P.S. Thomas, one day payback time will come. That you can rest assured of
*******************************************
This is the crap that you post on other open forums. Get real you sick F**k !!!!
EDIT:
Do y'all really WANT me to deal with this person in this manner?
I am sorry for using strong and harsh language. I thought you were a little more tough than that. I guess your fake Army needs to get a little more b***s before you have what it takes to defend your pansy asses from big brother.
EDIT:
It's not about 'tough', it's called common decency!
CDJ _________________ NOTE TO ALL:
This user 'banned' for profanity, abuse, and harrasment!
Mr. Stoddard followed me here from another forum which tolerates this extreme behavior. I apologize but, in open forums I have been trying to reach people who have never heard all sides of an issue.
Having stooped to Mr. Stoddard's level on his personal site, it was hoped that he would come here and state his case without the profanity, obscenity, and name calling he finds acceptable on other forums.
I'm not playing holier than thou with the readers here. After being subjected to a lot of abuse by this individual and his supporters, I got in the gutter and started talking to them at their level. Reason and pleas for honest discussion fell on deaf ears and blind eyes.
However, back to the topic at hand. Next time I post, we will look at what Mr. Stoddard said that we can respond to. Maybe one of his supporters will come here and respond to the questions asked.
Mr. Stoddard followed me here from another forum which tolerates this extreme behavior. I apologize but, in open forums I have been trying to reach people who have never heard all sides of an issue.
Your efforts are appreciated in this regard. No apology necessary. YOU did nothing improper.
Having stooped to Mr. Stoddard's level on his personal site, it was hoped that he would come here and state his case without the profanity, obscenity, and name calling he finds acceptable on other forums.
That's on Mr. Stoddard! Well, it was...
I'm not playing holier than thou with the readers here. After being subjected to a lot of abuse by this individual and his supporters, I got in the gutter and started talking to them at their level. Reason and pleas for honest discussion fell on deaf ears and blind eyes.
Fight fire with fire. Your integrity is in place. I found myself thinking in some profane terms. Nor am I holier than anyone. During all that abuse here, I remembered a little tid bit I had read from you:
Count your joys instead of your woes;
Count your friends instead of your foes.
However, back to the topic at hand. Next time I post, we will look at what Mr. Stoddard said that we can respond to. Maybe one of his supporters will come here and respond to the questions asked.
Onward!
CDJ _________________ A ship in a harbor is safe, but that is not what they are made for.
Enforcer, you have nothing to apologize for. As you know, I have watched the attacks Tom has launched on you in other boards.
For the rest of you, this man never takes Enforcer's claims and tries to refute them on an intellectual level. He resorts to the same language and worse and can only try to insult Enforcer.
Mr. Stoddard has shown his 'colors' on many posts from wanting strict gun control (his answer is to call the police) to gay rights and 'strict' enforcement on immigration. I have tried to engage him in conversation to see if he can give any 'real' solutions to the immigration issue as it now stands. As you have all seen on this thread, when I asked Enforcer that same question, he laid out a very logical answer for me. One that I can honestly say I agree with. This person couldn't give me any answer other than to condemn my association with Enforcer and launch personal attacks. _________________ "You must become an advocate of what you believe otherwise, you will become a victim of what others want you to believe" - author unkown
To get back to the thread at hand, Enforcer, I read the documents you referred. They are very enlightening. I agree with you that a driver's license shouldn't be a form of national id - unfortunately, in the world we live in today - a license has become a national id. Think about when you go for a job what does the employer ask for? Your drivers license and SS card. Most people will not stand up for what should be their individual rights as it makes it more difficult for them to get along in our society as it is now.
Of course, that then leads to the next question, beyond immigration, at what point will Americans stand up and say NO to what the government wants to make acceptable? When will we believe together that our personal rights are being taken from us?
On immigration, I was asking you about giving immigrants driver licenses as a form of ID only because in our country - as it stands now - that is an 'accepted form of ID' right or wrong. I am finding the more I learn about this issue, the more ensconsed it is in every aspect of our life and our culture. It affects everything in our country.
