angelofdeath

"taking things like food and water is survival, Any one taking TV's and shit is looting !!!!! regardless of race or household income. Period. " amen my friend.

A national emergency by Patrick J. Buchanan August 29, 2005 On Aug. 12, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson declared a state of emergency "due to a chaotic situation involving illegal alien smuggling and illegal drug shipments" on his southern border. Three days later, Gov. Janet Napolitano followed suit in Arizona . Reason: the crisis on the border. The ally-ally-in-free immigration policy of George Bush and Vicente Fox, beloved of corporate America , has created a hell on our southern border. Those Southwestern states are being inundated by illegal aliens trashing ranches, killing cattle, committing crimes and eating up tax dollars. The traffic in narcotics and human beings from Mexico is a national scandal and a human-rights disgrace. What is true of New Mexico and Arizona is true of our nation, which is now home to an estimated 10 million to 15 million aliens who have broken our laws and broken into our country. It is a mark of the cowardice of our leaders that they are so terrified of being called "bigots" they tolerate this criminality. The moral rot of political correctness runs deep today in both national parties. A president like Teddy Roosevelt would have led the Army to the border years ago. And if Fox did not cooperate, T.R. would have gone on to Mexico City . Nor would Ike, who deported all illegal aliens in 1953, have stood still for this being done to the country he had defended in war. What are these Bush Republicans afraid of? Dirty looks from the help at the country club? The question of whether America is going to remain one nation, or whether our Southwest will wind up as a giant Kosovo – separated by language and loyalty from the rest of America – is on the table. Where is Bush? All wrapped up in the issue of whether women in Najaf will have the same rights in divorce and custody cases as women in Nebraska . His legislative agenda for the fall includes a blanket amnesty for illegals, so they can be exploited by businesses who want to hold wages down as they dump the social costs for their employees – health care, schools, courts, cops, prisons – onto taxpayers. Not only have Richardson and Napolitano awakened – they are on the front lines – so, too, has Hillary Clinton, who has spoken out against illegal immigration with a forthrightness that makes Bush sound like a talking head for La Raza. Why is a Republican Congress permitting this president to persist in the dereliction of his sworn duty? George Bush is chief executive of the United States . It is his duty to enforce the laws. Can anyone fairly say he is enforcing the immigration laws? Those laws are clear. People who break in are to be sent back. Yet, more than 10 million have broken in with impunity. Another million attempt to break in every year. Half a million succeed. Border security is homeland security. How, then, can the Department of Homeland Security say America is secure? Who can guarantee that, of the untold millions of illegals here, and the scores of thousands ordered deported for crimes who have disappeared into our midst, none is a terrorist waiting for orders to blow up a subway or mall and massacre American citizens? Most of these illegals come to work to send money back to their families. They are not bad people. But because they are predominantly young and male, they commit a disproportionate share of violent crimes. Why should U.S. citizens be assaulted, robbed, raped and murdered, and have their children molested, because their government will not enforce its own laws? Is this not an indictment of democracy itself? What dictatorial regime would put up with this? The Republican Party claims to be a conservative party. But what kind of conservative is it who, to cut a few costs or make a few bucks, will turn his family's home into a neighborhood flop house? In a recent poll, 40 percent of Mexicans – 40 million people – said they would like to come to the United States , and 20 percent expressed a willingness to break in. Time to cut the babble about how NAFTA is going to solve the problem. This is a national emergency. Twice, George Bush has taken an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States ." Article IV, Section 4 of that Constitution reads, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion." Well, we are being invaded, and the president of the United States is not doing his duty to protect the states against that invasion. Some courageous Republican, to get the attention of this White House, should drop into the hopper a bill of impeachment, charging George W. Bush with a conscious refusal to uphold his oath and defend the states of the Union against "invasion." It may be the only way left to get his attention, before the border vanishes and our beloved country dissolves into MexAmerica, what T.R. called a "polyglot boarding house for the world." © 2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Immigration and the Welfare State by Rep. Ron Paul, MD by Rep. Ron Paul, MD More and more of my constituents are asking me when Congress will address the problem of illegal immigration. The public correctly perceives that neither political party has the courage to do what is necessary to prevent further erosion of both our border security and our national identity. As a result, immigration may be the sleeper issue that decides the 2008 presidential election. The problem of illegal immigration will not be solved easily, but we can start by recognizing that the overwhelming majority of Americans – including immigrants – want immigration reduced, not expanded. Amnesty for illegal immigrants is not the answer. Millions of people who broke the law by entering, staying, and working in our country illegally should not be rewarded with a visa. Why should lawbreakers obtain a free pass, while those seeking to immigrate legally face years of paperwork and long waits for a visa? We must end welfare state subsidies for illegal immigrants. Some illegal immigrants – certainly not all – receive housing subsidies, food stamps, free medical care, and other forms of welfare. This alienates taxpayers and breeds suspicion of immigrants, even though the majority of them work very hard. Without a welfare state, we would know that everyone coming to America wanted to work hard and support himself. Our current welfare system also encourages illegal immigration by discouraging American citizens from taking low-wage jobs. This creates greater demand for illegal foreign labor. Welfare programs and minimum wage laws create an artificial market for labor to do the jobs Americans supposedly won’t do. Illegal immigrants also place a tremendous strain on social entitlement programs. Under a proposed totalization agreement with Mexico, millions of