Bush "minutemen vigilantes". Offended? Poll

[wingman]

Immigrants benefit people in the united states

Bull, simply not true, Illegal immigration benefits only the wealthy here
and in Mexico. When an illegal enters this country he/she perhaps
will make 20K or less if they bring 3 kids the cost to school system
(taxpayer) will be 15K to 21K per year, this is just school cost only.
Estimated cost to taxpayer for immigration in 2002 was 68 billion.

Please remember our government and greedy corporations want to lump
legal and illegal immigration in one group. The overall cost to joe average
of all races in this country will be and is a catastrophe if we continue with
uncontrolled immigration. We import people with less then an 8th grade education and send jobs they perhaps could do to other poor countries.

The very idea this is good for America is silly, once again "only" the wealthy
benefit.

 

[shootinstudent]

Illegal immigration benefits only the wealthy here

Are the wealthy in the United States not also, in fact, people in the United States?

When an illegal enters this country he/she perhaps
will make 20K or less if they bring 3 kids the cost to school system
(taxpayer) will be 15K to 21K per year

A person's wage is not the dollar amount of benefit to the employer. The wage is only what the employer pays out. You cannot tell how much profit the employer enjoys from the work, except that certainly those employers are making more than 20 thousand in profit off of that person's labor.

. The overall cost to joe average
of all races in this country will be and is a catastrophe if we continue with
uncontrolled immigration.

So what's your solution to the rapidly expanding retiree population? Where are all the young workers that are needed to balance out the population going to come from?

The very idea this is good for America is silly, once again "only" the wealthy
benefit.

It's not the end of the world that rich people happen to benefit from a particular policy. It's a good thing that we have rich people in the US. If you craft all your policies to ignore the needs of corporations and wealthy investors, you will end up with a lot of the same problems communism did.

Not everything that's good for the wealthy is bad for everyone else.

 

[FrankDrebin]

When an illegal enters this country he/she perhaps
will make 20K or less if they bring 3 kids the cost to school system
(taxpayer) will be 15K to 21K per year, this is just school cost only.

That's not MUCH worse than a "Real American" who decides to have 10 kids and is paying property tax on one house. OR the "Real Americans" who have a couple generations of family in one house. Say I have 2 kids and pay $3000.00 in property tax per year and my neighbor in a similar house has 10 kids. Using your rationale, why should I be paying the same amount to the schools when he's got 8 more kids in the system than me? Or why should non-property owners be allowed to send their kids to public schools when they're not paying that huge chunk of "school tax"? And to top it off, my kids go to private schools anyway, so I'm not using any of the public school system's resources for my kids, but I have to pay anyway, and the tuition isn't even tax deductible.

That's the price of living in a society that values (relatively speaking) public education (such that it is) for everyone who lives here.

So what's your solution to the rapidly expanding retiree population?

Soylent Green???? Same solution for those who can afford to, but choose not to have kids. Soylent Green.....

 

[Wallew]

The Minuteman Project is just the BEGINING of the end of the governmental control of society in this country.

Why did the KKK disappear? Because of all the liberal values allowing 'minorities' all the rights of non-minorities. During the sixties, all da hippies thought it was a grand idea.

Expect a similar form of KKK to reappear in the coming years, as illegal aliens demand AND RECIEVE the same rights as US CITIZENS.

Think 'drivers licenses' in Kali or Tejas as but one example.

At some point, white people, YES WE ARE STILL BETTER THAN SEVENTY PERCENT OF THIS COUNTRY, will get tired of all the BS from their politicians and we will have that Second American Revolution. We are in the begining stages right now. Unfortunately, most liberals are still in denial, thinking if we just give them what they want, they will 'behave'. EXCUSE ME, but what all illegal aliens want is to break the law and then take money out of our society and ship it back home to Mexico.

 

[shootinstudent]

At some point, white people, YES WE ARE STILL BETTER THAN SEVENTY PERCENT OF THIS COUNTRY, will get tired of all the BS from their politicians and we will have that Second American Revolution. We are in the begining stages right now.

