On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:04:41 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 13:10:56 -0700, "Artemus" wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
. ..
Letter From A Retired Border Patrol Agent

This letter sent to Tennessee Senator Bill Frist from a retired border
patrol agent It has more common sense than most the bull being spewed
from the Congress.

Dear Senator Frist,

snip

Do you have the courage to do what is right for America ? Or, will you
bow to the wants and needs of those who don't even have the right to
remain here? There will be another reckoning -- it will come in November
of this year, again in 2012 and yet again in 2014. We will not allow
America to be stolen by third world agitators and thieves.

David J. Stoddard US Border Patrol (RET)
Hereford , Arizona



True according to Snopes. However, the original date was 2006 and the dates in the
last paragraph have been tweaked.

More of his letters he
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=...a3d25e1efe4b25
Art


Sounds like the man has some definate things to say, and is not shy
about saying them.

So what ARE we going to do about the illegals?

Gunner

Doesn't it say up front in the constitution that the boarders must be
secure? Or when the pres. accepts the job? I say it is dereliction of
duty, congress, jud, & EX. ! Punishable to stripped of all wealth
documents and whatever then sent to ahhh Mexico City.

SW

P. S. Good luck with that. Better yet China LOL

Sunworshipper wrote:

Doesn't it say up front in the constitution that the boarders must be
secure? Or when the pres. accepts the job? I say it is dereliction of
duty, congress, jud, & EX. ! Punishable to stripped of all wealth
documents and whatever then sent to ahhh Mexico City.

SW

P. S. Good luck with that. Better yet China LOL


That's actually a small point in international law.
A nation that can not secure its borders cannot maintain its sovereignty.

Ask Cambodia - back in the 1970's.


--

Richard Lamb

"cavelamb" wrote in message
...
Sunworshipper wrote:

Doesn't it say up front in the constitution that the boarders must be
secure? Or when the pres. accepts the job? I say it is dereliction of
duty, congress, jud, & EX. ! Punishable to stripped of all wealth
documents and whatever then sent to ahhh Mexico City.

SW

P. S. Good luck with that. Better yet China LOL


That's actually a small point in international law.
A nation that can not secure its borders cannot maintain its sovereignty.

Ask Cambodia - back in the 1970's.



the question is not securing the borders, the question is, are you willing
to pay for it. securing the land border is trivial - just place machine gun
nests along the border and offer a bounty of 1000 for every kill - and pay
some reasonable wage. But the problem is that the people who want secure
borders the most are the ones that whine about high taxes when we are really
a very low tax nation, and I am not sure I want to live in a country that
uses force that way - but it will work - East Germany used that method quite
effectively.

In some states, regular public executions remind people what is forbidden -
we could adopt that practice - but do we want to? What is the price we are
willing to pay? Think this through before you make policy decisions of this
type.

Bill Noble wrote:


"cavelamb" wrote in message
...
Sunworshipper wrote:

Doesn't it say up front in the constitution that the boarders must be
secure? Or when the pres. accepts the job? I say it is dereliction of
duty, congress, jud, & EX. ! Punishable to stripped of all wealth
documents and whatever then sent to ahhh Mexico City.

SW

P. S. Good luck with that. Better yet China LOL


That's actually a small point in international law.
A nation that can not secure its borders cannot maintain its sovereignty.

Ask Cambodia - back in the 1970's.



the question is not securing the borders, the question is, are you
willing to pay for it.


Yes.

Because...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNUc8nuo7HI

--

Richard Lamb

"cavelamb" wrote in message
m...
Bill Noble wrote:


"cavelamb" wrote in message
...
Sunworshipper wrote:

Doesn't it say up front in the constitution that the boarders must be
secure? Or when the pres. accepts the job? I say it is dereliction of
duty, congress, jud, & EX. ! Punishable to stripped of all wealth
documents and whatever then sent to ahhh Mexico City.

