A report from Judicial Watch details how the Mexican drug cartels smuggle foreigners from countries with ties to terrorist organizations into the United States via the Southern border through a small rural town near El Paso, Texas.
The cartels use farm roads out in the boonies instead of interstates in order to elude Border Patrol agents. Perhaps you live close to this route. Check it out on the next page.
See Page 2:
My “problem” with Texas is the unfortunate fact that alot of those folks are very arrogant and blatantly disrespectful…In my opinion anyway…FB thug I’m not…Army vet I am….
Well, Mr. Army vet and all, Texas is part of America, the very country you served and took an oath to protect. And by the way, thank you for your service and helping to protect my FREEDOM. I am not a FB ‘thug’ either, but come on now, the folks of Texas are not arrogant and blatantly disrespectful. My opinion. Stand tall and proud of all your countrymen. 🙂
Thanks….I respect your opinions…And your conversation…I truly know that not all Texans are as I described but that’s just my opinion…I happen to love Elpaso Texas…Good integrated city with a great spirit….And Can’t forget San Antonio…Even more of a wonderful place…Thanks again for your conversation! All praises due to the most high.
Are we just giving up, or is there a purpose to this?
Socialism /totalitarianism..
Now I think that a fundamental fact that explains the all-round reign of terror found under socialism is the incredible dilemma in which a socialist state places itself in relation to the m$#%&!@*es of its citizens. On the one hand, it $#%&!@*umes full responsibility for the individual’s economic well-being. Russian or Bolshevik-style socialism openly avows this responsibility — this is the main source of its popular appeal. On the other hand, in all of the ways one can imagine, a socialist state makes an unbelievable botch of the job. It makes the individual’s life a nightmare.
Every day of his life, the citizen of a socialist state must spend time in endless waiting lines. For him, the problems Americans experienced in the gasoline shortages of the 1970s are normal; only he does not experience them in relation to gasoline — for he does not own a car and has no hope of ever owning one — but in relation to simple items of clothing, to vegetables, even to bread. Even worse he is frequently forced to work at a job that is not of his choice and which he therefore must certainly hate. (For under shortages, the government comes to decide the allocation of labor just as it does the allocation of the material factors of production.) And he lives in a condition of unbelievable overcrowding, with hardly ever a chance for privacy. (In the face of housing shortages, boarders are $#%&!@*igned to homes; families are compelled to share apartments. And a system of internal p$#%&!@*ports and visas is adopted to limit the severity of housing shortages in the more desirable areas of the country.) To put it mildly, a person forced to live in such conditions must seethe with resentment and hostility.
Now against whom would it be more logical for the citizens of a socialist state to direct their resentment and hostility than against that very socialist state itself? The same socialist state which has proclaimed its responsibility for their life, has promised them a life of bliss, and which in fact is responsible for giving them a life of hell. Indeed, the leaders of a socialist state live in a further dilemma, in that they daily encourage the people to believe that socialism is a perfect system whose bad results can only be the work of evil men. If that were true, who in reason could those evil men be but the rulers themselves, who have not only made life a hell, but have perverted an allegedly perfect system to do it?
It follows that the rulers of a socialist state must live in terror of the people. By the logic of their actions and their teachings, the boiling, seething resentment of the people should well up and swallow them in an orgy of bloody vengeance. The rulers sense this, even if they do not admit it openly; and thus their major concern is always to keep the lid on the citizenry.
Consequently, it is true but very inadequate merely to say such things as that socialism lacks freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Of course, it lacks these freedoms. If the government owns all the newspapers and publishing houses, if it decides for what purposes newsprint and paper are to be made available, then obviously nothing can be printed which the government does not want printed. If it owns all the meeting halls, no public speech or lecture can be delivered which the government does not want delivered. But socialism goes far beyond the mere lack of freedom of press and speech.
A socialist government totally annihilatesthese freedoms. It turns the press and every public forum into a vehicle of hysterical propaganda in its own behalf, and it engages in the relentless persecution of everyone who dares to deviate by so much as an inch from its official party line.
The reason for these facts is the socialist rulers’ terror of the people. To protect themselves, they must order the propaganda ministry and the secret police to work ’round the clock. The one, to constantly divert the people’s attention from the responsibility of socialism, and of the rulers of socialism, for the people’s misery. The other, to spirit away and silence anyone who might even remotely suggest the responsibility of socialism or its rulers — to spirit away anyone who begins to show signs of thinking for himself. It is because of the rulers’ terror, and their desperate need to find scapegoats for the failures of socialism, that the press of a socialist country is always full of stories about foreign plots and sabotage, and about corruption and mismanagement on the part of subordinate officials, and why, periodically, it is necessary to unmask large-scale domestic plots and to sacrifice major officials and entire factions in giant purges.
