiots, fools, morons; they are "open border types" and every utterance they make is a logical fallacy. How absolutely arrogant of you!

We have tens of millions of illegal aliens living in this country. Those that support the status quo, of which you seem to be, are in effect supporting an effectively open border.

Just looking at the outcomes of polices. To coin a phrase...

To draw you an applicable analogy, if my neighbor waves a Confederate flag and is seen in public advocating shipping black people to Africa, it would not be a logical fallacy to say he was, at a bare minimum, influenced by the Ku Klux Klan. When anyone like Larry Hopkins gets exposed for what he is and you come here to defend him and parrot the party line - which any dumb ass can trace back to its original source, then I trust the posters here to draw their own conclusions.

To address your analogy, if your neighbor was pushing a policy of shipping black people back to Africa, would you be able to argue against his policy BASED ON IT MERITS OR LACK THERE OF, or would all you have to fight is, is the logical fallacy of guild by association?

 

[Correll]

1. THe bit where you slander me as a kool aid drinker? That is just you being afraid to debate me on the issue, based on the merits or lack there of, of YOUR position vs mine.

2. That bit where you use Bill CLinton to try to cause an emotional reaction from people on the right? That is you playing a emotional game, instead of defending your position on it's merits, or honestly addressing our position.

You don't have a position. You lost the debate when you failed to cite a single sentence from the Constitution to support your claim.

If you truly thought that, you would not play a the emotional card of citing Bill Clinton.

Do you make this shit up as you go along?

Correll, you are much like Larry Hopkins of the United Constitutional Patriots who, BTW, is the subject of this thread, not me.

I'm not playing any emotional card. I'm telling the people that the solutions and strategies you use are based upon SOCIALISM. Karl Marx is credited with being the father of socialism. ....

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?

 

[Correll]

1. THe bit where you slander me as a kool aid drinker? That is just you being afraid to debate me on the issue, based on the merits or lack there of, of YOUR position vs mine.

2. That bit where you use Bill CLinton to try to cause an emotional reaction from people on the right? That is you playing a emotional game, instead of defending your position on it's merits, or honestly addressing our position.

You don't have a position. You lost the debate when you failed to cite a single sentence from the Constitution to support your claim.

If you truly thought that, you would not play a the emotional card of citing Bill Clinton.

Do you make this shit up as you go along?

Correll, you are much like Larry Hopkins of the United Constitutional Patriots who, BTW, is the subject of this thread, not me.

I'm not playing any emotional card. I'm telling the people that the solutions and strategies you use are based upon SOCIALISM. Karl Marx is credited with being the father of socialism. ....

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.

 

[danielpalos]

you mean like the infidel, protestant, or renegade kind?

The ones that restore limited government, freedom and liberty

Dallas County Texas, needs you!

We are every where.. currently holding illegals hostage

American citizens need you more.

We are everywhere

Dallas County needs militia to help lower their property crime rate. That takes priority.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You don't have a position. You lost the debate when you failed to cite a single sentence from the Constitution to support your claim.

If you truly thought that, you would not play a the emotional card of citing Bill Clinton.

Do you make this shit up as you go along?

Correll, you are much like Larry Hopkins of the United Constitutional Patriots who, BTW, is the subject of this thread, not me.

I'm not playing any emotional card. I'm telling the people that the solutions and strategies you use are based upon SOCIALISM. Karl Marx is credited with being the father of socialism. ....

You posted a video of Bill Clinton stating a policy similar to what I want, to support your claim that what I want is "socialism".


The thing is, that Bill Clinton was lying his ass off in that clip and his policies were the exact opposite. He did not secure the border, nor did he deport the illegals.


Having an immigration policy is not socialism. Talking a lot about Karl Marx or other people does not change that. It is irrelevant.

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?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You don't have a position. You lost the debate when you failed to cite a single sentence from the Constitution to support your claim.

If you truly thought that, you would not play a the emotional card of citing Bill Clinton.

Do you make this shit up as you go along?

Correll, you are much like Larry Hopkins of the United Constitutional Patriots who, BTW, is the subject of this thread, not me.

I'm not playing any emotional card. I'm telling the people that the solutions and strategies you use are based upon SOCIALISM. Karl Marx is credited with being the father of socialism. ....

You posted a video of Bill Clinton stating a policy similar to what I want, to support your claim that what I want is "socialism".


The thing is, that Bill Clinton was lying his ass off in that clip and his policies were the exact opposite. He did not secure the border, nor did he deport the illegals.


Having an immigration policy is not socialism. Talking a lot about Karl Marx or other people does not change that. It is irrelevant.

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 don't have a position. You lost the debate when you failed to cite a single sentence from the Constitution to support your claim.

