SCOTUS rules against Texas on the border fight

[glenbo]

I don't hear well enough to watch videos, so is there a Cliff's Notes version?

 

[BigRed]

I don't hear well enough to watch videos, so is there a Cliff's Notes version?

In the lower right corner of the video screen, there should be 5 icons. The first should be for "settings". If you pick that one, you should be able to change the settings to include captions.

 

[BigRed]

The Cliff's Notes version....

Robert Lewis Dabney had it nailed.... all the way back in 1897.

“This conservative party is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always when about to enter a protest very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance: The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy, from having nothing to whip.”

 

[MountainGirl]

 

[MountainGirl]

Yeah, I'm repeating myself, sorry, I'm just pretty gobsmacked by this video. I knew about some of it, but hearing it tied together with the pieces in place has completely changed my thinking.

I like Kelly's proposal but it would never happen. It all has to come down for anything to change, and it won't- so it won't.

Oh well.
Time for some whiskey and slow blues. Cheers!

 

[D0ntTr3@d0nM3]

SCOTUS are fools - the law is on the side of the State, given the Federal government's abdication of their duties.

They are trying to avoid increasing tensions - which is exactly what this ruling will do.

Abbott needs to stand firm, and if necessary, Texas DPS and National Guard elements need to begin arresting and disarming ANY Federal agents near the border, and turning back illegals. Any illegals here need to be shipped to Washington DC so they overwhelm the resources there and put the spotlight front and center - drop the illegals off on the steps of the US Capitol. Smuggle them in to DC in the dead of night if necessary.

I agree with almost all of that lol. While I understand Abbott sending illegals to sanctuary cities is to make a point, I think by now he has loudly made that point. The downside to doing this is that it will be that much more difficult to deport them by relocating and spreading them out all of the country. They need to be immediately turned around and sent back over the border. Dropping them off in DC will only make Biden's puppet masters continue to sue and obstruct Texas from doing what it has every right to do. Protect its border and people. I feel like the relocation program is going to have future negative implications such as states suing Texas, and because of all the wack job activist judges, winning those cases placing all the blame for this mess on Abbott and who knows send him to prison for trafficking and human smuggling. (I am sure they will come up with something outrageous).

 

[MountainGirl]

I agree with almost all of that lol. While I understand Abbott sending illegals to sanctuary cities is to make a point, I think by now he has loudly made that point. The downside to doing this is that it will be that much more difficult to deport them by relocating and spreading them out all of the country. They need to be immediately turned around and sent back over the border. Dropping them off in DC will only make Biden's puppet masters continue to sue and obstruct Texas from doing what it has every right to do. Protect its border and people. I feel like the relocation program is going to have future negative implications such as states suing Texas, and because of all the wack job activist judges, winning those cases placing all the blame for this mess on Abbott and who knows send him to prison for trafficking and human smuggling. (I am sure they will come up with something outrageous).

Deportation will never happen, and anyone who thinks it might really needs to watch the video in the post above yours. Jesse Kelly nails it.

And Welcome to the forum, btw.

 

[BigRed]

Yeah, I'm repeating myself, sorry, I'm just pretty gobsmacked by this video. I knew about some of it, but hearing it tied together with the pieces in place has completely changed my thinking.

I like Kelly's proposal but it would never happen. It all has to come down for anything to change, and it won't- so it won't.

Oh well.
Time for some whiskey and slow blues. Cheers!

Cracked open a Four Roses Small Batch here along with a little Turnpike Troubadors.

 

[D0ntTr3@d0nM3]

Deportation will never happen, and anyone who thinks it might really needs to watch the video in the post above yours. Jesse Kelly nails it.

And Welcome to the forum, btw.

Thanks. And I am watching listening to it right now. I agree we will never get rid of everyone who is here illegally solely based on their immigration status. What I was saying is to immediately deport going forward. However If /when they commit any other crimes they will now be in states that will protect and harbor them from justice and they will get booked and released without bail to go right back to killing and trafficking drugs and children, and now that its common knowledge that the southern border is open to all we have an extremely high risk of terrorists entering our country unchecked. Mexican Nationals are now the lowest percentage of people coming over the border. South American prisons are going to start cleaning out the closet and let it look like a riot/prison break took place and sure enough they will all end up at the southern border. Same goes for countries like Haiti that assassinated their president. The country is basically run by gangs now. Once law and order slowly gets restored there where are all of them going to hide out to avoid punishment? The Formed United States of America. People from China and the Middle East are coming too. Assimilation is now deemed racist so what do you get when people try to escape their home countries to rape and pillage the US but really hate the US and everything it stands for? You get places all the US slowly becoming mini 3rd world countries. It's a trojan horse. At what point is it finally enough to enact what the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to do? If this is not a tyrannical government then what is? The text in the 2nd Amendment isn't symbolic hyperbole. At what point do we have the right to defend our country?

Full Disclaimer I am not crazy or unstable, nor am I trying to incite violence or suggest we should try starting a civil war. I am genuinely wondering what the threshold is or what has to happen to satisfy the accusation of a tyrannical government for which partly the 2nd Amendment was created to prevent.

 

[D0ntTr3@d0nM3]

Deportation will never happen, and anyone who thinks it might really needs to watch the video in the post above yours. Jesse Kelly nails it.