illegal immigrants will qualify for Social Security and other programs – programs that already threaten financial ruin for America in the coming decades. Adding millions of foreign citizens to the Social Security, Medicare, and disability rolls will only hasten the inevitable day of reckoning. Economic considerations aside, we must address the cultural aspects of immigration. The vast majority of Americans welcome immigrants who want to come here, work hard, and build a better life. But we rightfully expect immigrants to show a sincere desire to become American citizens, speak English, and assimilate themselves culturally. All federal government business should be conducted in English. More importantly, we should expect immigrants to learn about and respect our political and legal traditions, which are rooted in liberty and constitutionally limited government. Our most important task is to focus on effectively patrolling our borders. With our virtually unguarded borders, almost any determined individual – including a potential terrorist – can enter the United States. Unfortunately, the federal government seems more intent upon guarding the borders of other nations than our own. We are still patrolling Korea’s border after some 50 years, yet ours are more porous than ever. It is ironic that we criticize Syria for failing to secure its border with Iraq while our own borders, particularly to the south, are no better secured than those of Syria. We need to allocate far more of our resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase. If we took some of the steps I have outlined here – eliminating the welfare state and securing our borders – we could effectively address the problem of illegal immigration in a manner that would not undermine the freedom of American citizens. Sadly, it appears we are moving toward policies like a national ID that diminish our liberties. Like gun control, these approaches only punish the innocent, as criminals will always find a way around the law. August 9, 2005 Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Illegal Immigration Tuberculosis Crisis Editorial/Op-Ed by Frosty Wooldridge LOUISVILLE, COLORADO -- (OfficialWire) -- 07/13/05 -- The American Lung Association makes the claim it “wiped out” tuberculosis in the United States. That esteemed public health organization celebrated its 101th birthday in June. However, last fall, at the Air Force Academy in Colorado a cadet tested positive for tuberculosis. He is not alone. In Michigan, Florida, Virginia, Georgia, Colorado, Texas and dozens of states around the country, tuberculosis pops up daily at health clinics. It’s a growing crisis suffered by parents of kids in classrooms, work places and food retail outlets. How and why is this disease that was ‘extinguished’ in the United States by the mid 1990’s back? According to the Center for Disease Control, 14,871 new cases of active TB in the United States “…occurred among people born abroad to non-U.S. born parents.” What do they have in common? They immigrated to America. Tuberculosis rears its ugly head with the advance of illegal immigrants massing across the United States. How did they get past health officials at the borders? According to U.S. Border Patrol officials, over 4,000 illegal aliens make successful bids to cross America’s borders nightly in Arizona alone. Once inside the U.S., they move into the general population where they spread tuberculosis to American citizens. How many infected illegal aliens breached America’s borders in the past five years? According to a report by Dr. Kevin Patterson in the March issue of Mother Jones News, “Patient Predator,” an estimated 16,000 cases of MDR mycobacterium tuberculosis traveled over U.S. borders from Mexico in the past five years. This new ‘multi-drug resistant’ TB, at this point, is incurable. Worldwide, tuberculosis kills two million people annually. Let’s connect the dots. On April 24, 2004, “Anatomy of an Outbreak,” the Santa Barbara Press-News carried a story on an illegal alien migrant who infected 56 people. He had to be arrested and confined to stop his spreading the disease. On June 30, 2004, a Chesterfield County, Virginia teen at James River High School tested positive for TB. Another 100 of his classmates had to be tested. On July 2, 2004, a Bradenton, Florida homeless man who had visited homeless shelters may have spread the disease to an unknown number of people. Five cases of TB surfaced at the state prison in Hardeman County, Whiteville, Tennessee. On June 22, 2004, a nursing student tested positive for tuberculosis. In Norwich, Connecticut, a worker from Plas Pak Industries tested positive for TB on June 1, 2004. In Chesapeake, VA, 17 people died from TB in 2003. Last fall, north of Detroit, Michigan, 30 students and four teachers tested positive for TB. Del Ray Beach, Florida suffered two cases. Quite simply, it’s spreading like a dandelion dropping seeds into the wind. Why should Americans be concerned? First, over one million illegal alien children attend K-12 schools across the United States. They are the sons and daughters of parents who escaped disease testing at our nation’s borders. Anyone of them could be among the 16,000 new cases of TB within our borders. What do all illegal aliens have in common? They do not want to be deported so they avoid checking into health clinics. According to Dr. Lee Reichman in his book “TIMEBOMB: GLOBAL EPIDEMIC OF MULTI DRUG RESISTANT DISEASES,” each infected person may infect 10 to 50 other persons depending on his/her presence in public. Where do illegal aliens find work? Take a guess! It means any healthy American could eat at a fast food restaurant, go to a movie, stand in line at a grocery store or attend school—and contract tuberculosis. You’re a cough or sneeze away from infection by someone standing in line with you. Adding to the calamity, America’s porous borders allow a million illegal and untested migrants into the United States annually. It portends a growing, silent and pervasive epidemic that will take years before fully realized as ‘live’ and latent carriers may pass the disease to anyone near them when they cough, sneeze or touch foods Americans eat. What can you as an American citizen do? Not much singularly. You’re pretty much a victim of this tuberculosis crisis. However, by joining forces with like-minded citizens, you can force Congress to uphold immigration laws, put troops on the borders to stop illegal migration and reduce legal immigration to manageable levels that mandate strict health testing before any immigrant arrives into this country. If you don’t do anything, which has been the case in the past 14 years since 1990 when tuberculosis was as rare as a blue moon, someone you know or you will contract TB. If it’s the MDR incurable form of TB, you may be among the two million annually who don’t enjoy the next New Year’s party. It’s only a matter time.

