Conservative talk show host to pro-Amnesty Congress: I’m going to kill you
posted at 8:58 pm on January 3, 2007 by Ian
More fodder for the left:
In a statement on his website, Hal Turner noted that a newspaper has reported that a bill granting amnesty to illegal aliens is expected to be enacted in January, when the Democratic Party takes control of the U.S. Senate and House.
“ANY MEMBER OF CONGRESS WHO INTRODUCES, CO-SPONSORS OR VOTES IN FAVOR OF ANY SUCH AMNESTY WILL BE DECLARED A DOMESTIC ENEMY AND WILL BE CONSIDERED A LEGITIMATE TARGET FOR ASSASSINATION,” Turner posted on his website.
“Members of Congress and the Senate will NOT be permitted to BETRAY our nation by simply GIVING AWAY the most cherished aspect of America, Citizenship, to millions of people who cared so little for what Citizenship means that they came here against our law,” he continued.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Oh boy. Another “conservative” in the vein of Ann Coulter saying stupid sh*t to get attention. Lunatics.
John on January 3, 2007 at 9:03 PM
Never heard of him. Don’t want to now.
mesablue on January 3, 2007 at 9:06 PM
oh yay.
jummy on January 3, 2007 at 9:08 PM
Ah fooey. How about using the primaries to depose all the pro-amnesty politicians? Sheesh!
Theworldisnotenough on January 3, 2007 at 9:08 PM
John – “in the vein of Ann Coulter”? I don’t think so. Say what you want about Coulter (and a lot of conservatives might agree if you think she’s a windbag). But you cannot possibly lump the two together.
BillLalor on January 3, 2007 at 9:09 PM
Good point. Who is this dude? John and Ken I listened to in Ohio. This guy doesn’t have the ratings to set us back.
Theworldisnotenough on January 3, 2007 at 9:09 PM
BillLalor,
Coulter on Timothy McVeigh:
Like I said… Stupid sh*t to get attention. I’ve never heard of this guy in my life, and now here we are talking about him. Duh.
John on January 3, 2007 at 9:13 PM
What’s the liberal equivalent for red meat? Blueberries?
armylawyer on January 3, 2007 at 9:14 PM
Well alrighty then……….
seejanemom on January 3, 2007 at 9:20 PM
I might be concerned if we actually knoew who the guy was.
Some things Coulter says need to be taken in a humorous vein.
This clown doesn’t sound like he’s trying to crack jokes.
JammieWearingFool on January 3, 2007 at 9:22 PM
knoew = knew
JammieWearingFool on January 3, 2007 at 9:22 PM
Who knew who Lee Harvey Oswald was before he killed Kennedy?
Decoy256 on January 3, 2007 at 9:41 PM
Hal Turner was recently OWNED by some website called 4chan.
Here the specifics (which show what an absolute nutjob he actually is): PWNED!
JG2K6 on January 3, 2007 at 9:43 PM
sigh.
That is what lawyers like to refer to in the english common law as “Incitement of murder”…
And in modern day law as a “Conspiracy to Commit Murder” where the conspiracy is initiated by one conspirator with the expectation of other parties to later “join the plot” and execute or further conspire to commit the crime.
That is why you should never publicly advocate a criminal act. (Unless you just don’t care, and you’re planning to go out in a blaze of stupid.)
It’s a hard type of case to get past a jury….. unless someone dies. Then a High Schooler could put him away.
Jones Zemkophill on January 3, 2007 at 9:44 PM
Stoooooopid. You can get your point across without resorting to fringe leftist rhetoric. Sheesh. Not good for intellectual debate about a truly insidious problem. Back to the naughty chair dude, whoever you are.
NTWR on January 3, 2007 at 9:46 PM
I’ve never heard of him so he is basically a nobody BUT the leftist kooks such as those at dailykos will use him as a representation of all conservatives. Thanks moron.
zerodamage on January 3, 2007 at 9:50 PM
Apparently a lot of people. I think the analogy is a bit of a stretch.
JammieWearingFool on January 3, 2007 at 9:54 PM
it doesn’t matter if we don’t know him (or claim to not know him – i know i couldn’t honestly make that claim). ot will be used against us. often unfairly, but sometimes as a fair rebuttal to any leftwing kook of similarly obscure stature we may want to bludgeon the left with.
jummy on January 3, 2007 at 10:01 PM
this guy isn’t a conservative
he’s insane
he’s to the right of Pat Buchanan and just a stone throw from those nut case militias in the south and michigan
don’t take this guy seriously and its like having the black block (anarchists) talk for all liberals
Defector01 on January 3, 2007 at 10:25 PM
Just FYI there are nut case militias everywhere.
EnochCain on January 3, 2007 at 10:27 PM
Just curious, but how high must the level of government usurpation rise before any of you would rise to arms?
Let’s assume the DREAM Act will pass (pretty fair assumption). What will you all do about it?