SW

P. S. Good luck with that. Better yet China LOL


That's actually a small point in international law.
A nation that can not secure its borders cannot maintain its
sovereignty.

Ask Cambodia - back in the 1970's.



the question is not securing the borders, the question is, are you
willing to pay for it.


Yes.

Because...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNUc8nuo7HI

--

Richard Lamb



This may be a bit highbrow, anyway...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y5tIytl8hA

On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 14:32:57 +0800, "kelly" wrote:


"cavelamb" wrote in message
om...
Bill Noble wrote:


"cavelamb" wrote in message
...
Sunworshipper wrote:

Doesn't it say up front in the constitution that the boarders must be
secure? Or when the pres. accepts the job? I say it is dereliction of
duty, congress, jud, & EX. ! Punishable to stripped of all wealth
documents and whatever then sent to ahhh Mexico City.

SW

P. S. Good luck with that. Better yet China LOL


That's actually a small point in international law.
A nation that can not secure its borders cannot maintain its
sovereignty.

Ask Cambodia - back in the 1970's.



the question is not securing the borders, the question is, are you
willing to pay for it.


Yes.

Because...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNUc8nuo7HI

--

Richard Lamb



This may be a bit highbrow, anyway...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y5tIytl8hA

That situation could have been easily fixed with one quick burst from a
mini-gun


Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 21:50:11 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:



"cavelamb" wrote in message
...
Sunworshipper wrote:

Doesn't it say up front in the constitution that the boarders must be
secure? Or when the pres. accepts the job? I say it is dereliction of
duty, congress, jud, & EX. ! Punishable to stripped of all wealth
documents and whatever then sent to ahhh Mexico City.

SW

P. S. Good luck with that. Better yet China LOL


That's actually a small point in international law.
A nation that can not secure its borders cannot maintain its sovereignty.

Ask Cambodia - back in the 1970's.



the question is not securing the borders, the question is, are you willing
to pay for it. securing the land border is trivial - just place machine gun
nests along the border and offer a bounty of 1000 for every kill - and pay
some reasonable wage. But the problem is that the people who want secure
borders the most are the ones that whine about high taxes when we are really
a very low tax nation, and I am not sure I want to live in a country that
uses force that way - but it will work - East Germany used that method quite
effectively.

In some states, regular public executions remind people what is forbidden -
we could adopt that practice - but do we want to? What is the price we are
willing to pay? Think this through before you make policy decisions of this
type.


We could simply pay a bounty on the dead, and once a day, have score
keepers wander the killing zone on the border tallying up the body
counts.

It would be a win win situation and far far cheaper than having the
government actually get off its fat, bloated, dead Leftwing ass and
actually do something about it.

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 22:55:12 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 21:50:11 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:



"cavelamb" wrote in message
...
Sunworshipper wrote:

Doesn't it say up front in the constitution that the boarders must be
secure? Or when the pres. accepts the job? I say it is dereliction of
duty, congress, jud, & EX. ! Punishable to stripped of all wealth
documents and whatever then sent to ahhh Mexico City.

SW

P. S. Good luck with that. Better yet China LOL


That's actually a small point in international law.
A nation that can not secure its borders cannot maintain its sovereignty.

Ask Cambodia - back in the 1970's.



the question is not securing the borders, the question is, are you willing
to pay for it. securing the land border is trivial - just place machine gun
nests along the border and offer a bounty of 1000 for every kill - and pay
some reasonable wage. But the problem is that the people who want secure
borders the most are the ones that whine about high taxes when we are really
a very low tax nation, and I am not sure I want to live in a country that
uses force that way - but it will work - East Germany used that method quite
effectively.

In some states, regular public executions remind people what is forbidden -
we could adopt that practice - but do we want to? What is the price we are
willing to pay? Think this through before you make policy decisions of this
type.


We could simply pay a bounty on the dead, and once a day, have score
keepers wander the killing zone on the border tallying up the body
counts.