Sweet, you're exactly the kind of guy I was talking about having the potential to embarrass the minuteman project. Racial warfare and white supremacy (I'm assuming you're a white supremacist) are the quickest way to send an organization's reputation to the dust-bin of history in today's political climate. Why do you think toughening up illegal immigration law has been so hard thus far?

I don't believe groups similar to the KKK have ever disappeared. Just look at David Duke. IMO, it's quite ironic that groups proclaiming the superiority of the white race are generally considered to be ignorant and uneducated hillbilly types by the vast majority of white americans. If these folks are so superior, how come lots of people take the NAACP seriously, but on pain of political suicide no one wants to be associated with the "whites are better" groups? Looks to me like for all their being "better" than the racial minorities, they sure have done a piss poor job of convincing Americans to follow their political agendas.

There are white illegal aliens, btw. It's not at all uncommon.

 

[shootinstudent]

Soylent Green???? Same solution for those who can afford to, but choose not to have kids. Soylent Green.....

HA! Maybe we can get PETA to back us on this plan?

 

[LAK]

Shootinstudent

Why do you think toughening up illegal immigration law has been so hard thus far?

This is a no-brainer. It has nothing to do with agent provocateurs, racists - or racialists. It is because the current administration - like the last one, and the one before, and the one before that, are not going to stand in the way of the new Pan Amercian state.

If you don't accept this, the only other possible explanation is that George W Bush is a big girl. One of Arno's real life honest to goodness girlie-men. A man so weak and pathetic he should be anywhere but the White House. At a time when we have been told that the nation is threatened for four whole years, the President, backed by a Congress that fell over itself to sign abominations like the "Patriot" Act into law, can not act decisively to defend our borders.

So which is it?

He had no trouble addressing those involved in the Minuteman project as "vigilantes". I am not at the shocked stage yet - but I am genuinely surprized at this late stage in the game that so many otherwise intelligent people have not figured out what the game is.

"Our common border is no longer a line that divides us, but a region that unites our nations, reflecting our common aspirations, value and culture." - Secretary Colin L. Powell, Washington, DC - January 30, 2001

"We must press on with our agenda for peace and prosperity in every land." - George Bush, to the United Nations General Assembly, November 10, 2001

 

[Unique 5.7]

Wallew - For the record, are you hoping that there is no need for anybody to shoot anybody during this project?

 

[shootinstudent]

LAK,

How about option three: Most people have more moderate positions on immigration than you do, and so by being moderate and less alarmist himself, Bush is actually responding to a greater share of his voting base? There's a reason why no border-enforcement alarmist ever make it on the national scene. And it's not the John Kerry/Al Gore reason for every lost vote.

As for those quotes....is there something wrong with Bush saying he wants a peaceful world? I bet if you put that to a vote most people are going to end up supporting it too. If Bush had just said "we're going to take Iraq's oil and kill all the political opposition to our theft there", do you think Americans would support the war?

I sure don't. But they support peace. Nothing wrong with that idea, and if you think Bush's immigration policy is about promoting growth around the world, then please, tell more people about it for me .

 

[LAK]

shootinstudent

How about option three: Most people have more moderate positions on immigration than you do, and so by being moderate and less alarmist himself, Bush is actually responding to a greater share of his voting base? There's a reason why no border-enforcement alarmist ever make it on the national scene. And it's not the John Kerry/Al Gore reason for every lost vote.

Option three is that W Bush is incredibly stupid. Moronic.

It is not a subjective matter. It has been fielded and kicked around as such, but uncontrolled migration is inherently destructive. If you juxtapose the idea of uncontrolled migration with George W Bush and his administration telling us for four years that the militant faction of about 1.5 billion people want to destroy our country - and we are going to be the subject of more serious attacks - it is utter insanity.

If not, someone(s) is lying. It can not be both.

But even in peacetime it is inherently destructive. Allowing millions of people of unknown nationality, status and intention to flood in is national suicide. Even controlled immigration from third world countries like Mexico carries inherent perils. Mexico, like the others, is run by a corrupt regime. Their criminal databases can not be trusted, and neither can their general records and data concerning people obtaining credentials to travel etc.

