Mexican Invasion
See other Mexican Invasion Articles
Title: bush just said he wants illegals to stay in the country SO THEY CAN DO ALL THE JOBS LAZY AMERICANS WON'T - FOX NEWS
Source:
WHITE HOUSE
URL Source: [None]
Published: Oct 11, 2006
Author: BUSH
Post Date: 2006-10-11 12:05:54 by TLBSHOW
Keywords: None
Views: 14331
Comments: 26
PRESS CONF - HARD TO SECURE BORDER
Poster Comment: Bush: "You Can't Kick 12,000,000 People Out Of Your Country" [ tells ILLEGALS HE IS ON THEIR SIDE NOT THE AMERICAN PEOPLES SIDE = BUSH IS A TRAITOR ] posted 4 days ago by TLBSHOW
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: TLBSHOW (#0)
The Kool-Aid-sipping morons over at TOS are saying, "See, he SAID he is building a fence. < exasperation > Will they be satisfied NOW!?" This bastard needs to be impeached. I have never heard such a mealy-mouthed pile as his comments on border security at today's presser. He may have barely uttered the words that we are building a fence but it was utterly whiney, without conviction, qualified and requalified. And then he told us that "you can't fence the whole border." And, of course, his first priority (only priority, really) is his amnesty program. Most people would be willing to talk about "guest worker" if the government showed any resolution whatsoever to stop illegal immigration FIRST. But Bush and his business buds, Democrats, and liberal Jews (Neocons and otherwise) are determined that they WILL HAVE massive immigration. They are afraid that the country -- while it probably would support some level of guest workers -- would not allow this country to have its essentially Christian, European culture submerged into a third-world stew. So they want to enshirine virtually unlimited immigration into law BEFORE any discussion of security. Fortunately, most of the country understands this and is rightly demanding, SECURITY FIRST! FENCE (or WALL) FIRST! A DEMONSTRATION OF WILL TO CONTROL THE BORDER FIRST. Then we will talk. Impeach Jorge Bush.
A leading senator on immigration-reform says he has serious doubts the 700-mile fence on the country's nearly 2,000 mile-long border with Mexico will ever be built despite a bipartisan Senate vote of 80-19 last week. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, chairman of the Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship Subcommittee, told WND "we have not yet appropriated nearly enough to complete the job." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52393
Al Jazeera - Fox News Channel - correspondent - Steve Centanni
Only a fool really ~expects~ it to be built, although we could always hope. Yes, I am aware of this specific prediction. I think I might depart these many years of fervent conservatism and go over to the Lou Dobbs left. Lou, of couse, is easy to love on immigration. But I am thinking of taking up with his real leftist ideas. I mean, afterall, the people with money in this country are the ones most fervently pushing for immigration. They do not give a rat's ass about anyone's small town or middle- class neighborhood. All they care about is international business, which needs labor, customers, the free flow of materials, and a ruthless attitude toward the enviroment. They are already internationalists, living and investing all over the world. They are destroying my country, and I am warming up to the idea of destroying their fortunes! Bring on the confiscatory, highly progressive taxes and let's start doing to the big boys what they are doing to the rest of the country.
I like Lou Dobbs too. What you mentioned sounds a lot better then the current circumstance we find ourselves in.
taxing the rich is stupid. Taxing and smashing the corporations is brilliant. There's a difference.
If the bulls dont kill me, Dont put me six feet down, I'll be last man standin on top of the hill, If the bulls dont kill me then nothin will,---PBR-AllStars Buck@Roll
Taxing and smashing the corporations is brilliant. There's a difference. You know how they say corporations don't pay taxes. They just pass it off to the customers. I have a proposal. How about we eliminate all taxes except on corporations. Then they can try to pass it back onto us. What you think of that idea.
Taxing and smashing the corporations is brilliant. There's a difference. Punishing corporations is like smashing your fist into a wall in anger, IMO. Also like blaming computers for indignities you suffer from aggressive or inept business bureaucrats who are ~using~ computers. Also like blaming guns for killing people. People (at least for now) are the moral agents in this world. People do good and evil and should be rewarded and punished. Corporations are mere shills in front of people and confusing you and me.