AZ_Redneck on January 3, 2007 at 10:46 PM
I guess it’s the thought that counts, but next time try not to break any federal laws while your at it.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on January 3, 2007 at 10:50 PM
oh sh*t. they’re here. everyone, find cover!
jummy on January 3, 2007 at 10:54 PM
Methinks he is less of a real conservative than he is either a complete nutcase or a shill trying to make conservativism look bad.
People that make threats of assasination or incite the assasination of duly (if dumbly) elected officials like that need to go directly to jail, or at least a full-time strait-jacket inside of a well locked rubber room.
Now, inciting to tar-and feather…. Well…. I’m not so sure that option should be taken off the table. ;-)
LegendHasIt on January 3, 2007 at 11:04 PM
holy crap! i should have checked the wiki article on this guy before spouting off. hal turner is an nsm-er with a history of this kind of talk. it doesn’t reflect on us at all.
so, i’m back to not caring.
jummy on January 3, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Whoa…Pat Buchanan is a patriot who loves this country and has served with honor on it’s behalf.
Alden Pyle on January 3, 2007 at 11:07 PM
Wait wait wait everyone…lets not jump to conclusions here about this guy.
For all of you people who buy into the Security and Prosperity Aggreement conspiracy bunk…when do we start the armed insurrection? This seems like as good a time as any to start fighting back if the American-Mexican-Canadian superstate is only 3 years away as Corsi would have us believe?
So all you patriots out there, wouldn’t this guy just be a pioneer in protecting our sovereignty?
Just throwing it out there…
Verbal Abuse on January 3, 2007 at 11:16 PM
to be clear, when i said i “know” him, the extent of what i knew was that there was a border enforcement demagogue with a “radio” show (he broadcasts on shortwave) out there who had said some over-the-top things.
had i ever taken two seconds to actually look this guy up, i’d have known that his activity has no bearing whatsoever on anything conservatives or conservatism. less, for instance, than nowarforisrael has on the chicago coalition against war and racism or bill white does on the dc area social justice movement.
jummy on January 3, 2007 at 11:28 PM
and how many are decendents of catholic workingmen?
jummy on January 3, 2007 at 11:30 PM
well, he’s right about one thing – when the “Amnesty” bill passes by the pro-amensty liberal democrats, that this great nation will no longer be a nation & besides i can clean my own toilet as well
Starblazer on January 3, 2007 at 11:30 PM
the U.S. will became a third world nation when the amnesty bill passes, because it will encourge those who BROKE THE LAW to bring in their families here as well & encourge other people from other countries to come to the U.S. illegally and they will also refuse to assimilate into this country and take away jobs from hard working natural-born citizens & LEGAL americans, because employers will hire those who will come here ILLEGALLY to pay them a lower wage.
Starblazer on January 3, 2007 at 11:37 PM
actually i agree with him what he says, with the exception of assainating those who will pass the “amensty” bill
Starblazer on January 3, 2007 at 11:39 PM
Utter nonsense adds nothing to constructive discourse. This is obviously utter nonsense calculated to draw attention.
Not worth the trouble, except to distance conservative thought and principles from this instigator.
hillbillyjim on January 3, 2007 at 11:39 PM
correction – i agree with him 100% of what he says, with the EXCEPTION of him calling for assainations on those who will pass an “Amnesty” bill
Starblazer on January 3, 2007 at 11:42 PM
one further point of clarity:
when i said “similarly obscure stature,” i was assuming this radio show was at least a c-list product of a legitimate content network, hosted perhaps by a guy with a collumn at wnd or something like that.
there is no parity between the fringes on the international socialist side of the line and the fringes on the national socialist side of the line. your average leftwing fringe lunatic has more institutional representation and media approval than most mainstream conservatives. nazis are altogether nowhere; if the fringe left didn’t need to fish for nazis in order to justify their “militancy,” nobody would even know who these people are.
jummy on January 3, 2007 at 11:46 PM
This annoys me mainly because the Dems can latch on and there’s potential for a “controversy” to be created in the MSM over this, while literally thousands of things happen like this on the left all the time and go ignored by the MSM. They are dominated by the unhinged but it’s ignored or treated as some random loon, yet we have a few retards who occassionally say something stupid like this, and they paint us all with this brush.
RightWinged on January 3, 2007 at 11:46 PM
you said that like three times. what are you trying to push?
the assasination threat was 100% of what he said. even if yyou’re willing to pretend that that wasn’t the sole signifigance of his comments, this was 30% of the remainder:
“
so… you agree with that 100%.
the rest was a bunch of “nya nya, i said ‘may’ not ‘will’ and ‘i disclaim responsibility for what others may…’”
so, that’s what you’re about then.
jummy on January 3, 2007 at 11:59 PM
fine, then i agree with most of what he said with the EXCEPTION of assinating those who will pass the “amnesty” bill and the “pro-white” movement. but he is right about illegals not giving a rats-@$$ about this country.