It would be a win win situation and far far cheaper than having the
government actually get off its fat, bloated, dead Leftwing ass and
actually do something about it.

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

I seem to have pegged you more tolerant. Or are they really taking
over now? I really don't want to get into it, but it always seemed to
push me over the edge when the contractors' board had a hard on for me
and the illegal mexicans where taking over. You know, everyone would
look the other way every time they made a move, but they would attack
me for not having a sign on my truck. It was like being beat down so
there is more room for them.

One time back in 1980 I was living maybe 17 miles from the border and
some friends of a friend where over at my condo and they invited me to
snipe wet backs, as they where earning their nick names, for fun. I
declined, but got this distinct feeling they were serious.

I don't mind mexicans, I've lived half my life with them. It's just
that they doubled or tripled in size from just walking across and
everyone is afraid of being politically incorrect to do something
about it and then they turned smug about it. I find it hard to believe
that we will lose any rights (as if we have anymore) by having a cop
ask for ID. I've always had to prove who I was to get a drivers
liecence , or at random by many people (like banks) and I know from
moving from state to state many times. The last time my old birth
certificate was deemed real and was no good, had to have an electronic
one from the state where I was born. So, where do some states get off
by granting fake ID's? Sounds criminal to me. Sure the states have
some rights, but they should be federally mandated if they pull ****
like that then they have to have in bold letters across the ID that it
is only valid it that state. Or more or less "We promote illegal
activity in this state." Which seems admission of guilt.

This is starting to sound like your gun thing. Only the law abiders
are denied their right not to be asked to prove citizenship. Right?

Is it cause no one wants to be counted? Come on people, "they"
already know who you are. It's just that they don't care yet unless
you get targeted and probably will never allow access.

SW

"Sunworshipper" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 22:55:12 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 21:50:11 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:



"cavelamb" wrote in message
...
Sunworshipper wrote:

Doesn't it say up front in the constitution that the boarders must be
secure? Or when the pres. accepts the job? I say it is dereliction of
duty, congress, jud, & EX. ! Punishable to stripped of all wealth
documents and whatever then sent to ahhh Mexico City.

SW

P. S. Good luck with that. Better yet China LOL


That's actually a small point in international law.
A nation that can not secure its borders cannot maintain its
sovereignty.

Ask Cambodia - back in the 1970's.



the question is not securing the borders, the question is, are you
willing
to pay for it. securing the land border is trivial - just place machine
gun
nests along the border and offer a bounty of 1000 for every kill - and
pay
some reasonable wage. But the problem is that the people who want secure
borders the most are the ones that whine about high taxes when we are
really
a very low tax nation, and I am not sure I want to live in a country that
uses force that way - but it will work - East Germany used that method
quite
effectively.

In some states, regular public executions remind people what is
forbidden -
we could adopt that practice - but do we want to? What is the price we
are
willing to pay? Think this through before you make policy decisions of
this
type.


We could simply pay a bounty on the dead, and once a day, have score
keepers wander the killing zone on the border tallying up the body
counts.

It would be a win win situation and far far cheaper than having the
government actually get off its fat, bloated, dead Leftwing ass and
actually do something about it.

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

I seem to have pegged you more tolerant. Or are they really taking
over now? I really don't want to get into it, but it always seemed to
push me over the edge when the contractors' board had a hard on for me
and the illegal mexicans where taking over. You know, everyone would
look the other way every time they made a move, but they would attack
me for not having a sign on my truck. It was like being beat down so
there is more room for them.

One time back in 1980 I was living maybe 17 miles from the border and
some friends of a friend where over at my condo and they invited me to
snipe wet backs, as they where earning their nick names, for fun. I
declined, but got this distinct feeling they were serious.