The reason why people for strict border control "never make it on the scene" is that it is contrary to a planned geo-political agenda that goes back to the 1930s, and none of the candidates allowed into the electoral fight ring are going to go against their ringmasters. In case you haven't noticed - or seen it covered on CNN - the entire world is being consolidated into major political and (in interim) "trade" blocs. Some like the new Europa are already de facto political States. There is the African Union, APEC etc. Only dreamers contend that somehow Canada, the United States and Mexico are going to remain separate sovereign States with the rest of the world is being structured in this way. At least not under the current political status quo.

As for those quotes....is there something wrong with Bush saying he wants a peaceful world? I bet if you put that to a vote most people are going to end up supporting it too. If Bush had just said "we're going to take Iraq's oil and kill all the political opposition to our theft there", do you think Americans would support the war?

"Peace and prosperity in every land" is an illusion. Utopia. Not going to happen. So one must again ask why W Bush would say such a thing. An agenda to secure "peace and prosperity in every land" can only be even attempted with one approach; absolute power and control. There's a word for that - it's called tyranny.

It must also involve other factors, like a levelling of the economic playing field. Let no one kid themselves - for there to be equal "prosperity in every land" including all those third world countries it is our standard of living that is going to go down. Not the other way around. We can already see the beginnings of this in the way jobs are being exported and the use of benign terms like "outsourcing".

It really doesn't matter whether "Americans support" the invasion, destruction and occupation of Iraq. It was going to take place regardless of party in office or anything else. Just as it doesn't matter how much opposition there is to uncontrolled migration, at least as long as people keep supporting the current political status quo.

I sure don't. But they support peace. Nothing wrong with that idea, and if you think Bush's immigration policy is about promoting growth around the world, then please, tell more people about it for me .

Like many others you use the term "growth" as if it is an overriding imperative regardless of everything else. This is folly, and it is not without good reason - at least under our current monetary system - that the interest rates are raised every now and then to inhibit growth.

But before we can start facilitating "growth in every land" - we need to consolidate our own.

First it needs securing as far as possible. That means stopping the uncontrolled crossborder traffic. Purging out people who should not be here that already are, and only allowing people to immigrate who come from civilized countries with reliable - at least as reliable as ours - ID and criminal records, and with a similar general level of institutional integrity. And bringing in people with skills that are needed. Not cheap unskilled labor. We have plenty of people that are unskilled.

We need to have a complete range of industries including a manufacturing base again, and to utilize our resources that we are not dependent on other countries. We have plenty of resources. This is called independence. We need the environment where our own citizens come first, and can accumilate wealth and property.

We our nation has no national debt, and is as self-sufficient as possible, then we can see about helping everyone else.

I have no problem with letting students come here under controlled conditions, learning technical skills in our universities and institutions - and then taking them back to their own countries where they can build the prosperity we were on the way to enjoying here.

 

[shootinstudent]

It is not a subjective matter. It has been fielded and kicked around as such, but uncontrolled migration is inherently destructive

You are creating a straw man. No one is proposing uncontrolled migration. So that's not even remotely relevant.

Second, when did Bush tell us that all muslims want to kill all Americans? Can you quote him on that? 1.5 billion people? Or do you mean the chinese? Let's see some quotes.

You'll be looking for a while on those, so you might want to read below first.

In case you haven't noticed - or seen it covered on CNN - the entire world is being consolidated into major political and (in interim) "trade" blocs.

Trade agreements are a GOOD thing. They make more money. Profit and efficiency are good for America. In case you hadn't noticed.

If you want a country with no foreign relations and which tries to keep all industries at home, move to North Korea. No immigration, no "entangling foreign alliances", and the political will to kill all enemies. Your dream state, right?

An agenda to secure "peace and prosperity in every land" can only be even attempted with one approach; absolute power and control. There's a word for that - it's called tyranny.

So now Bush wants to take over the world? I thought you were saying that Bush was going to let the Mexicans take his country away from him. And, uh, since when is there only "one approach" to world development?

Find me one credible expert on international development who makes this claim. That one will also keep you busy for a while, so read on again...

We our nation has no national debt, and is as self-sufficient as possible, then we can see about helping everyone else.

Is it your belief that the US is lagging behind on the international scene!? We have the largest economy and the most powerful military in the world. This has happened over the past 50 years despite a steady stream of all the policies that you claim are ruining America.