Starblazer on January 4, 2007 at 12:04 AM
he was wrong to say that as well about the “pro-white” movement, but he is right about the illegal immigrants
Starblazer on January 4, 2007 at 12:06 AM
This annoys me mainly because the Dems can latch on and
“we” don’t have anything to do with this, apart apparently from “starblazer”.
but you’re right about the first part. i remember when progressives from bryant gumbel to bill clinton implicated rush limbaugh as the source of the okcity bombing.
get prepared to hear this guy inflated to “right-wing talk radio host” when he’s no more of a radio show host than josh wolf was a videographer.
jummy on January 4, 2007 at 12:06 AM
This guy is no Conservative. While I appreciate his passion in the anti-amnesty argument, this is not the way to accomplish the goal.
As for comparisons to Coulter and Robertson, thats just stupid.
.
GT on January 4, 2007 at 12:25 AM
I read the wiki on this bozo. He’s pretty much the lovechild of Deb Frisch and David Duke.
I’ll leave it at that.
Bob Owens on January 4, 2007 at 12:35 AM
YEAH, BUT ANSWER THE MAN’S QUESTION WISHY WASH, “WHAT WILL YOU ALL DO ABOUT IT?” Answer: NOTHING. You’re far too weak and soft. Our forefathers once REVOLTED OVER TEA, what would they think of you who blanch at the thought of fighting THE INVASION OF THE UNITED STATES? I mean, that’s what it is right? If I’m wrong, correct me! Let’s see, we’ve got Mexican schools teaching kids that OUR LAND IS THEIR LAND, they are then given EXPLICIT INSTRUCTIONS how to get here and SOAK UP ALL OUR RESOURCES like FOOD STAMPS and WELFARE. Sounds like an invasion to me. As Sean Connery asked Kevin Costner in “The Untouchables”, “WHAT ARE YOU PREPARED TO DO?”
BTW: The guys doing this for a stunt and to draw serious attention to what many, even Republicans are taking lightly .He carefully phrases his statements so that they are “bulletproof” in a court of law, as he never actually incites “imminent” violence, thereby making full use of the first amendment. But he’s not the problem, most of YOU ARE! When you allow the converstaion to stray from “GET THE HELL OUT OF MY GODDAMNED COUNTRY AND TAKE YOUR ANCHOR BABIES WITH YOU “, to “ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT “RIGHTS”, you’re already up the proverbial creek, now if you can only find a paddle……
Soothsayer on January 4, 2007 at 12:53 AM
well said Soothsayer
Starblazer on January 4, 2007 at 1:00 AM
OK, Sooth:
Say we ‘elect’ you the HotAir Militia Commander:
What are YOU prepared to do?
What are your orders for us, Sir!?
Please be specific, so we may avoid being ‘wishy wash’.
LegendHasIt on January 4, 2007 at 1:01 AM
Don’t knock Ms. Coulter.
BirdEye on January 4, 2007 at 1:10 AM
Soothsayer,
That was beautiful.
CitizenJim on January 4, 2007 at 1:15 AM
Why is he called “conservative”?
mikeyboss on January 4, 2007 at 1:25 AM
While I am not one to presume , I’d say the first order of business is to CHANGE THE DEBATE. We have to threaten, ( not with bodily harm at this “juncture”), our feckless leadership in both houses of Congress to STAND in the face of this onslaught or face a RECALL ! It’s cheap, relatively speaking, and effective, I give you Grey Davis, ladies and Gentlemen. For those of you in the Ozarks he was the former Governor of California who was RECALLED, thus allowing the RINO from Austria to assume the reigns. RECALL folks and we make it A DEAL BREAKER. Period. You don’t agree to closing the border and NO CITIZENSHIP FOR ANYONE WHO BROKE OUR LAWS, until and unless they return home and GET IN LINE, then LET THE DOOR HIT YOU WHERE THE GOOD LORD SPLIT YOU. No “IF’s, “And’s” OR “But’s” about it. And we stop IMMEDIATELY CALLING THEM “IMMIGRANTS”. An Immigrant by DEFINITION has the PERMISSION to enter a particular country, he is NOT a thief. And when the press sticks a mike into a Republican’s face and tries to “guilt” them into seeing the illegal aliens point of view, how he tells them, “You’re sitting there with THAT SMIRK ON YOUR FACE, feeling so superior, while you advocate giving away every damnded thing your country stands for! And then we attack the ADVERTISERS of the NEWSPAPERS that hire these left wing nutbag reporters in the first place, just like they do! WE CHANGE THE DEBATE! When Bush or one of his lackey’s says ” We can’t deport 12 million people” instead of cowering in the cornfields of vague agreement, how about we say, “Why the hell not? Planes fly in both directions!”