Napolitano taps disaster funds for border counties Susan Carroll and Daniel González The Arizona Republic Aug. 16, 2005 12:00 AM Gov. Janet Napolitano on Monday declared a state of emergency along Arizona's border with Mexico, freeing up $1.5 million in disaster funds to help border counties combat booming illegal immigration and drug smuggling. Napolitano criticized the federal government for "moving too slow" on border security, evolving into a hot-button, election-year issue in Arizona and across the country. "This is a federal responsibility, and they're not meeting it," Napolitano said. "I've just come to the conclusion (that) we've got to do what we can at the state level until the federal government picks up the pace." advertisement OAS_AD('BoxAd') OAS_rn = '001234567890'; OAS_rns = '1234567890'; OAS_rn = new String (Math.random()); OAS_rns = OAS_rn.substring (2, 11); document.write('<script LANGUAGE=JavaScript1.1 SRC="http://gcirm.gannettnetwork.com/RealMedia/ads/adstream_jx.ads/gci-az-phoenix.com/promo/all/' + '1' + OAS_rns + '@300x250_1?cid=azcentral&"><\/SCRIPT>'); Napolitano's announcement came three days after New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson issued a similar declaration, complaining that the federal government has failed to stem growing smuggling-related violence to the east of Arizona, an increasingly popular illegal immigration corridor. Both governors are Democrats. The money in Arizona is designated for the state's four border counties - Yuma, Pima, Santa Cruz and Cochise - and will be distributed by the Arizona Division of Emergency Management. The $1.5 million is part of $4 million set aside annually for disasters, such as fires or floods. Politicians and law enforcement officials in those counties said the money is sorely needed. The state is the busiest illegal crossing spot along the entire Southwestern border. The declaration is the first time Napolitano has tapped the funds for border issues. And it comes at a time when federal lawmakers, including some from Arizona, and the Bush administration are pushing a series of immigration reform bills and proposals. Arizona Republican Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl have introduced starkly different bills. Kyl's bill would authorize 10,000 new Border Patrol agents and require millions of undocumented immigrants to return to their home countries after five years. The McCain bill would allow undocumented immigrants to stay in the United States if they pay a fine and participate in a guest-worker program. The long-running battle over securing the U.S.-Mexican border is expected to be a key issue in next year's midterm elections, both nationally and at the state level. Arizona border counties will be eligible to apply for state money for a wide range of costs, from repairing border fences to paying for overtime for local law enforcement agencies dealing with smuggling-related crime. State Rep. Russell Pearce, a Republican, accused Napolitano of bowing to public and political pressure. "This governor clearly is very good at reading polls," Pearce said. "It's a start, but much more has to be done.... This nation is under siege." Since Oct. 1, the start of the federal fiscal year, U.S. Border Patrol in the Yuma and Tucson sectors reported more than 510,000 arrests, an average of about 1,616 a day, roughly on par with last year. The Border Patrol has reported a steep increase in assaults on agents patrolling in southern Arizona, including a June 30 shooting by masked gunmen with assault rifles that wounded two agents near Nogales, Ariz. "For years, we've been dealing with international, federal issues at the border with little or no support from the government. We need resources down here," Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada said. "We're the guys in the trenches, on the roads, out in the sticks. For too long, we've been raising little red flags, saying we need help, and nobody's paid attention." His Sheriff's Department, which patrols about 50 miles of border outside Nogales, has a 31-year-old jail designed for 52 inmates but routinely holds 120. On Monday morning, 52 percent of the inmates were Mexican nationals accused of state or local crimes. Rancher Larry Vance, 49, has lived in Cochise County in southeastern Arizona for more than 31 years. Illegal-immigration arrests peaked along the Southwestern border and in Arizona during 2000, and Vance reported his property was overrun to the point that he slept only two to three hours a night. Things quieted down recently, Vance said, particularly since March, when the Border Patrol extended its steel fence farther west, past the boundary of his 20-acre property just north of the border. "She's 10 years too late," Vance said of Napolitano's declaration. "Politicians don't get it. They still don't get it." Robert Damon, chairman of the Santa Cruz Board of Supervisors, said more is needed to offset the estimated $3 million that illegal immigration costs the county each year, but "any little bit helps." Kevin Tunell, Yuma County director of public and legislative affairs, estimated illegal immigration costs the county $5 million to $6 million a year, much on jailing undocumented immigrants. "Illegal immigration has had a phenomenal impact on our yearly budget, so any money that comes to us is always welcomed to help plug the hole in the dike," he said Yuma County Sheriff Ralph Ogden said he hopes to use some of the money to pay for extra police patrols along the Colorado River that borders Mexico, which has become a haven for thieves who prey on undocumented immigrants.