On top of all this is the political question. You have your own judgments about foreign affairs, fine. They're not supported by research or history or a basic understanding of international trade. But the main point is, whether you are right or not, most Americans do not agree with you. That's no "conspiracy." Your plan for America is on the fringe because most Americans have decided they want to go in another direction.

Unless there's a 100 million man conspiracy machine out there, of course, that obscures the truth from everyone except you. Is that your position? Most of America is fooled, but the small fringe groups that agree with your border alarmism are not?

What's going to destroy America isn't immigration. It'll be long dead before that at the hands of people who say "CNN is run by the jews and full of lies. That's why I get all my news from dragonmaster zeke's geocities page."

 

[Unique 5.7]

Self sufficiency is a very inefficient way to run a given country's economy. It was a foolish idea when Jimmy Carter proposed it and it is still a foolish idea today. Thank heavens Bill Clinton stood up to the unions and sided with the Republicans on GATT and NAFTA. Remember those hysterical promises of high unemployment by Ross Perot and the unions if we did that? And what did happen? Oh, yeah, record LOW unemployment levels. We have shortages of certain natural resources, trade is the way to true strength and economic efficiency. Look back in history and you will see that the great city states engaged in the most trade.

 

[LAK]

shootinstudent

You are creating a straw man. No one is proposing uncontrolled migration. So that's not even remotely relevant.

Not quite. We have uncontrolled migration. We have a population of illegal migrants that conservatively number about 10 million or more. That is; upward of 10 million people in this country whose identities, countries of origin, backgrounds and intents are unknown.

Second, when did Bush tell us that all muslims want to kill all Americans? Can you quote him on that? 1.5 billion people? Or do you mean the chinese? Let's see some quotes.

Um ... read it again:
LAK said

If you juxtapose the idea of uncontrolled migration with George W Bush and his administration telling us for four years that the militant faction of about 1.5 billion people want to destroy our country - and we are going to be the subject of more serious attacks - it is utter insanity

See? "the militant faction of ...".

Trade agreements are a GOOD thing. They make more money. Profit and efficiency are good for America. In case you hadn't noticed.

Trade agreements are fine. Trade blocs being used as a tool to subvert national sovereignty, the interest of a nation's entire citizenry, and converted into political States are not.

Study the history of the EU from it's beginnings in the 1950s when it began as "the European Common Market". Study the political debates at the time, and the insistance of those pushing it that "it is just about trade". Study the morphing process through the name changes to "European Economic Community". Study the political debates and the assurances again that it is "just about trade". Follow the name changes to "European Community" and "European Union". Follow the debates.

When the debates surrounding the conflict between certain sovereignty and legal issues arose a few years back, it took people like Romano Prodi, the Italian Commissioner to the EU, to publicly state to the effect "Why are [all the other European leaders] being so shy? Stop pretending that this Union was not intended to be a political union from the beginning ...".

Yes, Mr. Prodi does not see the need to be shy anymore, and it is now open record that this was the intent from the start - despite a succession of governments that lied to their citizens at the time and said otherwise.

The North America Free Trade Agreement has already been morphed into the Free Trade Area of the Americas. Wonder what the next one is? Perhaps you should study some of the political material on the FTAA and it's "Summit" websites.

If you want a country with no foreign relations and which tries to keep all industries at home, move to North Korea. No immigration, no "entangling foreign alliances", and the political will to kill all enemies. Your dream state, right?

That is not what I said. What specific "foreign relations" are you referring to?

It is not just a simple matter of "keeping all industires at home". It is a matter of having a manufacturing base, employment, and a measure of self-suffciency. Actually North Korea imports alot of things; like petroleum, coal, machinery/equipment, textiles and grain etc - to the tune of over $2 billion in 2002.

Don't quite know what you mean by "the political will to kill all enemies". Sounds like the theme for a Hollywood film. We do need to be able to defend our borders. We do have the technology (when people in our government are not selling it to our enemies), the resources, and - if our government isn't giving it away - the money to defend our borders against any army, navy and air force on earth.

So now Bush wants to take over the world? I thought you were saying that Bush was going to let the Mexicans take his country away from him. And, uh, since when is there only "one approach" to world development?

