Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
"No, you are absolutely WRONG. When I was a kid, we were taught that it isn't whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game. The rules matter."Your post doesn't make much sense to me.Democrats are building their base. When they get enough power, they will grant illegals the right to vote and that will be the end of the two-party system.
There are way too many illegals and dead people voting already.
"Illegals" don't vote. People vote. The objective of the government, regardless of party label, is to disenfranchise the Posterity of the founders and framers. Once you end the bloodline of the people who created our form of government, you have another third world cesspool with the wealth that previous generations built for the super rich. The politicians want the third world to take over. Trying to make it politically palatable by doing something stupid like calling people "illegal" hides the ugly truth. You give citizenship to someone who supports socialism, they are doing this country harm. We give citizenship to more than 750,000 people per year. We don't need them - sticking a label like "illegal" on some of them only says you don't know squat about Liberty. We don't need any more people becoming citizens in this country at the present time, so the "legal" v. "illegal" labels are meaningless in the context of immigration... NOT so much for the cause of Liberty.
Illegals are not citizens, but some of them do manage to vote with the help of Democrats who issue them driver's licenses and even encourage them to vote in local elections. I'm not calling people names or labeling here....there's a ACTUAL difference in an illegal vs. legal immigrant. I'm sure you know that.
No, you are absolutely WRONG. When I was a kid, we were taught that it isn't whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game. The rules matter.
In school I was taught that there are three branches of government: the Legislative, the Judicial and the Executive. I was taught they were co-equal branches of government with a set function. I was also taught that the Constitution was the law of the land. You say you don't understand my post? It's because the schools taught you a lot of B.S. and you've been programmed to accept a government that is at odds with the Constitution. That Constitution only gives the federal government ONE job with respect to foreigners. That job is found in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution: "Congress shall have the power... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." That is citizenship. Who a state does and does not allow into their respective states to participate in the free market economy is a state's rights issue. So, how did we get this notion that the immigration laws the Democrats passed to disenfranchise the white people were law?
The United States Supreme Court, in 1875, granted "plenary powers" to Congress over all foreigners and laws pertaining to them. The problem you have is that the Constitution does not give the United States Supreme Court any authority to bestow upon any other branch of government ANY POWERS. Period. End of story. Such a proposition is contrary to the Tenth Amendment. What that means is that the United States Supreme Court legislated from the bench and made law, not interpreted the law. Now, that may make you as happy as a fly in a pile of shit, but the principle (called a precedent in legal terminology) has allowed the United States Supreme Court to be legislators as well as arbiters of the law. Sounds good when you apply it to immigration, but not so much when you think of all the damaging things the high Court has done to things like abortion, gun Rights, the Fourth Amendment and your Right to Privacy along with... no surprise... voting. So, if that's the way you want the game to be played, you may as well send 535 federal legislators home and scrap the whole notion of voting. The liberals end game was to disenfranchise the whites (and you ignorantly and maybe willingly supported that effort without understanding our system of jurisprudence.) When you can master Hegelian Dialectics, Pavlovian Conditioning, Psychopolitics, Disinformation and Political Propaganda from a strategist's understanding, then you - and only then will understand this when I say it - YOU GOT PLAYED.
"No, you are absolutely WRONG. When I was a kid, we were taught that it isn't whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game. The rules matter."Your post doesn't make much sense to me.Democrats are building their base. When they get enough power, they will grant illegals the right to vote and that will be the end of the two-party system.
There are way too many illegals and dead people voting already.
"Illegals" don't vote. People vote. The objective of the government, regardless of party label, is to disenfranchise the Posterity of the founders and framers. Once you end the bloodline of the people who created our form of government, you have another third world cesspool with the wealth that previous generations built for the super rich. The politicians want the third world to take over. Trying to make it politically palatable by doing something stupid like calling people "illegal" hides the ugly truth. You give citizenship to someone who supports socialism, they are doing this country harm. We give citizenship to more than 750,000 people per year. We don't need them - sticking a label like "illegal" on some of them only says you don't know squat about Liberty. We don't need any more people becoming citizens in this country at the present time, so the "legal" v. "illegal" labels are meaningless in the context of immigration... NOT so much for the cause of Liberty.
Illegals are not citizens, but some of them do manage to vote with the help of Democrats who issue them driver's licenses and even encourage them to vote in local elections. I'm not calling people names or labeling here....there's a ACTUAL difference in an illegal vs. legal immigrant. I'm sure you know that.
No, you are absolutely WRONG. When I was a kid, we were taught that it isn't whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game. The rules matter.
In school I was taught that there are three branches of government: the Legislative, the Judicial and the Executive. I was taught they were co-equal branches of government with a set function. I was also taught that the Constitution was the law of the land. You say you don't understand my post? It's because the schools taught you a lot of B.S. and you've been programmed to accept a government that is at odds with the Constitution. That Constitution only gives the federal government ONE job with respect to foreigners. That job is found in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution: "Congress shall have the power... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." That is citizenship. Who a state does and does not allow into their respective states to participate in the free market economy is a state's rights issue. So, how did we get this notion that the immigration laws the Democrats passed to disenfranchise the white people were law?