I know you are for Ron Paul, do you honestly think that he can 'fix' the immigration issue as it is now and if so how do you think he will do it?
Thanks for the answers, you continue to teach me a lot about this issue.
Shyloh _________________ "You must become an advocate of what you believe otherwise, you will become a victim of what others want you to believe" - author unkown
Considering that with every issue the American people, the militia especially have erased the line in the sand and backed up only to draw another line in the sand, I begin to wonder at what point we say enough is enough.
At one time I thought that we needed to simply say no more immigration at all. But, we waited too long and created a situation where to keep legislating when more laws only equaled fewer freedoms and liberties. We created the same situation with drugs in this country. And we're doing the same thing with imported goods coming into the U.S.
Unfortunately, we've almost come to a point where on all political fronts there are no political remedies and no legal remedies left. We are on the verge of either having to resort to open rebellion or total submission. And the only thing left for people like you and I is passive resistance for the moment.
President James Madison made a eerie prediction. He said: "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." Today, the perceived "enemies" are the people from south of the border and the Muslim extremists. Ironically the people from south of the border are predominantly Catholic and have been at war with the Muslims for the better part of a thousand years.
Further, our perception is one where we have the power, through mob rule, to force the government to act in our best interests. This flies in the face of all logic. There is an old adage that a person convinced against their will is of the same opinion still. So, at first glance, it appears that we are doomed. If the so - called "illegal alien" as they call 'em doesn't destroy the borders, language, and culture, the extremist Muslims will. Again, on that point, let me quote Madison:
"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
The absolute phony war on terror makes no sense. Saudis attack the World Trade Center. Bush goes to war against Saddam Hussein... who had nothing to do with the attacks on us. Meanwhile, the Saudis own more banks in the United States than Americans do. And when I was working in the gun business, Special Forces operatives used to tell me that when they captured Afghan terrorists, they would take their cell phones and look at who they'd been in touch with. More often than not, Afghan terrorists were being aided by Saudi princes.
In America, we have people who actually believe that the sheeple can force the government to do something about immigration... and most know full well what the government's real intentions are (the North American Union is a perfect example.) And think closely about it. The very people who concocted the NAU control the person who most likely will be the next president. EVERY presidential candidate with the exceptions of Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee are Council on Foreign Relations members... and Huckabee went from a single digit candidate in the polls to a top tier candidate only days after making a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations.
I think that too many people today worry about whether Ron Paul can get elected. Well, here is my take very simply. If you vote for any of the other candidates for president, the NAU (or some similar CFR proposal) WILL become law. They control the issue and they will control the president. HOWEVER, if enough people vote for Ron Paul, he can win the election, just as George Wallace won three decades ago. You don't always have to be elected to win. You just have to get enough support to make an impact on issues that are otherwise a done deal.
Wallace brought issues to the forefront that the establishment candidates didn't want to address. Ditto for Ron Paul. And Ron Paul, being a constitutionalist will, in my opinion, change his tune about empowering the federal government to do something about immigration after he sees how backward and ridiculous (not to mention socialistic) the laws on property rights and immigration have become.
(sorry to be too philosophical but, it builds up to what I'm getting ready to say next.)
I have a couple more questions for you on this topic. (Am I driving you crazy with all these questions yet?? lol)
Someone sent me an email recently talking about 'Operation Wetback'. I wasn't really familiar with it, so I researched it and found it occurred back in the 1950's. I am sure you are more familiar with it than I am. Am I correct in thinking that the reason our 'Government' won't do something like that again is because it would go against the idea of the North American Union? I keep thinking that if the Gov't REALLY wanted to 'fix' the immigration issue they could, but if they did the financial ramifications would be devastating to them, is that correct?
Thanks,
Shyloh _________________ "You must become an advocate of what you believe otherwise, you will become a victim of what others want you to believe" - author unkown
This is an excellent question and one I had hoped someone would ask earlier. It's a bit complex but, easier if one reads this entire thread before ending up with this response.
Let's talk about the North American Union. The North American Union is the brainchild of the Council on Foreign Relations. The Council on Foreign Relations is the biggest foreign policy membership organization in the world. And the North American Union is all their idea:
Since virtually EVERY person running for the office of president is a member of the CFR (the ONLY exception at this point is Ron Paul), then you can say the North American Union is a done deal, a miracle for the Paul supporters notwithstanding.
On the flip side of this issue is the people who have adopted the Ku Klux Klan model (most not realizing it.) They want a bigger and more intrusive government to help save them from themselves. What is really going on there is that we will build a huge, internal police / military force under the pretext of helping save us from those "hordes of illegal aliens" (sic.)
The building up of troops and the fence idea is window dressing. The fence cannot last AND once the North American Union is in place, such a fence will be irrelevant. The police force, however, will not be. Those troops will be the backbone of the New World Order effort to institute Martial Law. The American people having begged for this monstrous sized police / military force will have no legal nor moral recourse to resist them.
The reality is, the government cannot do much about the immigration situation. We've reached the point of no return. Let's do the math:
Mexico has a population of 105 Million
Estimates put the undocumented MEXICANS in the U.S. as high as 15 MILLION.
That means that over 10 percent of the Mexican population has entered the United States illegally. This has been going on for generations. I'm personally related by blood to Americans whose GRANDPARENTS entered this country illegally. Personally, I don't even know how to arrive at a figure that would estimate how many LEGAL Americans have been born in the United States whose parents entered the United States illegally.
You'll hear talk of "closing the loophole" and eliminating the so - called "anchor babies." What those people fail to realize are three important things:
1) Those babies born in the United States to undocumented parents are still American citizens via the 14th Amendment
2) You cannot "undo" the citizenship of millions of children as it would be cost prohibitive but, more importantly it would be a violation of the constitutional ban on ex post facto laws (Article 1 Section 9 of the Consitution) and
3) Unlike the 1950s, today's Hispanic community spans more than migrant workers and they heavily influence our economy, despite all the anti - immigration rhetoric to the contrary.
1) Virtually all federal level politicians who seek to attain higher and higher status (or keep getting re-elected) are in the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations.) If they did not agree to the goals and objectives of the CFR, they would not join it. Think about it.
Many so - called conservatives agree with me on nine out of 10 issues. But, they will not join with, support, or even associate with me because I don't support the militarization of the borders. Yet those same people will not believe that their Congressman isn't going to sell them out even when they know he / she is a CFR member. Yet, each of those CFR members is committed to a One World Government
2) Even if it were possible to deport millions of foreigners, would you really want to do it? The housing crunch has a trickle down effect. Right now it is affecting the construction industry, banks, and other lending institutions. Empty out MILLIONS of homes and deport those foreigners and what happens to the banks, lending institutions, tax collectors, and the communities who are dependent upon the foreigners?
3) When the majority of politicians at the federal level are CFR members; when the courts have stated that American property owners do NOT have a right to protect their property; when the LEOs (Law Enforcement Organizations say that the undocumented people have the same rights as do you and I (http://www.sheriff-okaloosa.org/ Click on the immigration info link) and there isn't much the federal government can do ...EXCEPT put up a good smoke and mirrors show while they prepare you for the inevitable.
We've explored many facets of this issue only to find they are predicated upon flimsly "facts." For instance we looked at the truth behind medical services. I took the best case the Minutemen could come up with and proved it to be wrong... same thing happened recently on another board and this time I found TWO jurisdictions in Texas where the hospital administrators said that immigrants paid the bulk of their hospital bills.
The only real issues I come up with are the changing face of America (from WASPS to brown people), the end of the English language (and I couldn't understand the younger generation anyway), and I'm still in disagreement with the issue of whether or not the Hispanics in America are driving wages down. Big business says it isn't so but, they are in it for themselves so I just don't trust everything they say.
Outside of that, every symptom would be better addressed at the state an local level AFTER we have policed ourselves. The only way I see to reverse the situation is to police ourselves and limit our contact with people from foreign countries... legal or not. Even if you do business with a perfectly "legal" alien, they most likely have a friend and or relatives who came in this country without documentation.
And after all that long winded diatribe, let me ask you: What freedoms and liberties would you forego in order to reduce the number of foreigners in America?
Enforcer,
Well, I would have asked these questions earlier but you keep me super busy reading up on all the stuff you have been covering for years but that I have only been reading for a couple months...lol.
OK, I, personally am unwilling to forego any of my freedoms or liberties to reduce the number of foreigners in America. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." My personal feeling is that I will do all that I can personally do to keep my family and myself safe and the way for me to do that is to keep all of my personal freedoms and natural rights given by God.
On a national level, I believe the government is making the immigration issue seem more corrupt and more threatening than maybe it truly is because that is how they will issue in a North American Union. By playing on fears they will get people to willingly give up natural rights (much like the Patriot Act that was passed) am I correct on this?
I am trying so hard to really work this through (maybe I over analyze it). I really do appreciate all your time and education on this. I am really reading all the links you give and trying to sort this out as quickly as I can to ask even more questions and learn more.
If, 'solving the problem' was REALLY the issue, couldn't the government issue simple legislation - things like making English the 'official' language. A simpler, fairer tax system (like the FairTax), some type of system designed to screen immigrants coming in so that if they were criminal, sick, etc that they would be denied access here?
What I am seeing is that this is really simply a FINANCIAL issue for the government. I was reading today about the CFR (for anyone that hasn't gone to their website, go check it out). It is really something that they claim they are non-partisan (which is true since they have both democrats and republicans) but since they are able to control and influence politics it really doesn't matter that they are 'nonpartisan' or 'independent' does it?
So, I guess with this being a financial issue - the best way to deal with it comes down to something I see throughout this entire board, we need to be self-sufficient and be there for one another most of all as a group. If we could band together and support ourselves and each other without being dependent on stores, banks, government, etc we would have a better chance of standing up to what seems to be inevitably coming this way... am I correct in this?
Thanks,
Shyloh _________________ "You must become an advocate of what you believe otherwise, you will become a victim of what others want you to believe" - author unkown
"I believe the government is making the immigration issue seem more corrupt and more threatening than maybe it truly is because that is how they will issue in a North American Union. By playing on fears they will get people to willingly give up natural rights (much like the Patriot Act that was passed) am I correct on this?"
This is absolutely correct. Even if we submit to National ID, that would be moot if / when the North American Union idea (or something like it) is implemented. Therefore, we would have submitted to tyranny for no justifiable reason.
Shyloh then asks:
"If, 'solving the problem' was REALLY the issue, couldn't the government issue simple legislation - things like making English the 'official' language. A simpler, fairer tax system (like the FairTax), some type of system designed to screen immigrants coming in so that if they were criminal, sick, etc that they would be denied access here?"
Actually I don't always understand what people are calling "problems." We could get Congress to mandate that English be the official language if we concentrated as much on that as people talk about rebuilding the Berlin Wall around the U.S.
The income tax is an unconstitutional, illegal, immoral, unjust, and unconsciounable blight on the American landscape. Given the Ed and Elaine Brown situation, I cannot understand why patriots feel that making someone else's lot in life as miserable as theirs serves the ends of justice. The Fair Tax would, however, take that issue off the table.
Finally, I think that if we had a Guest Worker Program, it would include a complete physical and tests for communicable diseases; it would include a complete criminal background check; there would be specially issued Guest Worker tax IDs so that they would pay taxes on their earnings.
After mulling it all over, I've thought that once this is all done (a Guest Worker Program), America could establish treaties with bordering countries (namely Canada and Mexico) which would state that all persons born in the U.S. to undocumented foreigners and those who are here on a temporary basis will NOT be automatic citizens. For the privilege of Guest Worker programs, it is a good deal for those countries.
If Guest Workers had to undergo a criminal background check, complete medical background check, and a cursory mental health evaluation prior to coming here AND realize that they had to pay taxes along with obtaining health insurance, they wouldn't be willing to work for nothing. Further if the treaty I proposed was signed, it would have to include language that forces foreign countries to do their part in policing the border and discouraging illegal crossings.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