I don't mind mexicans, I've lived half my life with them. It's just
that they doubled or tripled in size from just walking across and
everyone is afraid of being politically incorrect to do something
about it and then they turned smug about it. I find it hard to believe
that we will lose any rights (as if we have anymore) by having a cop
ask for ID. I've always had to prove who I was to get a drivers
liecence , or at random by many people (like banks) and I know from
moving from state to state many times. The last time my old birth
certificate was deemed real and was no good, had to have an electronic
one from the state where I was born. So, where do some states get off
by granting fake ID's? Sounds criminal to me.

They don't. Where did you hear this?

Sure the states have
some rights, but they should be federally mandated if they pull ****
like that then they have to have in bold letters across the ID that it
is only valid it that state. Or more or less "We promote illegal
activity in this state." Which seems admission of guilt.

This is starting to sound like your gun thing. Only the law abiders
are denied their right not to be asked to prove citizenship. Right?

Is it cause no one wants to be counted? Come on people, "they"
already know who you are. It's just that they don't care yet unless
you get targeted and probably will never allow access.

SW

Gunner has never run into a problem that he can't solve by killing millions
of people he doesn't like. And he always favors that as a solution.

--
Ed Huntress

Gunner Asch on Mon, 07 Jun 2010 22:55:12 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

We could simply pay a bounty on the dead, and once a day, have score
keepers wander the killing zone on the border tallying up the body
counts.

It would be a win win situation and far far cheaper than having the
government actually get off its fat, bloated, dead Leftwing ass

Oh, they can be included in the count too.

and
actually do something about it.

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizin
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 20:11:05 -0500, cavelamb
wrote:

Sunworshipper wrote:

Doesn't it say up front in the constitution that the boarders must be
secure? Or when the pres. accepts the job? I say it is dereliction of
duty, congress, jud, & EX. ! Punishable to stripped of all wealth
documents and whatever then sent to ahhh Mexico City.

SW

P. S. Good luck with that. Better yet China LOL


That's actually a small point in international law.
A nation that can not secure its borders cannot maintain its sovereignty.

Ask Cambodia - back in the 1970's.


Been there..saw that.

If the US ever gets half that bad..the nation is done.

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 18:56:43 -0500, Sunworshipper
wrote:

So what ARE we going to do about the illegals?

Gunner

Doesn't it say up front in the constitution that the boarders must be
secure?

Yeah, but the illegals are not really boarders, more like squatters.
g

If people who *hire* undocumented workers faced large fines first,
then jail terms, the flood would not only dry to a trickle, but there
would be a sizeable exodus of unemployed people back to their real
homes. A lot of labor costs would increase, though.

Joe

On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 09:35:18 -0400, Joe wrote
the following:

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 18:56:43 -0500, Sunworshipper
wrote:

So what ARE we going to do about the illegals?

Gunner

Doesn't it say up front in the constitution that the boarders must be
secure?

Yeah, but the illegals are not really boarders, more like squatters.
g

Squatters and/or invading armies.


If people who *hire* undocumented workers faced large fines first,
then jail terms, the flood would not only dry to a trickle, but there
would be a sizeable exodus of unemployed people back to their real
homes.

Yeah, it's enforcement of those new laws which needs to be addressed.
In their 'wisdom', Libtards prevent enforcement every time.


A lot of labor costs would increase, though.

Not by much, though. I haven't seen anyone pay an illegal less than
minimum wages for 20-30 years.

--
Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what
to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.
-- George S. Patton

On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 09:35:18 -0400, Joe wrote:

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 18:56:43 -0500, Sunworshipper
wrote:

So what ARE we going to do about the illegals?

Gunner

Doesn't it say up front in the constitution that the boarders must be
secure?

Yeah, but the illegals are not really boarders, more like squatters.
g

If people who *hire* undocumented workers faced large fines first,
then jail terms, the flood would not only dry to a trickle, but there
would be a sizeable exodus of unemployed people back to their real
homes. A lot of labor costs would increase, though.

Joe

ooops Hey, lots of times the spell checker thinks I'm alien too.

SW