AT the same time, we begin a broadstrokes effort to convince the LEGAL Hispanic community that we LOVE them and every thing about them as long as they become part of the AMERICAN FABRIC! So we deport all the tardy Swedes too! This isn’t about RACE it’s about an invasion of unskilled labor that will forever change the American demographic, depress American wages and change the damn language on the road signs! See, folks we’re selling a unique brand!! We’re selling the American Dream, which is totally available to anyone who WANTS TO PLAY BY THE RULES! And we make ‘em believe it , because WE believe it! WE begin a campaign of indoctrination, but not into some stupid liberal policy, into America and all she has to offer, but we also assert FORCEFULLY that WE not the U.N., not some Illegal Alien activists running Mexico and not the fifth column traitors in the press, WE THE PEOPLE decide who comes in here and HOW DAMNED MANY!
Once these Rino’s get the point, that we ARE WILLING to sacrifice them on the altar of conservatism, EVEN to the risk of LOSING TO THE DEMS, then and only then do we stand a chance. But we can. We must. And damn it we Shall prevail, because America’s too good a place to let a bunch of Marxist liberals ruin. And if that means we have to become the GRIDLOCK party then so be it. The Congressional rules are set up just right for an obstructionist party to flourish, just ask the Dems!
Soothsayer on January 4, 2007 at 1:54 AM
Well, Soothsayer;
I think that those ARE the basic sentiments of MOST of the HotAir people… Certainly I have the Illegal Alien Invasion at the top of my list of political causes. (I wouldn’t have spent dozens of hours designing these: http://www.az123.com/pseudobills.htm and lots of money and effort mailing them to every politician and PAC etc. and financing the bandwidth for anyone and everyone else to use them, if I were soft on illegal aliens.)
Yet you seemed to be attacking US as being the root of the problem, because we are weak and soft. Maybe I misread your meaning….
I think I’ll end it here. I wrote a few more paragraphs, but only ended up making myself more depressed, so I deleted them.
LegendHasIt on January 4, 2007 at 2:26 AM
Pretty much all whites in the US have to some extent been conditioned to be part of the anti-white movement.
Whites have had the luxury to indentify themselves as individuals rather than members of a race which is without a doubt a more enlightened identity but there are consequences, particularly in a democracy where others who have a strong racial identity will see others as a member of a competing race and politically challenge them on the basis of race. A challenge those who don’t identify by race can’t rise to.
You can test yourself to determine your anti-white conditioning by answering a few simple questions and self-examining your reactions to the questions:
Should the United States should remain a white majority nation?
Should any white majority nation remain a white majority nation? If so, which ones?
Should Ethiopia remain a black majority nation?
Should Guatemala remain a latino majority nation?
Should Japan remain an oriental majority nation?
Should a black person identify himself as “pro-black”?
Should a white person identify himself as “pro-white”?
Did some of those questions make you feel more uneasy than the other questions?
Perchant on January 4, 2007 at 3:09 AM
Granola.
Laura on January 4, 2007 at 3:47 AM
First, there was this gem, backed up with a historic quote from Thomas Jefferson:
Then, from the “it’s a perfectly legitimate question” crowd came this:
and, finally, for sooth we have a soothsayer’s wisdom:
A call to arms. To the streets boys, lets go break us some windows. Its reassuring to see however that an overwhelming majority of commenters, as well as Bryan who posted this piece see this guy for what he really is, a nut, which has nothing to do with being conservative.
THeDRiFTeR on January 4, 2007 at 3:50 AM
That was pretty funny!
THeDRiFTeR on January 4, 2007 at 3:52 AM
that is an “invasion” like pouring water on a guy’s face is “torture.
get a grip.
you are a fool.
jummy on January 4, 2007 at 3:55 AM
none of those questions are difficult to answer. people should have the liberty to live where they choose.
jummy on January 4, 2007 at 3:58 AM
lol! yea he did. and then he said, “If I’m wrong, correct me!”
jummy on January 4, 2007 at 4:03 AM
The amusing thing about the people who take this guy seriously…they are the same people who don’t take muslims seriously about wanting us dead. Think they got it backwards…..
Go figure.
Highrise on January 4, 2007 at 4:04 AM
check my blog. they’re also the same people who republished his propaganda about rove attacking iran as an october surprise.
farrakahn sourced his “bush blew up the levees” theory to the creep’s website.
i also waded through the dkos threads. they’re going to kill christians and republicans now in order to stem the grave existential threat posed by hal and the other 40 nazis still in existence.
the phrase, “enforced secularization” was used.
jummy on January 4, 2007 at 4:21 AM
Check your premises people.
If you agree with a part of what someone says, but find another part of what they say to be bigoted, self-righteous insanity, why on earth would you spend one breath praising him for that part you approve of? Consider the totality, please. Turner is a racist blow-hard. Having sympathy for part of one of his thoughts should not cause you to lend any credibility.
LegendHasIt,
You hit the nail awful close to the head. I’ll say no more for now.
AZ_Redneck’s original question is valid. At what point along the curve of governmental tyranny (read: lack of respect or interest in the rule of law under the Constitution) will the citizens of this nation choose to act?
What does it take for a conservative to become a revolutionary? I believe that Jefferson, Washington, and Madison would have spit on your shoe if you called them conservatives and explained it as what we take it to mean today. The conservatives of their day where those willing to remain subjects, and not rock the boat with England. At which point, I find it fitting to continue the quotation…
Comfort, yes, far more important than that pesky Liberty. Remind me again why that word, and the motto “In God we trust”, are on the obverse of EVERY coin we mint?