If you truly thought that, you would not play a the emotional card of citing Bill Clinton.

Do you make this shit up as you go along?

Correll, you are much like Larry Hopkins of the United Constitutional Patriots who, BTW, is the subject of this thread, not me.

I'm not playing any emotional card. I'm telling the people that the solutions and strategies you use are based upon SOCIALISM. Karl Marx is credited with being the father of socialism. ....

You posted a video of Bill Clinton stating a policy similar to what I want, to support your claim that what I want is "socialism".


The thing is, that Bill Clinton was lying his ass off in that clip and his policies were the exact opposite. He did not secure the border, nor did he deport the illegals.


Having an immigration policy is not socialism. Talking a lot about Karl Marx or other people does not change that. It is irrelevant.

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 **** with people on the Internet over topics I don't know squat about. I never provoked anyone that I was not willing to spew shit to unless it was face to face. I got my hands dirty, bled a little, went to court a few times, and God saw to it that I was protected. By protecting the Rights of people I don't particularly care for, I protect my own ass - a concept lost on you since you will never, under any circumstances, put your ass on the line for what you claim to believe in. What I'm advocating is not for the foreigner. I have one ulterior motive - to save my own ass from being called a criminal for doing something I had a Right to do. The principle will probably be lost on Larry Hopkins as well.

Back to reality now:

So, a foreigner who is caught without papers (and presuming Uncle Scam has nothing on him) he goes through a civil process and is deported. Yet you advocate criminal charges for your fellow man just because some guy doesn't have human registration papers. WTF dude? Employers are not and should not be required to be agents for BICE. Furthermore, the Constitution guarantees everyone the equal protection of the laws. Laws that force people to become citizens and laws that allow one employer to hire a foreigner while denying another employer the same luxury denies to other employers the "equal protection of the laws" UNLESS the federal government owns and controls labor and production which - bottom line is SOCIALISM. Even if the quota system (which was put into place by liberal Democrats) is enforced under the color of law, it is unconstitutional.

YOU would take away the Americans Rights to civil disobedience, passive resistance, and non-compliance with unconstitutional laws. You hate the Constitution and you embrace socialism. So, if you have anything related to that topic, spit it out. I won't pretend to be in a debate with a narcissist trying to have a personality contest. So, unless you have something relevant, we're done here.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The ones that restore limited government, freedom and liberty

Dallas County Texas, needs you!

We are every where.. currently holding illegals hostage

American citizens need you more.

We are everywhere

Dallas County needs militia to help lower their property crime rate. That takes priority.

Zimmerman needs a job....

 

[Correll]

If you truly thought that, you would not play a the emotional card of citing Bill Clinton.

Do you make this shit up as you go along?

Correll, you are much like Larry Hopkins of the United Constitutional Patriots who, BTW, is the subject of this thread, not me.

I'm not playing any emotional card. I'm telling the people that the solutions and strategies you use are based upon SOCIALISM. Karl Marx is credited with being the father of socialism. ....

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.

 

[Correll]

If you truly thought that, you would not play a the emotional card of citing Bill Clinton.

Do you make this shit up as you go along?

Correll, you are much like Larry Hopkins of the United Constitutional Patriots who, BTW, is the subject of this thread, not me.

I'm not playing any emotional card. I'm telling the people that the solutions and strategies you use are based upon SOCIALISM. Karl Marx is credited with being the father of socialism. ....

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.

If you truly thought that, you would not play a the emotional card of citing Bill Clinton.

Do you make this shit up as you go along?

Correll, you are much like Larry Hopkins of the United Constitutional Patriots who, BTW, is the subject of this thread, not me.

I'm not playing any emotional card. I'm telling the people that the solutions and strategies you use are based upon SOCIALISM. Karl Marx is credited with being the father of socialism. ....

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 **** 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 ***** when I suggest you are an Open Border type? LOL!!!

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Do you make this shit up as you go along?

Correll, you are much like Larry Hopkins of the United Constitutional Patriots who, BTW, is the subject of this thread, not me.

I'm not playing any emotional card. I'm telling the people that the solutions and strategies you use are based upon SOCIALISM. Karl Marx is credited with being the father of socialism. ....

You posted a video of Bill Clinton stating a policy similar to what I want, to support your claim that what I want is "socialism".


The thing is, that Bill Clinton was lying his ass off in that clip and his policies were the exact opposite. He did not secure the border, nor did he deport the illegals.


Having an immigration policy is not socialism. Talking a lot about Karl Marx or other people does not change that. It is irrelevant.

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.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Do you make this shit up as you go along?

Correll, you are much like Larry Hopkins of the United Constitutional Patriots who, BTW, is the subject of this thread, not me.

I'm not playing any emotional card. I'm telling the people that the solutions and strategies you use are based upon SOCIALISM. Karl Marx is credited with being the father of socialism. ....