"Take over the world"? I don't think George is leadership material. He isn't even a good actor.

"Let the Mexicans" do what? The "Mexicans" don't even have their own country. Take a look at who the people are that run the Mexican government.

From what hat did you pull the term "world developement"? Who came up with that one? Now, national developement is something tangible, since a government looking after the interests of it's people will develope the nation. Other nations, seeking to do the same can follow a similar model - or choose their own way. That's a part of what is called sovereignty.

Find me one credible expert on international development who makes this claim. That one will also keep you busy for a while, so read on again...

Uh .. ditto "world developement". It seems to me that you are laboring under the misapprehension that the "developement" of the rest of the world is somehow something we, the People of the United States are somehow obligated to plan, organize, fund, implement and run. Now I am beginning to see the problem. You have already immigrated yourself - to the Global Village.

I don't live there.

Is it your belief that the US is lagging behind on the international scene!? We have the largest economy and the most powerful military in the world. This has happened over the past 50 years despite a steady stream of all the policies that you claim are ruining America.

Newspeak. Try instead; what currently is the national debt? What are the future financial obligations of the United States over the next 20 years? What is the average credit debt of the citizens of the United States? How many will be able to pay their own retirement without selling property or using State benefits? ETC.

Our miltary is getting threadbare. It is not it's normal quality at issue - it's the current state of manpower, equipment etc after two years in Iraq. If we open up another campaign in Iran, Syria and/or elsewhere it is not going to fly without a massive influx of people, equipment, other resources and money. The first and last elements do not grow on trees.

On top of all this is the political question. You have your own judgments about foreign affairs, fine. They're not supported by research or history or a basic understanding of international trade. But the main point is, whether you are right or not, most Americans do not agree with you. That's no "conspiracy." Your plan for America is on the fringe because most Americans have decided they want to go in another direction.

Depends on who's "research", "history" or "basic understanding of international trade" you are talking about.

Who told you "most Americans do not agree with [me]"? How do you know how many Americans "agree with me" or not? And, who cares? The United States is not a "democracy". Our government is obligated - sworn - to uphold and defend our Constitution and it's mandates are clear. They do not include "world developement" - or running the Global Village.

Unless there's a 100 million man conspiracy machine out there, of course, that obscures the truth from everyone except you. Is that your position? Most of America is fooled, but the small fringe groups that agree with your border alarmism are not?

Again, you assume to know much. But evidently you haven't the faintest idea of what it means for a nation to have secure borders - and stable economy and culture. Let alone what amounts to insanity during a period when "national security" is supposed to be paramount.

What's going to destroy America isn't immigration. It'll be long dead before that at the hands of people who say "CNN is run by the jews and full of lies. That's why I get all my news from dragonmaster zeke's geocities page."

CNN - like FOX News - is run by the same oligarchs who front people like John Kerry and George W Bush.

Ted Turner and Rupert Murdoch are "Jews"? Now that is news to me.

 

[shootinstudent]

We have uncontrolled migration.

Turning back 500,000 people a year is not uncontrolled. Why do you think illegals are crossing through the middle of the desert? It's because we have controls. You just don't think they're sufficient, and you want to spend more money on extra controls. That's the debate. It's not "let everyone in versus do something to stop them." It's "how much money should we spend on this?"

See? "the militant faction of ...".

It's an ambiguous line. If I write "a group of a hundred people", are you going to automatically read that as being one smaller group out of a larger hundred? Now that you're clear, let's get back to the point-expenditures on anti-terrorism intelligence are at record highs. The September 11th hijackers, for example, got here on Visas. Every dollar we spend on border patrol in this respect is a dollar wasted that could've been spent on improving intelligence about all terrorists worldwide.

Trade agreements are fine. Trade blocs being used as a tool to subvert national sovereignty, the interest of a nation's entire citizenry, and converted into political States are not.

Let me summarize your argument: The EU had an economic plan and decided on political union, therefore, the United States will do the same? They are two totally different areas. The fact that the Europeans do something means precisely zero in terms of North American political systems. Where's the "political commentary" you're talking about in North America? Show me a credible source that claims the US government is planning on releasing sovereignty to Mexico, Canada, or any other American state.