AZ_Redneck asks when will we be that fed up with our government?
When we are convinced that the goal of government has become that of reducing us under absolute despotism. Seems a fair answer, and I’m surely not arrogant enough to think myself more adequate than Jefferson to conjure one.
So now the real question is, are we in that day, has it arrived, is it on the horizon, or are we who concern ourselves with such merely a bunch of kooks? If you believe that day has arrived…
Make the case, and all patriots of integrity ought to stand with you. I myself believe that day fairly close at hand, but I know myself unequal to the task of eloquently stating the particulars in a fitting manner.
Freelancer on January 4, 2007 at 7:05 AM
Here’s where this guy went wrong: Instead of just coming out and saying it, he should have written a book, or a play, or made a movie wherein someone asassinates a pro-amnesty congressman. I mean, it’s fair for Bush, right?
Farmer_Joe on January 4, 2007 at 7:12 AM
So, the pacifists are going to come after the Christians because of the fascist? Alright, but most of us believe in gun control.
Meaning, hot lead carefully sent on target.
Freelancer on January 4, 2007 at 7:13 AM
Heh.
Slublog on January 4, 2007 at 8:26 AM
With all due respect your rhetoric sounds plain silly. Revolution close at hand over what exactly? Dangerous fantasies at worst. The founders were rebelling against a totally different kind of tyranny. You seem to think a revolution against the longest running Democratic society in history and arguably the most successful is in order. Your comment about In God We Trust is misleading. It didn’t appear on coins until after all the founders were long dead. (http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml)
“The nice thing about militias in lieu of military service is that everyone can be a General.”
Take a deeeep breath Freelancer. This is a democracy. Run for office and change the dynamics if you are not satisfied with what is going on. Lose the apocalyptic dreams.
Bradky on January 4, 2007 at 9:58 AM
Someone fire that guy. That’s just stupid. I mean if it were taken out of context as an over stated mis placed exageration I MIGHT have some sympathy, but it’s pretty obvious … it’s in conext, and the guy is serious.
Toss his butt to the curb.
One Angry Christian on January 4, 2007 at 10:18 AM
The liberal bastards must at least admire his style.
JackM on January 4, 2007 at 10:43 AM
“that is an “invasion” like pouring water on a guy’s face is “torture.
get a grip.”
jummy on January 4, 2007 at 3:55 AM
Well if it’s not an “invasion” in your blind eyes then what is it? I believe it’s YOU who needs to “get a grip”.
darwin on January 4, 2007 at 10:43 AM
Check this guy’s bank account to see if anything from Michael Medved or John McVain has been deposited … he must’ve been paid off to make the pro-enforcement crowd look idiotic.
Oh, and somebody put a sock in his mouth, please.
thirteen28 on January 4, 2007 at 11:29 AM
you know what Freelancer, if you don’t like for those of us that agree with this guy on some of his article & are against some of it, then you know what, boo-freakin’-hoo. we are entitled to our “OPINIONS” just because YOU say that some of us that have sympathy with some of this guy’s article and are against some of it that we have no credibility, well guess what, i really don’t give a rats-@$$ of what YOU think.
Starblazer on January 4, 2007 at 11:49 AM
EVERYONE’S entitled to their “OPINIONS” including you and if you don’t like it, too freakin’ bad.
Starblazer on January 4, 2007 at 11:51 AM
If 50 million Arabs want to migrate to Israel, would you hold the door open for them? What if 50 million whites want to migrate to South Africa, would you be alright with that?
If a migration of white people was about to overtake another racial majority of some country, an individuals outrage over this would be in direct proportion to his lack of outrage over a white majority being overtaken in a predominantly white country.
Perchant on January 4, 2007 at 12:07 PM
Has there ever been a revolution in a country where the vast majority of people were well fed and prosperous? I can’t think of one.
(American revolution doesn’t count–think that’s a misnomer in that a colony throwing off its foreign rule is not strictly speaking a revolution. That’s just semantics, for purposes of this question, assume a revolution doesn’t include throwing off colonial rule)
honora on January 4, 2007 at 12:07 PM
“That is why you should never publicly advocate a criminal act” from a posting above.
What do you call publicly encouraging breaking our immigration laws, labor laws, tax laws, environmental regulations, identity theft laws etc.? Who is holding the pro amnesty, pro illegal immigration politicians and advocates responsible for inciting illegals to break a multitude of our laws?
Why do they get to choose which laws they will follow and which ones that it is in their interest to ignore? What makes them so special that others can’t decide to ignore laws they don’t like when it is in their economic interest as well?
We live in a wonderful, civilized society where the vast majority of its citizens are law abiding and peaceful. By deliberately choosing to allow widespread lawbreaking, the amnesty advocates are encouraging others do do so as well. Why should Mr Turner respect and obey the law when others in society clearly do not?