You posted a video of Bill Clinton stating a policy similar to what I want, to support your claim that what I want is "socialism".


The thing is, that Bill Clinton was lying his ass off in that clip and his policies were the exact opposite. He did not secure the border, nor did he deport the illegals.


Having an immigration policy is not socialism. Talking a lot about Karl Marx or other people does not change that. It is irrelevant.

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.

Do you make this shit up as you go along?

Correll, you are much like Larry Hopkins of the United Constitutional Patriots who, BTW, is the subject of this thread, not me.

I'm not playing any emotional card. I'm telling the people that the solutions and strategies you use are based upon SOCIALISM. Karl Marx is credited with being the father of socialism. ....

You posted a video of Bill Clinton stating a policy similar to what I want, to support your claim that what I want is "socialism".


The thing is, that Bill Clinton was lying his ass off in that clip and his policies were the exact opposite. He did not secure the border, nor did he deport the illegals.


Having an immigration policy is not socialism. Talking a lot about Karl Marx or other people does not change that. It is irrelevant.

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 **** 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 ***** 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.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Those kinds of staged antics remind me of professional wrestling on tv.

No, seriously...you guys have your priorities straight. The nation will survive thanks to your vigilance.
What's happening to our Southern border pales next to the vile threat of Larry Mitchell Hopkins. Well done.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

Larry Hopkins is but one of a number of civilian militia leaders that started a private militia effort and allowed themselves to be taken over by the wallist theology. After having done same, they neglected to observe, defend, protect and advance the Constitution. Ultimately their leaders end up in prison where they are really effective in fighting for America (NOT.)

You wallists are so ignorant that you fail to see that constitutionalists want Freedom and Liberty, just not at the price of chains. Your proposed solutions are a threat to both and require socialist solutions in order to enforce the nutty wall idea. We had this war won before the wallists stepped in and began this campaign of deliberate genocide. If you look down at the road at what you're saying and what you're doing, it ends in absolute defeat.

Denying the trimmings of what you propose (be it the repeal of Due Process, ignoring the principle of a presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty, the National ID, trashing the Fourth Amendment, etc) does not negate that your obsession with little brown people from south of the border is going to cost you everything.

The Bible says that a double minded man is unstable in all his ways. Your side claims that they don't care about "immigration" (and bless your heart, you don't even know what immigration is), but you want it done "legal" (sic.) Once those foreigners become "legal" as you mistakenly call it, they become Democrats and vote your ass into oblivion. Sorry dude, I don't get it.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Larry Hopkins is but one of a number of civilian militia leaders that started a private militia effort and allowed themselves to be taken over by the wallist theology. After having done same, they neglected to observe, defend, protect and advance the Constitution. Ultimately their leaders end up in prison where they are really effective in fighting for America (NOT.)

You wallists are so ignorant that you fail to see that constitutionalists want Freedom and Liberty, just not at the price of chains. Your proposed solutions are a threat to both and require socialist solutions in order to enforce the nutty wall idea. We had this war won before the wallists stepped in and began this campaign of deliberate genocide. If you look down at the road at what you're saying and what you're doing, it ends in absolute defeat.

Denying the trimmings of what you propose (be it the repeal of Due Process, ignoring the principle of a presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty, the National ID, trashing the Fourth Amendment, etc) does not negate that your obsession with little brown people from south of the border is going to cost you everything.

The Bible says that a double minded man is unstable in all his ways. Your side claims that they don't care about "immigration" (and bless your heart, you don't even know what immigration is), but you want it done "legal" (sic.) Once those foreigners become "legal" as you mistakenly call it, they become Democrats and vote your ass into oblivion. Sorry dude, I don't get it.

Your obsessive objection to a physical barrier on the Southern border is inexplicable especially given your claim that you oppose immigration, of any sort, it seems.

I'm not interested in how you've justified your rantings to yourself. Illegal immigration costs the American taxpayer over a hundred billion dollars every single year and the public has consistently opposed it.
Hospitals, schools, court rooms, jails all fill up with illegals and my county in Northern California simply turned a blind eye to the numerous housing, zoning, municipal laws that were ignored in order to accommodate the horde of Mexican nationals living here contrary to the law.

I don't know what your particular problem is. Mine is with illegal immigration.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Larry Hopkins is but one of a number of civilian militia leaders that started a private militia effort and allowed themselves to be taken over by the wallist theology. After having done same, they neglected to observe, defend, protect and advance the Constitution. Ultimately their leaders end up in prison where they are really effective in fighting for America (NOT.)