It is a matter of having a manufacturing base, employment, and a measure of self-suffciency.

Which of these is the US missing? We don't make cheap wal-mart products here. So what? If you want to keep all manufacturing in the US, be my guest and join the 5 other people in America who refuse to buy foreign made products. This, too, is something most Americans are fine with. If a cheaper product of acceptable quality comes from somewhere else, that's where it should come from.

See Unique's post, he is spot on in this area.

In addition, the US has PLENTY of capital for emergency situations. No one is going to cripple the US. Try name one basic industry that could never be resurrected, and you'll see that.

From what hat did you pull the term "world developement"? Who came up with that one? Now, national developement is something tangible, since a government looking after the interests of it's people will develope the nation.

World development means: development of many countries. That's pretty clear from the two words, "world", and "development." You are playing semantics. And if we follow the policies you're claiming to support (closed border, no manufacturing abroad, etc), we will not develop. The interesting piece of European history you should've studied isn't the EU for this point; look at the Marshall plan and how much the US has benefitted because of it.

It seems to me that you are laboring under the misapprehension that the "developement" of the rest of the world is somehow something we, the People of the United States are somehow obligated to plan, organize, fund, implement and run.

You missed the point again. What I am saying is that the US benefits greatly from development and free trade relationships with other nations. Those nations benefit also. It's not a "moral obligation", it's good business sense. If something can be built cheaper in Mexico, and at the same time, something can be made in the US to trade for it, then that is the economically efficient thing to do. Your position takes no account of economic benefit to the US; I think your last comment about "cultural stability" is the most telling. You are not considering whether or not the US profits from its policies; you just want to have your own little American island where people sing the George Washington cherry tree song and pay exhorbitant fees for a bunch of lazy teenagers to build nike shoes. That is a recipe for recession and disaster, not for prosperity.

Who told you "most Americans do not agree with [me]"? How do you know how many Americans "agree with me" or not? And, who cares? The United States is not a "democracy". Our government is obligated - sworn - to uphold and defend our Constitution and it's mandates are clear. They do not include "world developement" - or running the Global Village.

The answer to this one is obvious. Name a border alarmist politician who has succeeded in leaps and bounds on the national scene. That's right, people who focus on stopping the mexicans NEVER win big elections. Pat Buchanan got destroyed, so did Ross Perot. Does that sound like people support your plan?

The three most popular presidents in recent times: Reagan, Clinton, and G.W. Bush. That's pretty good support for my case right there. And, your point about the constitutional mandate is laughable. Show me where in the constitution free trade agreements and liberal immigration are prohibited.

But evidently you haven't the faintest idea of what it means for a nation to have secure borders - and stable economy and culture.

Right, that's why you cited zero evidence that closed border, anti-trade policies benefit the economy. The evidence in support of my position is clear: We have had all of the policies you are opposing since WWII. Growth during that period has been astronomical. So let's see some credible evidence that your "plan", whatever it is beyond protecting all home grown industries and spending billions more on border patrol, will benefit the economy.

You're also missing the bigger point about immigration here: There are not enough youth in America to support the economy. At the current rate, the ratio of workers to retired people will be woefully inadequate. So where do you want to get those millions and millions of new workers that will be absolutely needed in the next generation? Or would you rather just watch the economy shrink to the point that no one can afford to retire, in the interest of "cultural stability"?

CNN - like FOX News - is run by the same oligarchs who front people like John Kerry and George W Bush.

This is the key problem here, LAK. Your distrust of mainstream information and politics is based on...what? What's your credible, reliable source for information? And are these "oligarchs" in the media forcing all americans to watch only CNN and FOX?

It's obvious to me that you believe in the "secret rich folk controlling everything behind the scenes" conspiracy. In fact, I'm willing to bet decent money that you have a suspicion that the Jews are behind this one.

My position: The reason your position is unpopular and neglected in national politics isn't a secret. No one is buying the "be a sovereign and don't pay taxes!" pamphlet lines anymore. You're acting just like the radical democrats who claim that Bush fixed every single vote in his two presidential elections on this issue.