"On the boarder issue ... your right: get in line, and don’t give any free money to them. That’s it.... no closing the boarder ... does you locking your door at home make you safer 100% of the time .. Why would that work on the boarder? It would waste money in man hours period. As to who worked in the fields before them, slaves.... remember that ugly history.... that low cost employment is a key part in our economy … if it wasn’t why would we outsource almost all of goods to low paid employees in China. " HAHA, i was actually going to include the "slaves" did the work in a mocking response of what i knew you were going to write. actually if you did some research you would find the real answer. after the slaves were set free who did the work? americans. that is who. low income americans. rural americans. if there was no government dependence, there would be no problem. if we were american economic nationalists we wouldnt have this problem. why would someone want to actually WORK, when they can sit at home, and get a check? if you knew history, you will find that basically payed for the US government before the civil war. that is the main reason why the north didnt want them to leave. the tariff revenue the south brought in from buying manufactured things, was the cheif source of income. the south wanted low or no tariffs and free trade world wide to get good price for their agriculture products. the north wanted SUPER high protectionist tariffs to protect its industry. after the war, protectionism built this country into what it is today. the policies of free trade first instituted and promoted by Wilson, FDR, with the real impact being the LBJ and forward presidents, we have had trade deficits every year. free trade is not the answer. global economy, outsourcing, having workers with virtually no health regulations, working regulations, etc etc in the 3rd world, making a fraction of american wages, is promoting slave labor and killing america. we are no longer a producer nation, we are a dependent nation. our borders need to be SHUT THE FUCK DOWN. the agreements of NAFTA, did not help the border problem the way clinton claimed. your analogy of locking your door is only half truth. if we put our military on the border, with constant monitoring, there would be NO illegal crossings. they would be apprehended, and tried for thier crime. nothing will make you "100% safe all the time" however certain measures, like secure borders are the keys to national sovereignty, security and liberty. american citizens have the right to liberty, not illegal border crossers. so go ahead man, hop in bed with GW and give it to him good. you are all on the same page.

ironically the minuteman project, on its april mission, contained a handful of legal hispanic peoples.

"native americans" "migrated" here as well. ive argued numerous other points why the borders should be closed, but its pointless. what about all the people who WONT work, who would rather sit and collect welfare? is this cool? i blame 90% of this shit on government handouts and welfare. who worked the fields before illegals? saying that "no one will do this work" is the biggest dodge you could make. as is the "your a descendent of immigrants...har har har..." do you not understand the difference in coming here legally and breaking federal law to get here? if you want to come here, GET IN FUCKING LINE. why should the illegals get a free pass and the people waiting in line get fucked? what about our national sovereignty? does this matter? im sure your answer is a big N O. its bad enough right now with our correct system of wealth redistribution, why not add 15 million more people WHO ARE NOT EVEN CITIZENS OF THE USA. you cant argue the fact that 1 out of 5 people in our prison system are here illegally. just because someone "doesnt have it as good as us" doesnt give someone the right to cross our borders illegally, and do as they please. alright alright guys, all you "bush haters" atleast have the common courtesy and all decide to give bush a big wet one. y'all want the same thing. an open bordered, free trade, globalist nation with a one world government. the citizen patrols proved it is quite easy to stop this problem with just a little bit more man power. finish up with iraq ASAP, bring ALL our boys home, let current treaties lapse, put our military/national guard on the borders like they are supposed to be, in the mean time, use citizen patrols or throw out welfare and hire some more fucking border agents. round up illegals, be they white, black, brown, yellow, blah blah, ship em back home.

right on. to me it makes no sense to: 1. fight a war in iraq with our borders open 2. protest the war in iraq and have the borders open. everyone says we are less secure. (which i agree) not soley because we are in iraq, but because our borders are wide open for the taking. excuse them for racially profiling, but the whole reason the minuteman project was organized was after muslims were showing up crossing the southern border. instead of worrying about "violating someones civil rights" (they are non US citizens) our borders should be shut down, so some jihad doesnt break out. (not to mention they should be closed for other issues as well)

CLOSE THE FUCKING BORDERS.

i agree with kabars points. while im guilty of buying a crap load of cd's books and the like, im mostly considered the most cheap-ass bastard around by people who know me. i do use credit cards. i think there is some good in them. if anything for an insurance policy, knowing that you will have that backup if you fall on hard times and need that car repair or what have you. the one of 2 that i have has a super low rate, with no annual fees. i usually charge all my gas, groceries etc etc on that card, then write one check at the end of the month. while i dont follow kabars principles exactly on this, the logic is the same. i only use it as a convience. i dont rack up 30,000 in debt, then start crying. i pay every bill off, completely every month. i havent been charged any interest yet. i guess they hate me. i dont trust debit cards for some reason. perhaps its because my girlfriend uses her's all the time, and generally once every couple months, some one fucks up somewhere, and she is missing money in her account, after a series of aggravating phone calls, she gets it cleared up. i max out my roth IRA's every year and save every spare penny. i think the 2 biggest areas one can save and be heads and tails better than most, is buying a USED car, not a new car, eating in, not at the outback everynight. one person can survive on 50$ a week in food, give or take, depending on your eating habits. that MIGHT cover one meal for you and your girl/wife/guy/husband at a resturaunt. I do have some expensive things. however, those things that i buy that are expensive ATLEAST hold thier value or go up. things like my custom made flintlock for example, paid 2000$ for it, before the maker had a name. i could EASILY sell this for 5000$ just 3 years later. same goes for my guitars etc etc. the worst thing you could do is waste all that money on a new car. that 20,000 car turns into over 30,000 after you get done paying for it, and tags, title. if you drop 2000$ on a used honda for example, do preventive maintenance, take care of it, you will be saving tens of thousands of dollars in the long run, and the car will run forever. (unless the rear end RUSTS off...)

"what does it matter about the north and south thing? You should stop listening to Fox news and others who create these pretend lines between people. I hold the south accountable for there modern day politics much more than what happened 100 years ago... " sorry man, i just cant help but laugh at this. listening to fox news? cmon now. all im saying his, the quote above i was responding too, just created a big fucking line between "us." perhaps you should stop "holding the south accountable" for todays government and politics and start hoping your party/ideology starts to get some southern votes. you cant win without them... :innocent:

"And I beleive this term came along when good ole upstanding amerikkkan citizens started lynchin naggers BOY! so don't you forget your heritage! P.S. Racism is still alive and well in the south." villian and kabar: i sorta got a tangent when i read the words above. most folks just think anything that ever happened as far as "racism" was committed by southerners and the northern people (of anytime, not just 1863) are the good guys. "However saying there are more racists in the north is a little far fetched." i dont think i said that. i was merely trying to break the allusion of "ALL the good guys are from the NORTH" and "EVERYONE from the south is in the KKK." i dont think we know where there are more "racists." however, it is safe to say a butt load of people in both areas had and still do have racist views. actually most folks in the generation of my grand parents pass the "n word" around freely when talking about any blacks. a cousin of mine who is 80, and is actually from my great grandmothers generation who died recently, casually uses the "n word" when talking about any black person. she also has voted a democratic ticket since she was able to vote. i guess she might of glossed over the fact that the democratic party is practically the NAACP's puppet. however, she isnt racist at all in the KKK sense, actually in any sense, other than she uses the "n word" to describe any black person. for her generation is was apparently ok. actually, if you think about it, she is just like robert byrd i guess. stuck with the democratic party through and through. and kabar your points are totally accurate. it is ironic when you hear lincolns own comments about deporting free blacks, reserving the "free states" for white labor, free of blacks, and lincolns comment about how he would save the union if it meant freeing no slaves or all slaves or some. people would actually be like "wow" when if they would actually read what people in the north had to say about blacks and minorities. and how slavery WAS outlawed to save WHITE labor, not for moral reasons. but its all about slavery? try self government.

atleast have the decency to blame OUR GOVERNMENT, not just george. it pretty much breezed through congress.

your dead right my friend. what makes me a little mad, is everyone talks about "the south" and "its past" yet doesnt know "shit about dick" in the end. eh, perhaps its just useful to show someone's ignorance.

some things just erk the shit out of me. one of them is "all the people in the south are racist kkk nazi aryan nation members" and all people in the "north" are in the ARA. how come "the south" has to bear all the burden of our nations low points in history? why does every talk about the "north's" treatment of free black slaves? why dont you hear about segregation in the north? why dont you hear about the racist views of northern leaders? why dont you hear about the thousands of black confederates? jewish confederates? Cherokee confederates? why does everyone think it is all just "black and white?" why dont you hear about the orders to rape the wives of southern men by the northern soldiers? why dont you hear about the northern troops pillaging alabama and committing "rapes on the negroes and such like things.... these are not exaggerated.... and no punishment or account of has been meted out to them." why dont you hear about shermans men in athens, "staying in the negro huts debauchering the females for weeks." why dont you hear about the negro slave owner beating a slave and jefferson davis's wife took the slave as her own. and when the union over took davis's family, the slave refused to leave their side? why dont you hear about John Harris a black republican in mississippi, voting to erect a confederate monument? how come you dont hear about lincolns comments on deporting free blacks? or all the northern cities and states with forbid blacks to settle? or the "free" states who lincoln himself told congress are to not allow blacks at all, free or slave, and are to be held in reserve for whites only? or the anti semetic views of Sherman? or the blunt racist views of US Grant, A SLAVE HOLDER! the union army leader, owning slaves, along with lincolns father in law. what hypocrisy. why dont we hear about Virginia being the first state to propose an end to the importation of slaves? or that the first legalization of slavery was in massachusetts? why dont we hear about the hateful-ness toward black slaves from northerners who feared the slaves were stealing thier jobs? alexis de tocqueville said "the prejudice of the race appears to be stronger in the states that have abolished slaves than in states where slavery still exists. white carpenters white bricklayers, and white painters will not work side by side with blacks in the north, but do in almost every southern state..." or the statue in new jersey which forbid free blacks to move there, "so that white labor may be protected." or the 1857 oregon constitution. "no free negro or mulatto not residing in this state at the time of adoption shall come reside or be within this state..." but hey... its all the "south's" fault right? NO ONE ELSE deserves any guilt accept us right?

word, i think each has their place. the ar's are good for close up. the m14 style is coming back from what i hear over in "hot sandy places." accuracy is another thing. you can sometimes get .25 moa out of a stock bushmaster. no one will guarantee a m1a hardly under 1 moa. and your paying upwards of 3000$ to get one guaranteed 1/2moa. i think the springfield socom 16 is sort of a happy medium. its a real round compared to the 5.56, is just as maneuverable as an ar, and its not some flat ass round like a 762x39. eh just my 2 cents.

i would personally take an m1 over an sks anyday. i hate those stripper clips. however price is a factor. if we talking wood sticks, i personally like the m1a/m14 style guns over the old top feeding actions. im not that big of a guy, and cannot fire a .308 chambered gun more than 50 or so rounds and stand much more. the 762x39 round is much lighter compared to the 762x51 (308) round. i would like to see what everyones consensus on the following are: 5.56mm vs 7.62.mm nato rounds- 5.56 more ammo for the weight, 7.62 longer range more stopping power. hard to control in bursts or rapid fire. keeping mags loaded. how fast does it take for the springs to really wear to warrant a bad feed? i keep the mags for my 1911 loaded minus 2 rounds. keep 5 loaded, 5 not, then alternate once a month. im usually shooting every week or 2

more from that other board... "Even though the recent "assault weapons-turned-survival" thread has quietly died due to some mild disagreement and everyone's desire to remain friendly, the topic has continued among a few of us in PM. Recently, the topic of survival groups has come up, so since I seem to have been deemed the resident crazy, paranoid survivalist type (mwuhaha, *rubs AR-15* ), I figured I'd turn the subject to the forum since I know a lot of this preparedness talk has gotten at least a few of you thinking. As thinking is a good thing, here's my take: There are two basic schools of thought in survivalism: bugging in and bugging out. Bugging in refers to staying put in your home or "survival location." Bugging out refers to leaving home and relocating to the "survival location" so you may bug in there. As so-called survivalists like to at least attempt to prepare for any contingency that may befall us, both are good to prepare for. For example, you keep a few months worth of food, water and other supplies stocked up in the basement. This is good in case of hurricanes or blizzards. But, you also keep a backpack or other bag/container loaded and ready to go just in case you've gotta haul tail outta Dodge. A nuclear, biological, or a chemical attack would be a perfect example of this necessity. Both have pros and cons, and in a survival type situation, cons could equal death to you and yours. So survivalism really boils down to risk management and problem mitigation. Not so crazy when you think of it like that, eh? Anyway, so far the United States and Canada have been lucky in the sense that every time there's a large disaster of some sort, there are always pockets of civilization. For example, even though hurricanes destroyed a lot of Florida last year (and may do so again this year!) and much of the electricity/cell phone service/water service/etc., was out state-wide, there was still the presence of civilization. However, the United States and Canada are almost singular in that regard, as a great many countries in the world have been stricken by a severe disaster that has affected the entire nation within the last 50-75 years. Basically, a survivalist believes that it's only a matter of time before it happens here. As we have seen in other parts of the world, and with our experience with Human nature, when the economy/society/government collapses, all hell usually breaks loose eventually. How long it takes for the break down depends on the nature of the problem. But regardless, it happens. Since we were also recently talking about EMP, let's use an EMP event as an example for discussion. Here's the scenerio: Iran has constructed/purchased 6 nuclear warheads and paid a Chinese nuclear physicist to enhance the weapons' EMP output. Meanwhile, the Iranians have modified several cargo ships to hold the missiles and have a retractable door over the hold so we'd be none the wiser. The ships approach the United States in the normal international shipping lanes and once they reach their launch points, they release their payloads. The 6 EMP-enhanced warheads detonate in spread out locations 200 miles above the surface of North America. The resulting EMP knocks out the northern third of Mexico, the continental United States and the southern third of Canda (almost all of the Canadian population is within a few hundred miles of the US/Canadian border) Lights out, Folks. Okay, so we lose most of our electronics. No big deal, right? Except that most cars built post-1985 are now 3,000 pounds of scrap. And most of our transformers have blown due to the surges in the lines. Likewise, power plants are dead. It would be easy enough to rebuild, many would say, however how many spare transformers do you think your local power company keeps on hand? A few hundred, tops...For a city that has literally thousands upon thousands of transformers. Even small towns and cities will be grossly under-stocked. We couldn't simply get new transformers as all the factories would be down. Europe couldn't simply send us more as they use a completely different system than we do, so we'd have incompatibility issues. Plus, what if Europe was hit by an EMP too? So the power outtage would be fairly permanent, lasting at least a few years. Some estimates plan on a decade or more. Given our extreme dependency on electricity and the proliferation of necessary electrical equipment to support that dependency, a 10 year estimate is not at all unreasonable. Without electricity, most would be without a lot of necessities, the most important of which would be water. Granted, most places rely on gravity for water pressure, it still takes power to pump water up into the large tanks. Once the tanks are empty, no more water pressure or water period. Those with wells probably use electric pumps and only those with windmills and survivalists with hand pumps would be immune to the water shortage. Unfortunately, that's not many people. Let's assume that the community water tanks hold enough water to supply everyone with the necessary 1 gallon per day needed by a human for a healthy diet for a week. Add to that the 30 gallon supply in the water heater. For a family of 3, that's 10 more days. Also figure that most of us probably only keep around a few days worth of food, no more than a week or two in the majority of homes. Grocery stores would still be stocked up, but they don't have enough food to supply an entire community for more than a couple of days themselves. The distribution centers don't hold more than a month's worth of food for the stores they supply, but that's useless if all the delivery trucks are dead. So, at best, most people would be out of food within a week or two and out of water within two weeks as well. In the meantime though, the government would be doing it's best to spread propaganda around about how "the power will be back soon, everyone stay calm." Most people are sheep, so as long as there was food and water for those two weeks, for the most part that tactic would work. On the side, the government would be mobilizing the military and FEMA for martial law if they haven't declared it already (which they probably would have). Then the end of week two hits. All the food is gone. All the water is gone. Primal instinct kicks in. Rioting that was once sparse, will become widespread and people will begin to loot, trying to find the necessities of life. They can't be blamed in doing this though, they're just trying to save themselves and their families. Regardless, previously good people will now be willing to kill you for what you've got, even if it's nothing more than the bottle of water in your hand, the shoes on your feet, or the gun on your hip. Over the course of the next week or two, the unprepared will basically kill each other or form gangs to more efficiently loot and pillage. The government will order everyone to move into what are more or less "concentration camps." Those who do not comply, will literally be rounded up by patrols of National Guard, regular and reserve military and local law enforcement. Rioters, looters, etc., will be executed on sight. The powers of martial law will be used to their fullest extent. All rights will be stripped. You will be a criminal if you do not obey the order to move into the camps. You could be held indefinitely without trial, but most likely, you will simply be stripped of everything you own and they will tell you it will be "used for the common good" as they toss you into the concentration camp with the rest of the sheep. Naturally, the government cannot cover the vast majority of the rural land that comprises the United States and Canada, so they will focus their efforts on metropolitan areas since that's where most of the population is. They will assume nature will take care of most everyone else, and those it does not are not significant enough of a threat to bother with...For now at least. Thus, living in the country will offer the greatest protection from martial law and concentration camps. But, those who also do not wish to comply with martial law, like survivalists, the desperate lucky and criminals, will flee the cities and move into the countryside. So after all that set-up, here's the problem: Assuming you either already live in the country or you've found your way to a bug-out location in the country, and assuming you're prepared to survive, you've got a serious problem. Actually, you've got a set of serious problems. 1) Desperate people will be coming your way. They will likely be willing to do anything to get what you have inside your home or "survival compound." Most will probably pass if you tell them, but some will require forceable convincing. 2) Survivalists will be coming your way. As they're like-minded, they will probably be good to go and not need your assistance. However, some may be the "commando" type and figure they have a good chance at getting some of your goods. 3) Criminals will be heading your way. They may be in the form of gangs, and will not discriminate whatsoever in their selection of targets. Each and every person, house and man-made object will be targets for their efforts. These gangs may be as few as half a dozen, on up to 100 or more, depending on the leadership and mindset. Don't expect to be able to reason with these people. 4) The government, eventually, may head your way. Believe it or not, the government is probably the least of your worries, providing you can get out of their way first. And hopefully, by the time they get around to sweeping the countryside looking for people like you, most of the soldiers and police will have said "screw this" and gone home to their families. Still, as preparedness is the name of the game, the government is still a contingency to prepare for. Now back to the whole point of this...What are your thoughts on forming a survival group / colony? Remember, the "Defender's Advantage" is 1 defender to 3 attackers, providing decent weapons and preparations such as fortified positions, fields of fire, etc. Little training would be required just so long as the man or woman in the foxhole knows how to fire their weapon, reload it, and where and what to shoot at. The basics of retreating would be a benefit for them to know, as well as those behind them knowing how to provide suppression fire. While everyone living in the same immediate area on some remote plot of land in Texas or Montana for the sole purpose of survival probably isn't the most practical thing in the world, my belief is, a loose network of sorts would be a good idea. Knowing your neighbors is a very good thing in this sense, and indeed, they may believe what you believe. In addition, having an open invitation to your home for people that you trust all over the continent would be a good idea too. For example, when the wife and I get situated on our ranch in Montana, several of you would be welcome to our place should the crap hit the fan. Prior to any emergencies, we would work out the logistics of you getting to our place, and once the bad deal went down, you could bug-out to Montana. At least, that's what this crazy-assed, paranoid, BDU-wearing, AR-15 petting, survivalist thinks. Oh, and if you think the scenerio about Iran putting EMP-enhanced nukes in cargo ships and launching them is a whole lotta B.S., think again. Donald Rumsfeld gave an intelligence briefing about this very event. The Iranians performed a dry run of precisely this situation last November over in the Red Sea. The cargo ships that launched the dummy missiles wormed their way into cargo convoys and were lost in the thick of things. Now ask yourself, who do you think they're preparing to EMP attack? Sleep well tonight. But more importantly, think. Remember that the American Founding Fathers wanted us to be independently independent, and ready for any problems that we may face. Preparedness and survival isn't about being a paranoid anarchist, it's about being a good American, a good provider for your family, and a responsible, moral person. Think about it. *EDIT* I just wanted to add that I'm not advocating that this scenerio is the most likely even to happen. Naturally, other disasters are more likely, and which one depends on where you live (hurricanes on the Gulf, tornadoes in Texas, earthquakes in California, etc.). This is simply the "worst case scenerio" in my opinion and would thusly require the most extreme measures, like forming a survival group. I'm also not advocating that everyone should do this thing or that thing, and rather bring this particular situation up merely for the purposes of discussion. My "crazy" only goes so far.

im not a huge fan of the soviet style guns, (eh maybe its more on principle...) but for situations like this, they are plentiful, cheap, ammo is cheap, and ammo is plentiful. basically anything chambered in a "nato" round is what you want. you dont want to be stuck trying to hand load something. which is one of the reasons i dont have one of the new 6.8x43spc ar15's yet. availability of ammo sucks. the m44's are literally cheaper than dirt. i have heard of group deals where you can get them for as little as 75$ apeice if you buy like 10 of them. and i have heard some of these things getting accuracy under 2 moa at 100 yd. a buddy of mine is was on a kick of buying cheaper foreign type military arms, and they just seem so cheap. bolts real tight, problems loading, feeding sucks... but what do you expect for the money. it would be nice for everyone to have new m16a4's or m4's but again cost is a factor. as for the guy who said you cant believe kabar has a carry permit... i ask, do you wear your seatbelt in your car? thats all a gun is. its just like wearing your seatbelt in a car. granted my state is pretty tough on carrying, but my dad just got a carry permit since he is a business owner. i could definately get mine, since he did, under the same qualifications, however its really not worth it, with the restrictions on it. it would basically only entitle me to legally wear a gun in my car going to and from work, since i can wear a gun on private business property and at home. i like michael badnarik's stance on the issue. when asked why he chooses to carry a gun, but without a permit, he responded "rights dont require permission." our country would be WAY better off if we adopted vermont/alaska style carry laws. open carry for anyone, with out a permit. this same topic of survivalism came up on another board i frequent, here is a post someone made on "why we need assault weapons." "Americans and Canadians, please read the following even though it's long: Not to advocate illegal activity, but to advocate illegal activity, I do believe that if I lived in an area ripe with crime and well-armed drug farmers/guards, I'd disregard any local law saying I couldn't have equal and superior firepower to protect myself or others. Sure, you run the risk of getting caught, but we as Americans are getting to the point where good, honest, law abiding citizens need to start a campaign of passive resistance. You must ask yourself, what is more important? An anti-Constitutional law written by some paranoid, power hungry dipshit, or making an effort at ensuring your survival, along with possibly your families or friends survival? For those of you who aren't American or Canadian, let me point something out to quell some confusion and concern, as I believe this issue is very cultural: survival, safety and freedom are often contrary to each other. All three can be used as a means to one of the other's end, but sometimes they butt heads. We all cherish freedom. We cherish the relative safety that it provides. But freedom needs tending as there are those who seek to encroach upon it for their own selfish ends. As this happens from time to time (hence the term "revolution"), we must sacrifice our safety to ensure our survival, so that we may last to keep our and future generations' freedom alive. I'm not talking about martyrdom, rather intelligent resistance. Revolutionary hero Patrick Henry said "give me Liberty, or give me death!" and that's just what he got; the stupid SOB was hung by his neck while thousands of other "Yankee Rebels" fought smart and won the war. Martyrdom may be all well and great when forming a nation, but that sort of mentality has no place in today's world. What good does screaming a battle cry and running headlong into the enemy with guns a'blazin' do for your family? If you're dead, who's around to fight for them? No, today's battles must be fought differently, but with the same concept as our Founding Fathers used to topple the British Empire with a rag-tag group of farmers and smiths who were untrained and scared crapless to go to war. I'm talking about guerilla warfare, but of a more nonviolent, organized and peacefully resistive sort. For example, what happens when the 100 million (or more) Americans with guns just up and decide to carry them in public one day? Imagine it...1 in 3 of us. Sure, Liberals would soil themselves and wide-spread arrests would be made. But can they take us all? Martial law could never be applied to effect as there aren't enough active or reserve military, nor would the National Guard be effective as they're ill-equipped to handle large scale suppression against a peaceful people who are spread out amongst everyone, going about their daily business and not rioting in a single place where they can be contained. Indeed, there would be a "crisis" for the government, as We The People realize once more that our government exists because we allow it to. Power would be stricken from the hands that bind us and the naysayers thrown in Fort Leavenworth for Constitional impingement. Unrealistic? Why? Damn a stupid 10 round mag restriction. Forget bans on folding stocks. Screw it all. I'm not championing a firefight with the government but I do sanction resistance. Your life, your families lives, your friends lives or even random strangers lives are much more important to uphold than upholding some damned law jammed through the legislatures and judiciaries by some anti-American Big Government arsewipe. The Garand is an outstanding rifle and all Americans should own one (see the CMP for details on how) and revere it as a near-Holy object as it has ensured the freedom for millions and vindicated the lives and causes of countless millions more who died. There is no glory in death, but there sure as hell is glory in making sure the dead did not die in vain. However, the Garand has seen her day and is best replaced for today's struggle. That means adopting a firearm that is almost universally despised by the anti-gunners. These so-called "evil" firearms are evil because they pose the greatest threat to entrenched power. "They" do not like inexpensive military style firearms with bayonet lugs, high capacity magazines, folding/collapsible stocks, pistol grips, threaded barrels, etc. So that's precisely the sort of gun we all should buy, and by the droves! I submit that each and every one of us Americans and Canadians go out and buy a Yugoslavian SKS. Brand new they cost around $150. You can find them used sometimes for half that. Cut the barrel back to 14.5", thread it and weld on a good flash hider to bring it up to 16" (or if you're going to break the law, might as well make the barrel shorter and forget about welding the muzzle device). Ditch the wood stock in favor of a composite folding stock. Replace that crappy 10 round mag with a few 30 or 40 rounders then load them up, minus 2, with surplus ammo and armor piercing rounds every 3, 4 or 5 rounds, with a tracer 4 or 5 rounds from the bottom so that when the crap hits the fan, you'll know when it's about time to dump the mag and you don't get caught with an empty gun at the wrong time. For less than $300, you can have a gun that packs a whole lotta punch, is extremely effective at sub-300 yard engagements and will really, really piss off the anti-gunners. It's the epitome of what they hate, so sock it to 'em hard. If you live in an anti-gun state, you should be careful with such a weapon. Remember: passive resistance. If you choose to carry it in your vehicle, take great care to hide it well. Use your imagination and you can come up with ways. From experience, I can say cops aren't always the most thorough searchers. Providing you don't break any other laws to attract attention, you should never have that problem anyway. Also, join as many strong firearms associations as you can, since if you get caught, you're going to need legal counsel from someone who understands your plight. If you get busted take it to the Supreme Court and force the issue in our highest court who has tip-toed around the Second Amendment for far too long. No better time than the near future when Bush loads the bench with conservatives! Keep in mind as you read all this, that I'm not saying you should be stupid. I really hate advocating breaking the law, but these sort of laws are illegal in themselves! But if you cherish freedom and survival, prepare to sacrifice. Survival doesn't always mean "maintaining current way of life." If you get caught, expect to pay The Man because he's gonna be mighty P.O'ed that you dared to defy him. The views insisted upon by me in this post are not necessarily the views of others on this forum, Sniper Central or it's owner, but by God they're the views of every last living American and Canadian patriot whose hearts beat to the sound of a drummer in our not-so-distant past. When trouble comes knocking, answer with superior force. It's the American way. It's the way of Freedom. If not for you, for your children. If not now, when? "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Ben Franklin "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all." - Thomas Jefferson"

also if the .410 is a damascus twist, make sure you dont fire any kind of "hevi" shot or steel shot, or "hi power." its designed for the lead only shells. also dont fire slugs unless your positive its an open choke, although, most .410's are i think. the ironic part is, .410 shells are damn near twice as much as your normal box of target load 12guage's. i found this out recently, my little brother got his first .410. so i went to by some rounds for him, i grabbed a case of 12 guage size 8 target loads for skeet shooting for 32$. go to grab a couple boxes of .410's, the cheapest box is 11.99 for 25 shells. looked around and found some target loads for 7.99. slugs were 6.99 for 5.

damn at the sidebar huh? reckon i'll see you there, son. best show i have been to lately... was sick of it all and terror. good energy, people flipping off the top balcony. great times. dont forget deicide and goatwhore soon, and napalm death and goatwhore a few months from now.

bump, yors should come back up to baltimore.

with honor is a decent band. saw them with sick of it all last month. good shit

MAYHEM grand declaration of war. and i gotta admit its gotta be there worst effort.