A corporation is composed of people. COntrary to popular opinion, it's not a faceless entity, it's made up of living and breathing bastards. Ever heard of the East India Co? Are you aware of how much pain and suffering that corporation caused humanity?
If the bulls dont kill me, Dont put me six feet down, I'll be last man standin on top of the hill, If the bulls dont kill me then nothin will,---PBR-AllStars Buck@Roll
FORGET the taxing (which can effect US as well as the Big Boys) and start working on COPYRIGHT LAW!!! Virtually ALL of the large internationalist fortunes today (Particularly Micro$oft's and the entertainment industry giants) are being built in the PIP (Permanent Intellectual Property) concept of Copyright and Patent law. I would recommend Jury Nullification in so called "piracy" or criminal copyright violation cases based on the folling ideas. That Copyrights should last no more than 5 years on computer software and other wortks of art subject to deliberate forced upgrading and "planned obsolecence" schemes. That Copyrights, union contracts, royalty contracts and other types of "inteleectual property" arrangements should last no more than 28 years in toto on books, songs, movies, television shows, and other works of art. The reason I reccomend Jury Nullification is that I believe that the Jury Box has become the only place where your vote counts for CRAP anymore in our two party Diebold "election" system.
The papacy has made colossal fools of untold millions of people down through history, and it is still doing so today.
Jury nulification is a great cause. I was in court once for driving without government permission slip (license) I tried to tell the jury that they were the trier of facts and the law. The Judge got pissed and called me up. I told him that John Jay said the same thing and doesn't he respect John Jay. He said something like Yes but....... I think property is physical not intellectual. Ever use http://www.isohunt.com as for the diebold problem. I am considering running an unofficial election at the place I vote. It will be paper ballots. Perhaps enough people would participate to see if the governments numbers are accurate.
Why not six?
So, did the judge let you tell the jury what you wanted? Did they convict you?
The judge didn't let me say what I wanted. I kept trying but he kept calling me back for a "sidebar" or whatever they call it. I had a copy of the constitution. I told the jury this is the constitution. Then I ripped it up and said that is what this court is doing to it. Then I rested my case. I lost. There was another time where I defended myself to a jury trial and won though. When I used a public defender one time I also lost. The public defender was the worse outcome as I got house arrest for one month.
What were you getting arrested for?
Driving witout licnese.
Doesn't that jack your insurance with those kind of charges, or don't you believe in that either.
I have insurance on the vehicles. But I do think that should be voluntary as well. I think people who want insurance should get it. You insure your own vehicle and no matter who is at fault you get paid. If someone doesn't have insurance you are covered already. If someone gets hit by someone and wants to sue them for damages that should obviously be allowed too. But making someone pay a corporation to exercise a right because something might happen is wrong.
Were you driving without a license because of necessity or have you opted out of the licensing system on libertarian grounds?
Both. I believe it is my right to drive. Also I have to work to support my family.
Driving ~is~ a practical necessity for most people these days. I can certainly understand why someone who is competent to drive but had -- for whatever reason -- lost his license might choose to carry on doing what he had to do (driving) to live his life, earn his living, feed his family, etc. I haven't particularly heard of strong libertarians opting out of the licensing system on purely philosophical grounds -- as some opt out of the income tax system -- but I can readily imagine it. I was just curious if you were taking that kind of position. Sounds like you ~were~ in the system and lost your license (something I am not criticizing at all) rather than just deciding on libertarian principle that you would not participate (although you do seem to be endorsing that position now). (It seems a bit rude to try to tease you out without revealing my own position. I am not a libertarian. I am more of the facist brand of right winger! LOL I want law and order, ESPECIALLY ON THE BORDER, but also elsewhere. I am more afraid of criminals and general social disorder than I am that Hillary will track me down if my SSN is in the wrong government data base. My impression is that your board is fiercely libertarian, although I have not scrutinized people's opinions enough to say that with certainty. Opposition, on libertarian principle, to the licensing of drivers seemed to me a good marker by which to gauge where you are. My intent was not to attack or ridicule that position...I am interested in what folks think.)