George Riesman – Mises Daily
That is invading a country the 2nd amendment was made for this . It’s time for Americans to do something about it
Mr. D. J. Trump Sr. Please read this and PAY attention… I, and enough of this American population will vote for you but No More Muslims… They R wolves in sheep s clothing… All muslims read the same quran, and All muslims will follow the words that the quran dictates… There is NO peaceful muslim. The quran would call a peaceful muslim an infidel… Understand this…
America, It’s TIME TO WAKE UP…
America must NOT allow muslim immigration to continue and should deport ALL muslims…
This statement is NOT Racist,
Biased,
nor an act of
Bigotry…
There is ample evidence to back up this statement.
1st. All believers of islam read the same quran. This is fact. It is not a statement that can be said to be incorrect or inaccurate simply due to this one reason, There is NO other text or updated version of the quran that allows for the co-existence of a people with different religious views. All muslims are commanded by the quran to KILL, DISMEMBER, BEHEAD, or otherwise HARM the infidel, and this infidel is defined as one who is outside the faith, this faith being of islam…
2nd. So far, the voices of these immigrants whose belief is of islam have slowly but with progress become voices of intolerance to American ways, values, beliefs, and freedoms. The movement across the Land is building into a force that is influencing the very Laws and Rights of this Land in ways that can be seen, heard , and felt in our open Public spaces, Schools, and Work place… Voices demanding their islamic belief be held above those of the people who are of other beliefs, or of no belief in a “higher power” or a God…
3rd. This current invasion of islam will amount to ONE outcome that will affect you, your children, and grandchildren, SUBMIT or DIE… Within 20 to 30 years at the current rate the United States of America as we know it will be but a memory, and islam will rule…
4th. Too late…
Founding Fathers First War Was Defending America From Muslim ‘Brotherhood’: Treaty Of Tripoli.
The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli is the source of Washington’s supposed statement. Is this statement accurate? Did this prominent Founder truly repudiate religion? An answer will be found by an examination of its source.
That treaty, one of several with Tripoli, was negotiated during the “Barbary Powers Conflict,” which began shortly after the Revolutionary War and continued through the Presidencies of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison.
The Muslim Barbary Powers (Tunis, Morocco, Algiers, and Tripoli) were warring against what they claimed to be the “Christian” nations (England, France, Spain, Denmark, and the United States). In 1801, Tripoli even declared war against the United States, thus cons$#%&!@*uting America’s first official war as an established independent nation.
Throughout this long conflict, the four Barbary Powers regularly attacked undefended American merchant ships. Not only were their cargoes easy prey but the Barbary Powers were also capturing and enslaving “Christian” seamen in retaliation for what had been done to them by the “Christians” of previous centuries (e.g., the Crusades and Ferdinand and Isabella’s expulsion of Muslims from Granada).
In an attempt to secure a release of captured seamen and a guarantee of unmolested shipping in the Mediterranean, President Washington dispatched envoys to negotiate treaties with the Barbary nations.
(Concurrently, he encouraged the construction of American naval warships to defend the shipping and confront the (SOUND FAMILIAR?) Barbary “pirates” – a plan not seriously pursued until President John Adams created a separate Department of the Navy in 1798.)
The American envoys negotiated numerous treaties of “Peace and Amity” with the Muslim Barbary nations to ensure “protection” of American commercial ships sailing in the Mediterranean. However, the terms of the treaty frequently were unfavorable to America, either requiring her to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars of “tribute” (i.e., official extortion) to each country to receive a “guarantee” of safety or to offer other “considerations” (e.g., providing a warship as a “gift” to Tripoli, a “gift” frigate to Algiers, paying $525,000 to ransom captured American seamen from Algiers, etc.).
The 1797 treaty with Tripoli was one of the many treaties in which each country officially recognized the religion of the other in an attempt to prevent further escalation of a “Holy War” between Christians and Muslims. Consequently, Article XI of that treaty stated:
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
This article may be read in two manners. It may, as its critics do, be concluded after the clause “Christian religion”; or it may be read in its entirety and concluded when the punctuation so indicates. But even if shortened and cut abruptly (“the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion”), this is not an untrue statement since it is referring to the federal government.
Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation (demonstrated in chapter 2 of Original Intent), they did include a cons$#%&!@*utional prohibition against a federal establishment; religion was a matter left solely to the individual States.
Therefore, if the article is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation.
OK Texas. Time to start arming your citizens instead of worrying about being poltically correct about 2nd Amendment Rights. For a change, put the rights of the people first along with them being able to protect themselves.
They know how they would be treated in Mexican jails and the U.S. is a lot better place to reside.
This should be considered a terrorist attack from Mexico cause the cartels run Mexico and should be handled by the military with Obama out if the picture