Show me evidence that the media/jews/whoever are controlling information and that they force all Americans to believe it, and I'll reverse my judgment.

 

[Wallew]

SIS,

Sweet, you're exactly the kind of guy I was talking about having the potential to embarrass the minuteman project. Racial warfare and white supremacy (I'm assuming you're a white supremacist) are the quickest way to send an organization's reputation to the dust-bin of history in today's political climate. Why do you think toughening up illegal immigration law has been so hard thus far?

YOU are the problem, not me. I am neither racist nor white supremist. The best man in my wedding was BLACK. My families best friends are MOSTLY MEXICAN. Not latino or hispanic, but MEXICAN. Those who came FROM MEXICO.

Again, you make all sorts of claims throughout this thread. They are all either incorrect or founded on false data. You make ASSUMPTIONS all over the place.

I grew up in SOUTH TEXAS speaking spanish as much as english. In Corpus Christi (SPANISH for Body of CHRIST), the population was 2/3 mexican and 1/3 white. Spanish was a require course in GRADE SCHOOL.

So please, peddle you bleeding heart liberalism somewhere else. We are seeing what LA RAZA calls 'taking back Mexico's lands stolen from them over 100 years ago'. They seem to forget things like the Alamo. Yes, 100 + TEXICANS held off 5000 MEXICANS for a few days and then were slaughtered. MOST people seem to forget the cry "Remember the Alamo" as TEXICANS slaughtered Santa Ana's army and then chased the remanents BACK to MEXICO in full disarry.

And you NEVER ADDRESSED THE FACTS that more than seventy percent of the population of the USA IS WHITE. Like it or don't, I could give a cr@p. That's a plain fact. And if all these MINORITIES think THEY are in control of THIS COUNTRY, they will one day wake up to a very RUDE FACT. That they are ILLEGAL GUESTS in this country.

TODAY, on the Texas side of the border, MEXICANS are constantly breaking our laws, destroying our land and running rightful owners away from a quiet existence. At some point, THOSE THAT ARE BEING MISTREATED BY MEXICANS will have enough and WILL FIGHT BACK.

THE MMP is but the tip of this iceberg. Again, I could care less if you believe it or not. You are apparently NOT a student of HISTORY. If you were, you would know all of this.

I see it like a large black cloud on the distant horizon. I KNOW what's causing that large black cloud to be caused. Apparently YOU DO NOT.

For those who asked, do I want to see VIOLENCE on the ARIZONA border? ONLY IN SELF DEFENSE, which is HOW it will occur. Apparently NONE of you have heard of Central American GANGS (MS-13 is but one) that have been infiltrating our larger cities and have started taking over the barrios one block at a time. At some point in the future, WE WILL DEAL WITH THEM. AND IT WON'T BE PRETTY.

Unless YOU think living in a THIRD WORLD COUNTRY LIKE MEXICO is where you want YOUR KIDS TO GROW UP. You know, where kidnapping, drug dealing and mordido (openly bribing officials) is considered a profession.

Go watch "Man On Fire" with Denzel Washington. IF that's where you want our country to end up, then we should sit back and listen to the likes of YOU. I DO NOT. NOR WILL I LISTEN TO OR GIVE MERCY TO INDIVIDUALS SUCH AS YOU. You have NO IDEA why this country was founded and what is currently being allowed to happen by the whores in Washington.

It's like a magician. They distract you with one hand while the other hand is doing 'magic'. Yeah, right.

 

[shootinstudent]

Wallew,

The facts are all in my discussion with LAK and I posted some on yours too.


But here's what I was responding to:

At some point, white people, YES WE ARE STILL BETTER THAN SEVENTY PERCENT OF THIS COUNTRY, will get tired of all the BS from their politicians and we will have that Second American Revolution.

Does your black best man know that you claim you're better than him?

Saying "whites are better" is white supremacy. Plain and simple. And fine, be my guest. I don't care what you believe. But don't be surprised when every political organization that wants to win an election sends you and your "whites are better" brothers packing.

You are apparently NOT a student of HISTORY. If you were, you would know all of this.

Funny you mention this, because I just finished with the formal part of that. Let's see the history that proves minorities are running the US and that whites are a master race.