And Welcome to the forum, btw.

I am somewhat curious as to what Tucker and Jesse Kelly are talking about when they say Abbott has done absolutely nothing about the immigration problem. I'd argue he along with a few other governors are the only ones doing anything about it.

 

[BigRed]

Thanks. And I am watching listening to it right now. I agree we will never get rid of everyone who is here illegally solely based on their immigration status. What I was saying is to immediately deport going forward. However If /when they commit any other crimes they will now be in states that will protect and harbor them from justice and they will get booked and released without bail to go right back to killing and trafficking drugs and children, and now that its common knowledge that the southern border is open to all we have an extremely high risk of terrorists entering our country unchecked. Mexican Nationals are now the lowest percentage of people coming over the border. South American prisons are going to start cleaning out the closet and let it look like a riot/prison break took place and sure enough they will all end up at the southern border. Same goes for countries like Haiti that assassinated their president. The country is basically run by gangs now. Once law and order slowly gets restored there where are all of them going to hide out to avoid punishment? The Formed United States of America. People from China and the Middle East are coming too. Assimilation is now deemed racist so what do you get when people try to escape their home countries to rape and pillage the US but really hate the US and everything it stands for? You get places all the US slowly becoming mini 3rd world countries. It's a trojan horse. At what point is it finally enough to enact what the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to do? If this is not a tyrannical government then what is? The text in the 2nd Amendment isn't symbolic hyperbole. At what point do we have the right to defend our country?

Full Disclaimer I am not crazy or unstable, nor am I trying to incite violence or suggest we should try starting a civil war. I am genuinely wondering what the threshold is or what has to happen to satisfy the accusation of a tyrannical government for which partly the 2nd Amendment was created to prevent.

Cloward-Piven strategy in full swing.

 

[BigRed]

I am somewhat curious as to what Tucker and Jesse Kelly are talking about when they say Abbott has done absolutely nothing about the immigration problem. I'd argue he along with a few other governors are the only ones doing anything about it.

I believe a point is that it takes a coalition of the individual and sovereign States to make if forceful enough to matter.

Secession is long past due.

 

[D0ntTr3@d0nM3]

I believe a point is that it takes a coalition of the individual and sovereign States to make if forceful enough to matter.

Secession is long past due.

But I mean for us as American citizens. At what point or what is the threshold where we legitimently say we no longer have confidence in our government, whether it be state or federal, to where rights and protections given to us by the 2nd Amendment are righteously activated and justified?

Again I am not trying to incite anything here. I honestly don't know the answer to the question.

 

[glenbo]

I like Kelly calling Repubs "Controlled Opposition," like little lap dogs that yap a lot but run scared at the first sign of resistance.

 

[MountainGirl]

But I mean for us as American citizens. At what point or what is the threshold where we legitimently say we no longer have confidence in our government, whether it be state or federal, to where rights and protections given to us by the 2nd Amendment are righteously activated and justified?

Again I am not trying to incite anything here. I honestly don't know the answer to the question.

See, there's the rub. Without the backing of the State we'd be deemed terrorists, anarchists, etc, there is no "legitimate" point or threshold.

Like @BigRed said, it would take a coalition of the individual (us) and whatever state authority is over us. I'm no longer convinced that even secession would be enough now.

 

[MountainGirl]

Cloward-Piven strategy in full swing.

For those not familiar -

The Cloward-Piven strategy

Learned about this today. See if it rings any bells. (from wiki) " The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. It is the strategy of forcing political change leading to societal...

www.texasguntalk.com

 

[D0ntTr3@d0nM3]

That Jesse Kelly video is fantastic. I am incredibly surprised Google hasn't taken it down and banned him from YouTube. You know the boilerplate excuse once enough people confront them on it. "We investigated and it was temporarily taken down due to a glitch in the system."

 

[BigRed]

But I mean for us as American citizens. At what point or what is the threshold where we legitimently say we no longer have confidence in our government, whether it be state or federal, to where rights and protections given to us by the 2nd Amendment are righteously activated and justified?

Again I am not trying to incite anything here. I honestly don't know the answer to the question.

Well, the Second gives nothing. It is a restriction upon state from infringement upon what was already endowed upon man by his Creator.

I believe we are already at that point where the natural rights documented in the second are legitimate rights that can be legitimately exercised...and have been since before the constitution of the States was drafted. Citizens are simply being very patient.

 

[D0ntTr3@d0nM3]

See, there's the rub. Without the backing of the State we'd be deemed terrorists, anarchists, etc there is no "legitimate threshold".

Like @BigRed said, it would take a coalition of the individual (us) and whatever state authority is over us. I'm no longer convinced that even secession would be enough now.

Maybe a coalition secession is possible? It has to be a better alternative to another civil war and the democrats have been itching to shred the constitution for years. They can let anyone from anywhere vote in their one party elections which will basically just be a symbolic formality at that point. No more gun rights for their citizens. No more police and no pushback or opposition. It'd be everything they ever wanted. And just think if we ever crossed over into their "utopia" we'd be treated like kings and queens

 

[BigRed]

There has never been a civil war in the States.

States seceded and a war was waged upon them to prevent their independence, but never did the seceding States have as their objective the forceful takeover of the central government.