Ok I lost my license probably about 8 years ago. I was taking a friend home in my wifes car. The tail light was out. It was in December before Christmas. I readily admit that I let my insurance lapse. They suspended my license automatically. I had insurance the November before. Things were kind of tight and and I didn't have the money to pay the insurance. So they suspended my license automatically. What happened to my right to a trial by jury. There was no law and order there. I later learned that driving was a right. So I refused to pay the reinstatement fee and I kept driving. I have probably been busted for driving without a license about 8 or 9 times. I still don't have a license and I still drive. I will be eligible to get license back next Year. I am thinking about getting it back. I hate to "cave", but it has cost me a lot of money. Also I get real nervous when cops get behind me.
Interesting. Although my strong principles don't tend to be in the libertarian direction, I do have a few (strong principles). But I often roll over. Better to pick some important fights at times and places of your own choosing. Definitely a struggle to be a driver's license resister. We've had a couple of recent extreme cases in my community of habitual DWI offenders killing other motorists. One had gotten out of prison that very day for his latest DWI, got drunk, stole a car and smashed someone head-on. I am not a prude about DWI -- I have never been nailed although I should have, in my younger days -- but I do believe that it is a very serious problem. Of course, the prudes have gone nuts and people are being busted for DWI at very marginal levels of intoxication. I suppose that is the libertarian argument: Give government a little authority and they never know when to quit. But there are a dangerous number of chronic, serious alcohol abusers, who, IMO, need to be kept off the roads. To me, this alone justifies the state's authority to decide who drives. I am sure that most of these very dangerous people feel that they, also, have a "right" to drive. My attitude is that the community has a more important right to use the roads in reasonable safety. Everyday on the highways, I see very aggressive drivers seriously speeding and dodging in and out of traffic as though they were playing some video game. I would like to see the state ~more~ aggressive in taking these people off the roads, as well as drunks. Your case seems to me much less cut and dried. You were not flagrantly endangering other people which, to me, is the condition that clearly justifies forceful state action. I talked about DWI and habitual reckless and aggressive driving, because I think it makes the case that libertarianism, as appealing as it is in some respects, is often not the answer in modern life. Unfortunately, giving the state authority means a constant battle to keep them from abusing it.
If someone drinks and drives I have no problem with them forfeitting the right to drive. They are putting other peoples lives in danger. I just think that we should be able to drive to go to work and stuff like that. Did you know that in the past when we were a better nation that judges said that driving was a right? http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/DrivingRight.html Case # 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22 ("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.) Case # 2 - "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579. It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction, (license,) and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts: Case # 3 - "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125. Case # 4 - "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT As hard as it is for those of us in Law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen does indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of another. Government, in requiring the people to file for "drivers Licenses, vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehicle inspections, DUI/DWI roadblocks etc. without question, are "restricting", and therefore violating, the Peoples common law right to travel. Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject of the right to travel? Apparently not. The American Citizens and Lawmen Association in conjunction with The U.S. Federal Law Research Center are presently involved in studies in several areas involving questions on constitutional law. One of the many areas under review is the area of "Citizens right to travel." In an interview a spokesmen stated: "Upon researching this subject over many months, substantial case law has presented itself that completely substantiates the position that the "right to travel unrestricted upon the nations highways" is and has always been a fundamental right of every Citizen." This means that the "beliefs and opinions" our state legislators, the courts, and those of as involved in the law enforcement profession have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that U.S. case law is overwhelming in determining that - to restrict, in any fashion, the movement of the individual American in the free exercise of their right to travel upon the roadways, (excluding "commerce" which the state Legislatures are correct in regulating), is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution, and most state Constitutions, i.e - it is Unlawful. THE REVELATION THAT THE AMERICAN CITIZEN HAS ALWAYS HAD THE INALIENABLE RIGHT TO TRAVEL RAISES PROFOUND QUESTIONS TO THOSE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN MAKING AND ENFORCING STATE LAWS. The first of such questions may very well be - If the States have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions, such as - licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections, D.W.I. roadblocks, to name just a few, on a Citizens constitutionally protected right. Is that not so? For the answer to this question let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination on this very issue. The case of Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516. states very plainly: "The State cannot diminish rights of the people." "the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice."- Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22, 24. Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point - that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or Limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward: "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." - Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491. "The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.· - Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489. "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945. ( There is no question that a citation/ticket issued by a police officer, for no drivers license, no current vehicle registration, no vehicle insurance etc. which carries a fine or jail time, is a penalty or sanction, and is indeed "converting a Right into a crime".) We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision, however, In addition, the Constitution itself answers our question- "Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason"? (Such as in this particular case - when the government believes it to be for the safety and welfare of the people). The answer is found in ARTICLE SIX of the U.S. Constitution: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;.shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not withstanding". (This tells us that the U.S. Constitution is to be upheld over any state, county, or city Laws that are in opposition to it.) In the same Article it goes on to say just who it is within our governments that is bound by this Supreme Law: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;". - ART. 6 U.S. CONST. We know that Police officers, are a part of the Executive branch. We are "Executive Officers". Article 6 above, is called the SUPREMACY CLAUSE, and it clearly states that, under every circumstance, the above listed officials in these United States must hold this documents tenets supreme over any other laws, regulations, or orders. Every U.S. Police officer knows that they have sworn a oath to the people of our nation that we will not only protect their lives and property, but, that we will uphold, and protect their freedoms and rights under the Supreme laws of this nation, - the U. S. Constitution. In this regard then, we must agree that those within government that restrict a Citizens rights, (such as restricting the peoples right to travel,) are acting in violation of his or her oath of office and are actually committing a crime against such Citizens. Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials? If we are to follow the "letter of the law (as we are sworn to do), this places officials that involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate, or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates the fact that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are - #1 - by lawfully amending the constitution, or #2 - by a person knowingly waiving a particular right. Some of the confusion in our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel "unrestricted" upon the roadways of the states and opted into the jurisdiction of the state for various reasons. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law, the proper courts, and "sworn, constitutionally empowered officers-of-the-law," and must acquire proper permits, registrations, insurance, etc. There are basically two groups of people in this category: #1 - Any citizen that involves themselves in "commerce," (business for private gain), upon the highways of the state. Here is what the courts have said about this: "...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion..." - State v Johnson, 243 P. 1073, 1078. Other U.S. court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the "right" of the citizen to travel and a government "privilege" are - Barney v Board of Railroad Commissioners; State v City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.; Ex Parte Dickey (Dickey v Davis), 85 S.E. 781.; Teche Lines v Danforth, 12 So.2d 784. There are numerous other court decisions that spell out the JURISDICTION issue in these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions we will leave it up to officers to research it further for themselves. (See last page for additional references). #2 - The second group of citizens that are legally under the jurisdiction of the state is the individual citizen who has voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel "unregulated and unrestricted" by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state - drivers license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words "by contract only".) We should remember what makes this "legal," and not a violation of the individual’s common law right to travel "unrestricted" is that they knowingly volunteer, freely, by contract, to waive their right. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the States powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights. This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have filed, and received, licenses, registrations, insurance etc. after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory? Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between "Privileges vs. Rights". We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses, vehicle registrations etc., have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. "laws of no effect". In other words - "LAWS THAT ARE NOT LAWS AT ALL." OUR SWORN DUTY An area of serious consideration for every police officer, is to understand that the most important law in our land he has taken an oath to protect, defend, AND ENFORCE, is not state laws, nor city or county ordinances, but, that law that supercede all other laws in our nation, - the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular police officer's state, or local community are in conflict with the SUPREME LAW of our nation, there Is no question that the officer's duty is to "uphold the U.S. Constitution." What does this mean to the "patrol officer" who will be the only sworn "Executive Officer" on the scene, when knowledgeable Citizens raise serious objections over possession of insurance, drivers licenses and other restrictions? It definitely means these officers will be faced with a hard decision. (Most certainly if that decision affects state, city or county revenues, such as the issuing of citations do.) Example: If a state legislator, judge or a superior tells a police officer to proceed and enforce a contradictory, (illegal), state law rather than the Supreme Law of this country, what is that "sworn officer" to do? Although we may not want to hear it, there is but one right answer, - "the officer is duty bound to uphold his oath of office" and obey the highest laws of the nation. THIS IS OUR SWORN DUTY AND IT'S THE LAW! Such a strong honest stand taken by a police officer, upholding his or her oath of office, takes moral strength of character. It will, without question, "SEPARATE THE MEN FROM THE BOYS." Such honest and straight forward decisions on behalf of a government official have often caused pressure to be applied to force such officers to set aside, or compromise their morals or convictions. As a solace for those brave souls in uniform that will stand up for law and justice, even when it's unpopular, or uncomfortable to do so...let me say this. In any legal stand-off over a sworn official "violating" or "upholding" their oath of office, those that would side with the "violation" should inevitable lose. Our Founding Fathers assured us, on many occasions, the following: Defending our freedoms in the face of people that would for "expedients sake," or behind the guise, "for the safety and welfare of the masses," ignore people’s rights, would forever demand sacrifice and vigilance from those that desired to remain free. That sounds a little like - "Freedom is not free!" Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling, that was covered earlier, in mind before issuing citations in regard to "mandatory licensing, registration and insurance" - verses - "the right of the people to travel unencumbered": "THE CLAlM AND EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RlGHT CANNOT BE CONVERTED INTO A CRIME." - Miller v U.S., 230 F 2d 486. 489. And as we have seen, "traveling freely," going about ones daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.