You wallists are so ignorant that you fail to see that constitutionalists want Freedom and Liberty, just not at the price of chains. Your proposed solutions are a threat to both and require socialist solutions in order to enforce the nutty wall idea. We had this war won before the wallists stepped in and began this campaign of deliberate genocide. If you look down at the road at what you're saying and what you're doing, it ends in absolute defeat.

Denying the trimmings of what you propose (be it the repeal of Due Process, ignoring the principle of a presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty, the National ID, trashing the Fourth Amendment, etc) does not negate that your obsession with little brown people from south of the border is going to cost you everything.

The Bible says that a double minded man is unstable in all his ways. Your side claims that they don't care about "immigration" (and bless your heart, you don't even know what immigration is), but you want it done "legal" (sic.) Once those foreigners become "legal" as you mistakenly call it, they become Democrats and vote your ass into oblivion. Sorry dude, I don't get it.

Your obsessive objection to a physical barrier on the Southern border is inexplicable especially given your claim that you oppose immigration, of any sort, it seems.

I'm not interested in how you've justified your rantings to yourself. Illegal immigration costs the American taxpayer over a hundred billion dollars every single year and the public has consistently opposed it.
Hospitals, schools, court rooms, jails all fill up with illegals and my county in Northern California simply turned a blind eye to the numerous housing, zoning, municipal laws that were ignored in order to accommodate the horde of Mexican nationals living here contrary to the law.

I don't know what your particular problem is. Mine is with illegal immigration.

You are trying to outdo Correll for dishonesty. Let me say it to you again:

The nutty wall idea cannot be enforced without its trimmings. Those trimmings nullify the Bill of Rights, property Rights, the presumption of innocence / innocent until proven guilty, etc. As someone, unlike you, who has had to put his ass on the line within those parameters, I have been taught in the University of Hard Knocks and Screw U that what you want cannot be accomplished without submitting to a total POLICE STATE.

On the issues of economics you don't know what the **** you're talking about. It will be the primary reason you will ultimately lose this battle. Foreign labor affects both sides of the accounting ledger. That is why you make claims that omit the contributions undocumented foreigners make.

And here is the great mind ****:

If I point out the reality, you will repeat that claim you dare not utter to a constitutionalist face to face. You're going to say that to admit to what is true makes one "for" the foreigners. Of course, you'd be a damn liar without the balls to back it up, but this is the Internet so you can spread manure and not be held accountable for it.

Attempts at deflection on your part - and those like you cannot cover up the truth forever. If we implemented your ideas and then the trimmings it takes to enforce them, we would live in a POLICE STATE without the ability ever resist tyranny. But, who knows, maybe one day you will quit banging a keyboard, grow a set and spew that shit in public... then you can play cards with Larry Hopkins at night, having rejected sound counsel.

 

[WEATHER53]

Sometimes people like Hopkins pay a price for doing the right thing. He is the MLK of border security.

 

[skookerasbil]

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 **** the limpwristers moment!

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Sometimes people like Hopkins pay a price for doing the right thing. He is the MLK of border security.

I'm waiting on someone to convince me that Hopkins did the "right" thing. What he did, in my opinion was a stupid thing. He was actually arrested on a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition.

In my opinion, the weapons charge is total bullshit. While Hopkins supporters have condemned me on this principle of law, owning a firearm is an irrevocable, natural, inherent, unalienable, absolute, God given Right. Once he had served his time for whatever crime he committed his Rights should have been automatically restored, but in reality, we no longer live under a de jure / legal / constitutional Republican form of government as guaranteed in the United States Constitution. I wonder why my critics here have not condemned Hopkins "illegal" acts.

While the United Constitutional Patriots were within their Area of Operations, According to the local media in New Mexico on January 11:

"New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said she saw no immediate evidence Friday at the U.S. border with Mexico of the security crisis described by President Donald Trump..."

Governor Lujan Grisham: No border crisis in New Mexico

Trump had no legal authority to unilaterally declare a National Emergency in a state where the Chief Executive said no emergency exists. Presupposing Hopkins militia was not a select militia (and I don't know whether or not his militia was a legal one) his Commander in Chief as the head of the militia is the governor of the state.

Next, BEFORE anyone can act outside the law (and even MLK pretty much kept to script) there is a proper method of doing so:

How do we effect change?

* NOTE: that is a defunct site so leaving that link is within the accepted rules of this board. You can no longer register to post there.

As a militia officer, Hopkins had no legitimate authority to be on the border, trying to enforce federal laws. The militiaman owes his first duty to the Constitution, not the government. Nobody on Hopkins side can cite you the section of the Constitution wherein the federal government can tell a state who may and may not come and go as guests within their state. It wasn't until 1875 that the United States Supreme Court illegally changed the law and made up their own law - legislating from the bench that foreigners could not come here and work - even when they could never become citizens.