This is the social agreement that Locke wrote of. I agree not to steal my neighbor’s property if my neighbor agrees not to steal mine. Without this compact, we cluld soon descend into anarchy.
GFB on January 4, 2007 at 1:02 PM
While I take your point, there is a big difference between breaking immigration laws and assassination, don’t you think? (And while I do not support amnesty, let me point out that amnesty negates the crime, which deflates your argument, doesn’t it?)
honora on January 4, 2007 at 1:19 PM
I think this guy is a wee tad frustrated.
Speakup on January 4, 2007 at 3:07 PM
While I take your point, there is a big difference between breaking immigration laws and assassination, don’t you think?
Hmmmm … I dunno. Is there? The politicians allowing this carnage and rape of our laws and traditions have in effect forsaken the oath they swore to uphold. I’m certainly not condoning the assassination of political figures, but I wouldn’t be upset if these bastards were thrown from the steps of the Capital onto their asses. No political system is perfect and ours lets bad apples in when left unattended for any period of time. Cleaning house by force may be necessary when the politicians stop listening to the will of the people.
(And while I do not support amnesty, let me point out that amnesty negates the crime, which deflates your argument, doesn’t it?)
Amnesty would do nothing to relieve the tremendous burden on our social services and hospitals. Amnesty would do nothing more than guarantee more illegals as the previous amnesty did.
Amnesty would not suddenly change the thousands of criminal and gang members that have come here into honest hard working citizens. Amnesty is a joke and a slap in the face to every American and any honest person who desires to become one.
darwin on January 4, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Wow.
honora on January 4, 2007 at 3:47 PM
Not exactly. The Colonials were attempting to regain their trampled rights as under British common law. The king permitted the usurpation (stamp act, quatering act, etc.) toward the Colonials, yet preserving the remainder of British citizenry and aristocracy. After significant petitioning to the king fell on deaf ears, the Colonials threw down the glove and declared that they could govern themselves. The Colonials knew that the declaration to self governement would start a war. There are similarities.
- McCain-Feingold is a significant infringement on the 1st Amendment.
- The Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968 severely infringe on the 2nd Amendment. When the day comes that the government comes to take your guns, what will you do?
- The 4th Amendment is interesting. Try to determine the consistent test applied by the judiciary there. It seems that this Amendment can be walked on whenever the state has a “compelling” interest.
- How can property seizures by the state during drug raids comport with the 5th Amendment?
- Considering the text of the Constitution and the 10th Amendment, pray tell me how the Department of Education even exists?
- Consider that illegal aliens continue to operate and the government does nothing. Moreover, they can receive benefits now.
Your rights as an American citizen are being trampled … everyday. I ask when you will grow weary of it?
When the DREAM Act in some form passes, and you are informed that you will be paying for the medical, education, and housing benefits for every illegal, how will you respond when the state tells you to shut up and write the check? Just suck it up as progress?
Many seem to think this country will last forever. Check history. None ever have. If any aspire to Darwinism, things evolve.
I ask again, what will you do when the government refuses your petition?
Soothsayer (Soothsayer on January 4, 2007 at 12:53 AM) hit the nail on the head. NOTHING. The vast majority of Americans are no longer educated in their rights and have abdicated their responsibility toward self government. Moreover, they have come to believe that the police or standing armies will come to their rescue. Most will do NOTHING, calamity will overwhelm them, they will accept their burden, and they will kiss that hand that feeds them.
Noted by Freelancer (Freelancer on January 4, 2007 at 7:05 AM) liberty is pesky. It requires work and the vast majority no longer have the stomach for it.
AZ_Redneck on January 4, 2007 at 3:49 PM
After reading your missive, the only thing I can conclude is that you are under 40 and are a product of the current Government re-education school system.
We live in a Constitutional Republic not a democracy. There is a huge difference.
Actually, the tyranny that exists today in America is exactly what the founders were talking about. Today our Leaders are ignoring the Constitution with impunity. Everything from property rights to taxation and with each additional un-constitutional law that is passed we loose what little liberty we have left.
How else do you explain that for over ten years the American people have been polled about Illegal Immigration and have said by 80% they want it to stop.(Zogby polls)
Yet, our leaders continue to ignore the American People and are trying to pass laws that would grant full Blown Amnesty and give the same criminals Social Security benefits as a reward for breaking our laws.
They took an oath to enforce the constitution and represent the voters in their districts and by doing the exact opposite they are committing treason. They violate the constitution with impunity and are even cheered on by some.
The patriots that post on this forum are right about the tyranny that exists in America.
ScottyDog on January 4, 2007 at 4:38 PM
Rise of an aristocracy.