The United States Supreme Court, in 1875, granted "plenary powers" to Congress over all foreigners and laws pertaining to them. The problem you have is that the Constitution does not give the United States Supreme Court any authority to bestow upon any other branch of government ANY POWERS. Period. End of story. Such a proposition is contrary to the Tenth Amendment. What that means is that the United States Supreme Court legislated from the bench and made law, not interpreted the law. Now, that may make you as happy as a fly in a pile of shit, but the principle (called a precedent in legal terminology) has allowed the United States Supreme Court to be legislators as well as arbiters of the law. Sounds good when you apply it to immigration, but not so much when you think of all the damaging things the high Court has done to things like abortion, gun Rights, the Fourth Amendment and your Right to Privacy along with... no surprise... voting. So, if that's the way you want the game to be played, you may as well send 535 federal legislators home and scrap the whole notion of voting. The liberals end game was to disenfranchise the whites (and you ignorantly and maybe willingly supported that effort without understanding our system of jurisprudence.) When you can master Hegelian Dialectics, Pavlovian Conditioning, Psychopolitics, Disinformation and Political Propaganda from a strategist's understanding, then you - and only then will understand this when I say it - YOU GOT PLAYED.
The rules DON'T matter to Democrats. They will change the rules to suit their purposes.
Citizenship and voting rights for illegals are part of the Democrats long-term plans. I'm not the only one who thinks it's coming. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
I call Bullshit...It wasnt Ronald Reagan who allowed for illegals to be in the US, but the fucking liberals as usual who lied to Ron about a deal, between the President and Tipp(the whale) O'Neil. The Obese one came to President Reagan saying that if he would give amnesty to the 11 million illegals he would have congress give the money for the wall on our southern border. As history as proven time and again, the lying sack of shit, O'Neil didnt give the money and then California became Californication. Over and over the liberals have lied their asses off, to the point that instead of Jeb Bush, or other establishment Republicans who would just keel over so the Demoncraps could walk all over them, President Trump was elected just to give the Demons, the what for the US citizens have been wanting for a long time. You can thank your liberal selves for giving America the president it so needed...This began during the Reagan administration, believe it or not. I've visited (stormed in angry as hell, actually) INS office in 1990. After being disgusted with the lack of response or enforcement on immigration laws. The boys at the INS office said the Reagan Admin back in the early 80's had puled their teeth and emasculated them enforcement wise. A Conservative republican set the stage for sanctuary cities...and years later, Americans losing their jobs and homes and living in the streets... Its time to reform our ENTIRE Political system and take out the social activism thing and make ALL politicians ACCOUNTABLE for their actions retroactively. Fair is fair.
Right now, support for illegal immigration is from both Democrats, and a few Republicans. Overwhelmingly though, it is Democrats, as recent congressional votes on sanctuary cities and the wall clearly show...It wasnt Ronald Reagan who allowed for illegals to be in the US,
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Yeah, it was.
As the former Democrat Party, sees people living south of the border and in Asia, as being part of "collectivistic societies," they know that those from such societies will always vote for politicians that advocate for "the group think," rather than for individual liberties.There's no question that many people in the US (mostly Democrats) like illegal immigration. They like it so much that they are willing to lie about it, or just shoot from the hip and make friendly statements about it, without examining the facts about it. Even worse, they take the word of illegal immigration friendly propagandists (masquerading as researchers), and run with whatever they say.
At the heart of much of this is what can be described in just 2 simple words >> VESTED INTERESTS. Yes, there are plenty out there who are very happy about our country being flooded with illegal aliens. Quite a few of them are right here in this forum, and we hear their illegal alien friendly talk all the time. But do we actually know what's motivating these people to support invading leeches to our country, who are harming it in a long list of ways ?
Usually not, because the VESTED INTEREST ones are careful to continually conceal their particular connection to the illegal immigration scenario. Occasionally, one may slip and blurt it out accidently. Here's a list of some of the most common VESTED INTERESTS that these traitors are consumed by.
List of US Vested Interests for Immigration
1. Businesses wanting cheap labor to boost their profits.
2. Churches wanting parishoners to fill their empty pews.
3. Unions wanting members to replace their declining memberships.
4. Spanish media NEEDING Spanish-only speakers.
5. Ethnocentrist organizations wanting immigrants to multiply their race, for racist reasons (ex. La Raza- "the race")
6. Democrats seek VOTES (and get them).
7. Terrorists come in to enact terrorism (ex. the 9-11 hijackers came in on visas)
8. Anchor baby parents who become LEGALLY entitled to welfare benefits by having the pregnant woman give birth on the American side of the border. And then help themselves to a lifetime of benefits (more immigrants are receiving welfare benefits than native-born Americans).
9. Personal relationships - some people are actually married to an illegal alien, or have family members who are. Others have developed friendships with illegals, over time.
10. Mexico - remittances$$$ from the USA are their second largest source of income (second only to their oil exports). Now $30 Billion/year. Mexico also benefits immensely by dumping their poor people on the US, as we then stupidly pay their poverty bill for them. Other countries also benefit from remittances and poverty dumping.
11. Mexico's "reconquista" of the American southwest. I take the Mexican govt at it's word, when it says that is exactly its plan.
Let's see if we can get any illegal immigration friendly posters to open up and state their special connection to the illegal immigration problem in America. This is an invitation. Come on VIs, what's your game ?
As the former Democrat Party, sees people living south of the border and in Asia, as being part of "collectivistic societies," they know that those from such societies will always vote for politicians that advocate for "the group think," rather than for individual liberties.
It's the political difference of the republican concept of freedoms and liberties for the individual to succeed on their own, versus the socialist programs of the left, that take the earnings from the individuals pockets to give to strangersCan you explain how that is any different from what the Republicans have been doing as well?
It's the political difference of the republican concept of freedoms and liberties for the individual to succeed on their own, versus the socialist programs of the left, that take the earnings from the individuals pockets to give to strangers
Because their base is doing a vanishing act so the left is desperate for new voters to replace them and illegals are the cheapest and easiest to buy.