Corpus Christi is latin, btw.

 

[Charley]

Too tired to write much, but just a few notes.
(First, I don't like to speak for others, but on the issue of "better than 70%"...SIS, I think you misread it. I did the first time I read it also. I believe what Wallew meant was "better than" in the sence of "more than", not literally "superior than." That whites make up 70 % of the population, not that they are superior to 70%. Easy mistake to make, but a good example of why both sides must make sure we understand the opposition's point before labeling them racist.)
I agree that The MMP is just the beginning. It was never meant to be anything other than that. I was secretly worried that what I would find in Arizona would be KKK or the likes. I was pleasantly surprised. Most of the people I met should be on Quaker Oatmeal commercials. When they are not rallying against our open-door policy, they are chattering about their newest grandbaby or the price of gas in Topeka verses San Diego. Good people who are concerned about the effect of mass uncontrolled illegal migration into their country.
We met ranchers and other locals who were very supportive of us being there. Only a couple of times did a local resident show resentment at the MMP for being there. It was interesting because I think both the locals and border control agents were kind of "holding their breaths", waiting to see what this band of minutemen were like. Understandably. But as the week progressed, they found what I found...good people, not racists or lunatics. Little by little, they started coming out of the woodwork, starting up conversations, thanking us for being there.
On the issue of security and self defense for the volunteers, I will withhold my opinion at this time, wishing only to say that it is an "issue" that is being discussed within the MMP ranks. I have very strong feelings regarding the issue but April 30 is still a long way away and I do not wish to jepardize anyone by running off at the mouth about such things. It is a real concern.

 

[shootinstudent]

Why did the KKK disappear? Because of all the liberal values allowing 'minorities' all the rights of non-minorities. During the sixties, all da hippies thought it was a grand idea.

Expect a similar form of KKK to reappear in the coming years, as illegal aliens demand AND RECIEVE the same rights as US CITIZENS.

Charley,

I think those quotes make the context clear.

But I want to make it clear also that I do not believe all those who support a more secure border are racists. I really respect your well thought out postings Charley. I do disagree with you on where we need to spend our resources as Americans, but I think you have a valid opinion and you express it in reasonable, honest terms.

My point earlier in this thread was that perhaps the minuteman organization wanted to avoid arms to prevent one single racist from spoiling the whole deal. I support the minutemen's ability to exercise their rights as citizens, even though they aren't on the same track as I am on this point. I think it's pretty clear, though, that if people get the mistaken impression that it's just a bunch of racists hating on mexicans, that the minuteman project will not be taken seriously.

 

[Charley]

Well, I will have to let Wallew speak for himself. It is funny, though, that two people can read a post and get two completely different things from it. I did not see the post as advocating KKK-type activity; rather, I took it as pointing out that if mass illegal immigration is allowed to continue, one of the more unsavory effects will be an increase of such activity. An inevitable, though certainly undesirable, consequence. One can recognize and point out the potential for something without necessarily advocating it.

One of the things that I did take note of when talking to volunteers: many of them said that when they first began to speak out against open-door policies in their communities, they were surprised to find themselves having to defend against allegations of racism from media and even friends and family. In talking about it, you could see in many of their eyes the utter frustration...since most of them detest racism as much as anyone. I could relate to that frustration myself. Instead of discussing the issue, they talked of having to try and convince others that they were not racist. They "took it" for a while, but now many of them make no more apologies for their belief in a secure border. In fact, some of them can offer a pretty good argument why an open-door-policy is actually the more racist position. My point is that those who have attempted to turn the border issue into a race issue may find it bites them in the rear, because despite years of PC, most Americans are not racists and resent being labeled as one simply because they hold an opinion for or against a particular policy that has been defined as a race-issue by either a legitimate minority group or by a group posing as minority-minded group but that in fact has an agenda of its own.
I can't speak to the effect the MMP will have on a national level, but I do think that it has demonstrated that people can muster the courage to consider the real issues of border security despite the fear that "the race card" will be slapped on them. Even if nothing else is accomplished, this is a good thing. It keeps the issue honest.

 

[PDshooter]

Where do I "Enlist"
I,m tired of bitching about "Illegals" where do I sign-up!