AZ_Redneck on January 4, 2007 at 5:04 PM
I don’t if he’s the lovechild of Hugo Chavez and Cindy Sheehan, you dork, you didn’t have to send us to a web site run by militant queer beasters…
Jaibones on January 4, 2007 at 5:07 PM
there is a big difference between breaking immigration laws and assassination, don’t you think? (And while I do not support amnesty, let me point out that amnesty negates the crime, which deflates your argument, doesn’t it?)
honora on January 4, 2007 at 1:19 PM
One could argue that there is a big difference between the offenses of assassinating Hitler and naziism’s destruction of Germany. The difference between the destruction of Germany brought on by naziism and the destruction of the United States brought on by the Aztlanzis is that Germany could recover.
Perchant on January 4, 2007 at 6:22 PM
Az Redneck,. Scotty and Freelancer which of you will take the role of judge,jury and executioner? Or maybe one of you has already sewed your general stars on your epaulets in anticipation of the revolution.
Overthrowing the government is a crime – talk of taking up arms, well placed lead, and the like smack of that type of talk. The founders created a system to allow for change with out revolution.
Sorry you don’t like the representation that has been voted in. Even sorrier to see people that only respect a government that only agrees with their points of view. And saddest most to see that you don’t want to “Get it” in regards to lurching to extreme positions no more palatable than the far left you so revile. Republicans who stayed home are the reason that the 06 election turned out the way it did, not some new wave of love for the democrats. That is the basic flaw in your logic, as it were.
Impress me with your run for office and change the wrongs you see within the framework of our constitution and quit flapping your gums about taking up arms against tyranny because you don’t like what has been passed.
Extremism is never popular no matter which party is advocating it.
Bradky on January 4, 2007 at 6:30 PM
“The founders created a system to allow for change with out revolution.”
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” –Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:429
“Sorry you don’t like the representation that has been voted in. Even sorrier to see people that only respect a government that only agrees with their points of view.”
Representation? The will of the people is constantly usurped by judiciaries, and ignored by the legislators and the executive. We don’t have a government that agrees with any point of view the people express. They want their homeland to be secure and to maintain OUR traditions and hertiage. The welfare kings and queens, socialists, and crooks cheer the departure of the Republicans, who did nothing the people asked, to welcome the democrats who will steal even more from our pockets as they ram amnesty down our throats.
darwin on January 4, 2007 at 6:44 PM
“The founders created a system to allow for change with out revolution.”
I don’t think the founders created a system where foreigners can invade my country and vote to choose my representation for me. With the millions of illegal voters and the Democrats’ willingness to engage in as much voter fraud as necessary without any fear of reprisals ( complain and you’re a “racist” ), relying on the election process will be a pathetic joke from now on.
Perchant on January 4, 2007 at 7:29 PM
This was written before our constitution, bill of rights or any other framework for our government was written. Quoting it is disingenuous in trying to make your point that revolution today is in order.
The people voted and the representatives have taken their place. You seem to be saying that the minority of voters who share your extreme views on this know what is best for the uninformed majority – sounds kind of like well ….. judicial activism the far left is so enamored with, which you seem to disdain.
Moonbats is reserved for the extreme left, we need a term for the extreme right for easier reference.
Bradky on January 4, 2007 at 7:34 PM
– Perchant
Sounds kind of like what Democrats were saying about a “stolen election” a few years ago…
Bradky on January 4, 2007 at 7:37 PM
Sounds kind of like what Democrats were saying about a “stolen election” a few years ago…
Bradky on January 4, 2007 at 7:37 PM
That’s what you do when you’re engaged in this sort of fraud, it’s basic misdirection.
Do you know why Democrats always object to Republican poll watchers in liberal areas and Republicans never object to Democrat poll watchers in conservative areas? Take a guess.
Perchant on January 4, 2007 at 7:56 PM
“This was written before our constitution, bill of rights or any other framework for our government was written. Quoting it is disingenuous in trying to make your point that revolution today is in order.”
It’s from the Declaration of Independence, and it’s words are as applicable today as when they were written. When the men and women chosen to represent Americas citizens don’t, and when these same people fail to heed calls to secure our homeland and secure what has made us who we are, then action must be taken. Not all action must be violent, the message can be sent by other means. One thing is sure, the people simply are being ignored.
Disingenuous and politically correct I’m not.
darwin on January 4, 2007 at 7:58 PM
“Sounds kind of like what Democrats were saying about a “stolen election” a few years ago…”
Sounds like something the democrats were saying up to and during the last election. Of course since they won, they dropped it.
You’ll notice that after each election the dems lose, they cry fraud, yet are never able to prove any of their claims.
darwin on January 4, 2007 at 8:00 PM
NO I WASN’T ATTACKING YOU Legend. Someone with a site as BRILLIANT as the one you linked me to, couldn’t possibly be the object of my ire. I was speaking to those who were dissing Anne Coulter as if she’s “too extreme” and to those who were acting as if this guy was just some random nutbag. He may be, but the subject needed a little airing out IMO, rather than a preemptory dismissal. The question is will you rise up the day they announce the North American Union? Or the Amero? I mean, how can you take the influx of at a MINIMUM, 70 MILLION people as anything other than an attack on America? What about the Congressmen who suggested not only legalizing the 12 million that are here but allowing them to bring 5or 6 relatives! Are they not traitors? Aren’t they liberal traitorous bastards that are only doing this to get votes? You will notice that in my post I didn’t join this guys call for violence AT THIS TIME, but I’ll tell you like they say in Washington D.C, my friend, NOTHING IS OFF THE TABLE!