There are some constitutional battles worth waging, from a conservative perspective, such as what is the basis of citizenship and "takings" of property. But trying to make the constitutional argument against licensing of drivers...why? Why? WHY? I would call it "legal masturbation" except that it has no hope of a satisfactory climax. You know, NYC, is trying to ruin french fries by banning hydrogenated fats. This is a battle that can still be won. And there are a thousand fronts in the worthy fight against the expansion of the nanny state and oppressive state power. I thought you might be libertarian enough to bristle at the driver's license thing, and I can understand bristling. It is a healthy reaction. We need to chafe under the yoke of statism. But still, we need to pick reasonable battles, which is where libertarians, IMO, are always running off the track. Yep, I thought you might bristle at DLs, but I am sad to see that you have ready-to-hand all of this legal mumbo-jumbo. You are a smarty guy, Stoney. Don't waste your intellectual energy. That train has left the station (along with the right of the feds to tax our income). It will never turn around short of a nuclear war or other collapse of civilization after which all questions might be freshly on the table. Otherwise, don't waste yourself, please. It is such a waste.
I am a very stubborn person. When I think I am right I don't budge easily.
Now I have told you before it happens so that, when it happens, you may believe
#2. To: Bastien-Thiry (#1)
Texas senator warns: 'Don't count on fence'
#3. To: TLBSHOW (#2)
A leading senator on immigration-reform says he has serious doubts the 700-mile fence on the country's nearly 2,000 mile-long border with Mexico will ever be built...
#4. To: Bastien-Thiry (#3)
They are already internationalists, living and investing all over the world. They are destroying my country, and I am warming up to the idea of destroying their fortunes! Bring on the confiscatory, highly progressive taxes and let's start doing to the big boys what they are doing to the rest of the country.
#5. To: Bastien-Thiry (#3)
#6. To: continental op (#5)
taxing the rich is stupid.
#7. To: continental op (#5)
taxing the rich is stupid.
#8. To: Bastien-Thiry (#7)
#9. To: A K A Stone (#4)
#10. To: Coral Snake (#9)
#11. To: Coral Snake (#9)
That Copyrights should last no more than 5 years on computer software ...
Whatcha Lookin' At, Butthead
#12. To: A K A Stone (#10)
Whatcha Lookin' At, Butthead
#13. To: Biff Tannen (#12)
#14. To: A K A Stone (#13)
Whatcha Lookin' At, Butthead
#15. To: Biff Tannen (#14)
#16. To: A K A Stone (#15)
Whatcha Lookin' At, Butthead
#17. To: Biff Tannen (#16)
#18. To: A K A Stone (#15)
#19. To: Bastien-Thiry (#18)
#20. To: A K A Stone (#19)
#21. To: Bastien-Thiry (#20)
#22. To: A K A Stone (#21)
#23. To: Bastien-Thiry (#22)
#24. To: A K A Stone (#23)
#25. To: Bastien-Thiry (#24)
#26. To: Bastien-Thiry (#3)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]