Soothsayer on January 4, 2007 at 8:35 PM
NICE TEST. I think I’ll take it.
You can test yourself to determine your anti-white conditioning by answering a few simple questions and self-examining your reactions to the questions:
Should the United States should remain a white majority nation?ANSWER: YES. As an African American I have no problem with this country being majority white.The racial makeup of this country is as important to it as it’s language. I’m not threatened by a lot of White People. There are GAZILLIONS of decent beautiful White people whom I got nothing but love for, my friend.
Should any white majority nation remain a white majority nation? If so, which ones? Should Ethiopia remain a black majority nation? Should Guatemala remain a latino majority nation? Should Japan remain an oriental majority nation? ANSWER: Basically I don’t think that ANY nation should have it’s principal demographic CHANGED by any outside source! This to me is no different than any other usurpation of sovereignity, however, if some Uber Liberal nation like say, Sweden, DECIDES amongst THEMSELVES to import a bunch of Arabs or something, that’s their beeswax.
Should a black person identify himself as “pro-black”? ANSWER: I would prefer that they be Pro-American! However, since black people were the downtrodden in this society, I understand where this mindset came from. I know as a kid growing up in Queens, I was still suffering the shock of discovering that we had been enslaved, when James Brown’s ” I’m Black and I’m Proud” came out. I found it curiously wonderful that anyone could be “proud” to be, what I was taught to be ashamed of..It started a journey of sorts for me, but TODAY, I would say that this was UNNECESSARY to be “PRO-BLACK” since those that are blatantly “Anti-Black” have largely been marginalized by our society. Thank God for that!
Should a white person identify himself as “pro-white”? ANSWER: This however is a little different. Here you have the majority being “proud” but of what? Blacks are proud to have withstood the oppression of Whites, should Whites be proud for visiting that oppression upon them? I think not. In a vacuum I would say that there’s nothing wrong with being proud to be white, I’m proud of white people, just as well as I’m “proud” of blacks! Whites have done wonderful things for our world, oppression aside! But the subject DOESN’T ARISE in a VACUUM does it? The White Pride movement was started by those who RESENTED BLACK efforts to achieve EQUALITY and therefore were trying to counter that, hardly a noble motive. Much the same as men are obviously stronger than women, Whites are the dominant race in our society, pride in such an obvious fact, is unseemly and of questionable motive..
Did some of those questions make you feel more uneasy than the other questions? Answer: No they were just fine.
Perchant on January 4, 2007 at 3:09 AM
Nice test Perch!
Soothsayer on January 4, 2007 at 8:57 PM
I don’t agree with you very much but I have to say,that was well stated.
crr6 on January 4, 2007 at 9:06 PM
No more than you can prove millions of illegal votes influenced this past election.
– Darwin
Disingenuous yes politically correct, no.
– Darwin
You might want to take a gander at section 2385 of the US code about that one hoss.
Bradky on January 4, 2007 at 9:13 PM
hmmm…. i dunno …
Patriot? Conservative? Good Citizen?
——
Bradky – I would like to recommend a book for you “Watership Down” (ISBN 0380002930). It is probably the most telling critique of modernity available. Also, just a darn good story.
While reading the story keep the following thoughts in mind:
- The gun control movement
- Individual safety at the expense of everyone elses liberty
- Welfare at the expense of others
- Abdication of responsibility toward self government
In the Watership Down story, the position you and many others hold reminds me of the warren of rabbits that made a bargain with death. They turned their backs on the burdens of freedom for a little security provided by the farmer that cultivated them for his own use.
There are many like myself, Soothsayer, Freelancer, darwin, and others that recognize the progressive cultivation and are seeeking to retain their freedom and warn others.
AZ_Redneck on January 4, 2007 at 9:24 PM
Soothsayer,
In an anti-white society, pro-white means anti-”anti white”. Just as a black person in an anti-black society should damn well be pro-black.
The term “white pride” does set off an alarm but taken literally, it is a good thing. It is the natural condition for whites to have pride in their culture but once conditioned to be anti-”white pride” they will become pro-”white shame”. It’s behavior control through word appropriation.
Perchant on January 4, 2007 at 9:42 PM
Not only that, but Adams created one of the coolest phrases ever – “going tharn.”
Slublog on January 4, 2007 at 10:35 PM
No more than you can prove millions of illegal votes influenced this past election.
The democrats won … that’s proof enough.
Disingenuous yes politically correct, no.
I have no idea why you insist on labeling me disingenuous. Do you know what it means? The last thing I am is that.
You might want to take a gander at section 2385 of the US code about that one hoss.
No … why don’t you give me a synopsis, them explain your implications.
darwin on January 4, 2007 at 10:45 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »