• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

National Guard helped border agents arrest 1,600 ADDITIONAL illegals...

Your EPIC link doesn't do much.

Your second link, if those sections are now unconstitutional, where now in it does it claim citizens can be held without probable cause as was claimed?

You did not spend enough time on that site to read anything. Quit moaning and crying. Dude, for real, do you think that the people on this site aren't capable of accessing that site, reading it and figuring out you don't know what you're talking about?

Your side amazes me. They keep sending out people to tell us that right is not right; left is not left and that Epic did not explain the unconstitutional portions of that dastardly law to you.

Reality check: You have nothing but criticisms and you cannot hold your side accountable for what they've already done that has been found to be unconstitutional. You throw up deflections in order to keep me from discussing the real issue.
 
I would imagine you are wrong about whatever point you were trying to make and the longer we play this game, the more posts you expect me to wade through. If it's not important to you, it's not important to me. What did you specifically find worthy of your time OTHER THAN I said you were wrong? Explain and I will respond.
I see, so you throw out claims and when challenged to back them up you simply dismiss it as laziness on my part. You can just as simply go back to the comment where you said I was wrong and read what I stated. Try reading your comment in #63 where you will find what I stated.
 
You did not spend enough time on that site to read anything. Quit moaning and crying. Dude, for real, do you think that the people on this site aren't capable of accessing that site, reading it and figuring out you don't know what you're talking about?

Your side amazes me. They keep sending out people to tell us that right is not right; left is not left and that Epic did not explain the unconstitutional portions of that dastardly law to you.

Reality check: You have nothing but criticisms and you cannot hold your side accountable for what they've already done that has been found to be unconstitutional. You throw up deflections in order to keep me from discussing the real issue.
I did read both links, both state a judge must issue a warrant to allow surveillance of any sort.
So now I'm moaning and crying? I don't know what I'm talking about? Yet you haven't been able to refute anything I have stated or pointed out. You claiming things doesn't make your statements true. You have yet to even be able to back up your statements.

The real issue is what the OP is about the NG on the border, not your rants about a citizens unalienable rights being effected by what ever it is you think is effecting them. None of this has to do with the thread, start another thread about what rights or liberties you think you may have lost.
 
The criticisms of me can easily be dismissed when you stop and see the road they've already traveled. And they are too afraid to engage in civil conversation. That's how any honest Christian can figure out the truth.

So far, my critics have cited sites that cater to the KKK and neo nazis. They won't acknowledge it. They've claimed that the Patriot Act did not deny one probable cause... proved that one wrong as well. No, after I won the court case I did not keep up with the laws, but the point is the so - called "Patriot Act" did, in fact deny people probable cause. Score one for me because I complained about it from 2001 to 2005. Critics won't own what they did; they just hide behind the fact that the United States Supreme Court agreed with my assessment.

But this is about using the federal government to enforce domestic laws. As an American, I can criticize my fellow Americans; I can challenge them to own what they've done and what they're doing now.

"He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike—an abomination to the Lord" Proverbs 17 : 15

Some of the things I don't do is presume people to be called criminals without due process. My critics don't like that. Neither do they understand that a person cannot commit a crime (if you respect the original intent of the Constitution) unless they have the intent to commit one.

When people come here and work in legitimate employment, willingly offered by an employer, there is no criminal act. You can develop all the statutory laws you want, but corporations think workers are commodities (they don't think of you as a human.) Economist Otto Mallery (1881 - 1956) once said:

"Economic bargains which are likely to be kept are preferable to political agreements which are likely to be broken."

The only solution the anti-immigrants bring to the table are those which must be enforced with fear and firepower. Yet it is the Americans who willingly buy the drugs that are smuggled in. Nobody is forcing your children to take drugs except the government. And it is YOUR government that is responsible - along with YOUR cooperation. And I have to own part of the status quo because I'm an American.

I'm starting a ministry to teach the people who are victims of our ignorance WHY they are in this position. Once they understand that, they might be open to becoming a better person and if they can become a productive citizen, it will be one less reason for a foreigner to step foot onto American soil.

The anti-immigrant religionists hate me with every fiber of their being, mostly because they realize that they are just as responsible as anyone else for the moral condition of our country.

Fix that and you can begin to fix what is wrong with America. Deny it, align yourself with those whose so - called "solutions" are National Socialist propaganda, and you will aid in the demise of our country.

To summarize thus far:

* Let's begin strengthening the family unit
* We should require three sessions of family counseling before issuing a marriage license
* When we see a problem family in America (i.e. a child racking up numerous offenses at school and becoming known to the LEO community) to parents that are on drugs, we use our resources to step in and fix the family or put the children into protective custody
* Begin really outlawing drugs by executing the growers, distributors and dealers of illegal drugs
* Make prescription drugs harder to get. Let's try parenting classes for parents and therapy / counseling before issuing that prescription

Go after DFACS and make sure that drugs are the last resort, NOT the first option.
* Require better oversight so that drugs are not prescribed as the first choice and if prescribed, better monitoring should be done

Eliminate National ID and limit access to a person's background. An American should not be denied an opportunity to work at MickeyDs for a youthful indiscretion a decade ago

Create financial rewards to employers that hire all American staffs. The employer already owns the job and should be able to give it to whomever they want. Let's make it financially profitable to hire Americans and extra incentives for taking people off welfare, disability, etc.

Let the states decide how many foreigners they will allow to come into their respective states and for how long

Lets deny ALL the benefits and privileges of citizenship to foreigners.

More to come
 
I did read both links, both state a judge must issue a warrant to allow surveillance of any sort.
So now I'm moaning and crying? I don't know what I'm talking about? Yet you haven't been able to refute anything I have stated or pointed out. You claiming things doesn't make your statements true. You have yet to even be able to back up your statements.

The real issue is what the OP is about the NG on the border, not your rants about a citizens unalienable rights being effected by what ever it is you think is effecting them. None of this has to do with the thread, start another thread about what rights or liberties you think you may have lost.

[Personal attack edited.] Every statement is proven. Get over yourself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I see, so you throw out claims and when challenged to back them up you simply dismiss it as laziness on my part. You can just as simply go back to the comment where you said I was wrong and read what I stated. Try reading your comment in #63 where you will find what I stated.

I'm not learning squat about what YOU said. Now, you're too lazy to READ the links I provide, so I'm not motivated to do your job and figure out why you got your boxers in a bunch. You did say that the National Guard is the militia - apparently. If not, it's not my fault for you to keep wailing about me telling you that you were wrong. So, let me take a swag and give you some links about the militia (and I don't care how much you value their worth since sensible people will access them and make up their own minds.)

BTW, the sources so far aimed against me on this thread take you to white supremacist sites. Just saying. I can't reinvent the wheel:

The National Guard Is Not The Militia - Armed Citizens Are!

Is the National Guard the "militia?"

The Second Amendment’s “Militia” is not the National Guard LearnAboutGuns.com | LearnAboutGuns.com

Argue with lawyers, professional legal researchers and other professionals.
 
I did read both links, both state a judge must issue a warrant to allow surveillance of any sort.
So now I'm moaning and crying? I don't know what I'm talking about? Yet you haven't been able to refute anything I have stated or pointed out. You claiming things doesn't make your statements true. You have yet to even be able to back up your statements.

The real issue is what the OP is about the NG on the border, not your rants about a citizens unalienable rights being effected by what ever it is you think is effecting them. None of this has to do with the thread, start another thread about what rights or liberties you think you may have lost.


[Insult edited] I did not start the off topic material, so I don't own it; your side does. It was easier for the anti-immigrants to deflect and require long posts about irrelevant material because you and I know full well your position is indefensible in a Christian society.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
Can you please provide the section of either the Patriot Act or the NDAA that says citizens can be detained without probable cause.
Section 412 of the Patriot Act permits indefinite detention of immigrants. Google Jose Padilla.

On November 29, 2011, the United States Senate rejected a proposed amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 ("NDAA") which would have banned indefinite detention by the United States government of its own citizens (Section 1021), leading to criticism that Habeas corpus in the United States has been undermined.

The House of Representatives and the Senate approved the National Defense Authorization Act in December 2011 and President Barack Obama signed it December 31, 2011.

The new indefinite detention provision of the law was decried as a "historic assault on American liberty."

The ACLU stated that "President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law."

On May 16, 2012, in response to a lawsuit filed by journalist Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Wolf and others, United States District Judge Katherine B. Forrest ruled that the indefinite detention section of the law (1021) likely violates the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and issued a preliminary injunction preventing the U.S. government from enforcing it.

In 2013, the House of Representatives and the Senate reauthorized the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendments to effectively ban indefinite detention of US Citizens were defeated in both chambers.

On July 17, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second District struck down an injunction against indefinite detention of U.S. citizens by the president under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

The appellate court ruled: "...Plaintiffs lack standing to seek pre enforcement review of Section 1021 and vacate the permanent injunction. The American citizen plaintiffs lack standing because Section 1021 says nothing at all about the President’s authority to detain American citizens."

On December 26, 2013, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014. The NDAA provision first signed into law in 2012 which permits indefinite detention without trial remains in law as of 2018.

The Real ID Act did nothing more than have the states follow the federal govt guidelines in regards to the tamper ability of the states ID cards and Drivers Licenses.
The federal government has no authority to dictate to the states how they issue driver's licenses.

The Constitution Free Zone (100 miles from the surrounding US border) has been around since the 1950's, and does not impinge on a citizens rights.
I don't care if it has been around since 1776. CBP are stopping people with no probable cause. They have no reasonable suspicion that they have committed a crime, are committing a crime, or are about to commit a crime.
Even FISA warrants require authorization from a judge, in which they are used to gather information on the specific person or entity.
Secret warrants and secret judges without any public accountability. That's called "Tyranny."

Now, as to the word liberty, it is subjective and limiting.
Not to me. I paid my pound of flesh (literally, I am a disabled vet with a service connected disability) to help insure that liberty.
 
Section 412 of the Patriot Act permits indefinite detention of immigrants. Google Jose Padilla.

On November 29, 2011, the United States Senate rejected a proposed amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 ("NDAA") which would have banned indefinite detention by the United States government of its own citizens (Section 1021), leading to criticism that Habeas corpus in the United States has been undermined.

The House of Representatives and the Senate approved the National Defense Authorization Act in December 2011 and President Barack Obama signed it December 31, 2011.

The new indefinite detention provision of the law was decried as a "historic assault on American liberty."

The ACLU stated that "President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law."

On May 16, 2012, in response to a lawsuit filed by journalist Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Wolf and others, United States District Judge Katherine B. Forrest ruled that the indefinite detention section of the law (1021) likely violates the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and issued a preliminary injunction preventing the U.S. government from enforcing it.

In 2013, the House of Representatives and the Senate reauthorized the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendments to effectively ban indefinite detention of US Citizens were defeated in both chambers.

On July 17, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second District struck down an injunction against indefinite detention of U.S. citizens by the president under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

The appellate court ruled: "...Plaintiffs lack standing to seek pre enforcement review of Section 1021 and vacate the permanent injunction. The American citizen plaintiffs lack standing because Section 1021 says nothing at all about the President’s authority to detain American citizens."

On December 26, 2013, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014. The NDAA provision first signed into law in 2012 which permits indefinite detention without trial remains in law as of 2018.
Padilla was charged as a terrorist. SCOTUS found his detainment to be constitutional as an enemy combatant. Personally, they should have hung him as a traitor to this country.

The federal government has no authority to dictate to the states how they issue driver's licenses.
Obviously the Federal Government does, otherwise states wouldn't have complied.


I don't care if it has been around since 1776. CBP are stopping people with no probable cause. They have no reasonable suspicion that they have committed a crime, are committing a crime, or are about to commit a crime.
Secret warrants and secret judges without any public accountability. That's called "Tyranny."
SCOTUS has ruled, CFZ check points are constitutional. As to secret judges or warrants, blame the agency asking for them and the judge granting them for poor evidence to acquire the warrant.

Not to me. I paid my pound of flesh (literally, I am a disabled vet with a service connected disability) to help insure that liberty.
I commend you on your service, I too have served in the military during war time, so you can spare me your "insuring liberty" spiel. As I said, liberty is subjective and not unlimited.
 
Last edited:
I'm not learning squat about what YOU said. Now, you're too lazy to READ the links I provide, so I'm not motivated to do your job and figure out why you got your boxers in a bunch. You did say that the National Guard is the militia - apparently. If not, it's not my fault for you to keep wailing about me telling you that you were wrong. So, let me take a swag and give you some links about the militia (and I don't care how much you value their worth since sensible people will access them and make up their own minds.)

BTW, the sources so far aimed against me on this thread take you to white supremacist sites. Just saying. I can't reinvent the wheel:

The National Guard Is Not The Militia - Armed Citizens Are!

Is the National Guard the "militia?"

The Second Amendment’s “Militia” is not the National Guard LearnAboutGuns.com | LearnAboutGuns.com

Argue with lawyers, professional legal researchers and other professionals.
Your first link is that of a freelance writer.
Your second link is sourced from a blog.
Your third link is an attorney in Illinois.

Where are these lawyers, professional legal researchers, and other professionals, at? These are nothing more than opinion pieces.
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
Padilla was charged as a terrorist.
That's the point! All they have to do is knock on my door and say they think I might be a terrorist or enemy combatant and there go my rights. There has to be due process or it is not freedom, but totalitarianism.

Obviously the Federal Government does, otherwise states wouldn't have complied.
Many states refused. And rightly so.
SCOTUS has ruled, CFZ check points are constitutional.
Only in order to determine citizenship of the vehicles passengers. But most stops go way beyond that. "Where are you coming from?" "Where are you going?" "Do you mind if I look in the trunk?" (You better not mind or you will be tazered, dragged from your car and beaten. Google Steve Anderson. I have no patience with his idiot preaching but he was in the right when attacked by CBP agents - and the huge cash settlement proves it.)

As to secret judges or warrants, blame the agency asking for them and the judge granting them for poor evidence to acquire the warrant.
Why blame somebody other than the judge or the law that created the judge? Passing the blame is not the answer. Do away with secret judges and secret warrants.

And thank you for your service. :)
 
That's the point! All they have to do is knock on my door and say they think I might be a terrorist or enemy combatant and there go my rights. There has to be due process or it is not freedom, but totalitarianism.
They had evidence on Padilla. They had a warrant for him when he landed in Chicago. Padilla traveled to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. On his return, he was arrested by U.S. Customs agents at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport on May 8, 2002, and held as a material witness on a warrant issued in the state of New York stemming from the September 11, 2001 attacks.
José Padilla (prisoner) - Wikipedia

A month later he was charged as an enemy combatant and moved to the military brig in Charleston, SC.


Many states refused. And rightly so.
Yet they all complied.


Only in order to determine citizenship of the vehicles passengers. But most stops go way beyond that. "Where are you coming from?" "Where are you going?" "Do you mind if I look in the trunk?" (You better not mind or you will be tazered, dragged from your car and beaten. Google Steve Anderson. I have no patience with his idiot preaching but he was in the right when attacked by CBP agents - and the huge cash settlement proves it.)
Steve Anderson is a "sovereign citizen/preamble citizen" idiot looking to cause an issue. He wasn't dragged from his car and beaten, his window was shattered, he was extracted from his vehicle and placed on the ground, and he was tazed for 18 seconds. It took 10 years to get a civil settlement for attorneys fees and damages.

Why blame somebody other than the judge or the law that created the judge? Passing the blame is not the answer. Do away with secret judges and secret warrants.
The morality and ethics of both the judge and the agency are the issue, the law itself was found to be constitutional by SCOTUS.

And thank you for your service. :)
Too you as well.
 
Last edited:

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
They had evidence on Padilla.
Traveling is not a crime.

Yet they all complied.
Well, except Alaska. California. Idaho. Illinois. Kentucky. Maine. Massachusetts. Minnesota. Missouri. Montana. New Hampshire. New Jersey. North Dakota. Oklahoma. Oregon. Pennsylvania. Rhode Island. South Carolina. Virginia. And Washington.

Steve Anderson is a "sovereign citizen/preamble citizen" idiot looking to cause an issue.
I don't care what he is, he still has Constitutional rights, including rights against illegal search and seizure.

The morality and ethics of both the judge and the agency are the issue, the law itself was found to be constitutional by SCOTUS.
So was abortion. I wouldn't be too enamored with SCOTUS's rulings.
 
Traveling is not a crime.
It's not, they had evidence that warranted his detainment, thus he received 21 years in jail for his crime.

Well, except Alaska. California. Idaho. Illinois. Kentucky. Maine. Massachusetts. Minnesota. Missouri. Montana. New Hampshire. New Jersey. North Dakota. Oklahoma. Oregon. Pennsylvania. Rhode Island. South Carolina. Virginia. And Washington.
I wonder why my California Drivers License is Real ID compliant. All the Real ID does is create a harder to fake/forge ID. Those states you mentioned have received extensions and some have what are called Enhanced Drivers Licenses. There are only 2 states that do not have Real ID compliant licenses to date, and those folks need to carry additional ID (Passport, etc) to board a flight or enter into a federal building.

I don't care what he is, he still has Constitutional rights, including rights against illegal search and seizure.
And his rights were not violated.

So was abortion. I wouldn't be too enamored with SCOTUS's rulings.
Not enamored at all, there interpretation stands until its overturned.
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
So, let's review the thread. You first said:
Can you please provide the section of either the Patriot Act or the NDAA that says citizens can be detained without probable cause.
I posted the statute sections and you didn't bother to respond or acknowledge in any way.
Yet they all complied.
I posted the list of those who have not yet complied. And you even admitted there are still 2 (or more) that have not complied.

It seems to me you are not all that familiar with the facts, and when presented with those facts, you fail to be convinced by the facts.

So, there is little reason to continue this discussion.
 
Then why did they settle out of court for over $200,000?
They settled a civil action lawsuit for damages.


Unfortunately this was purely a monetary settlement. As part of the agreement, I dropped all remaining claims while the police get to claim they did nothing wrong despite losing at the 9th circuit, despite making case law that makes it clear tribal police cannot claim sovereign immunity while enforcing state law on a state right of way and despite dishing out $210,000 to me & my attorneys (and I would assume at least that much to their attorneys as well).

I'll get into a detailed analysis of the pressures & legal issues of why I went with settlement instead of pursing the case through trial (and probably further appeals as well) in my next blog entry but I wanted to get this out there first.

You can probably guess at some of the reasons already - especially if you read the defendants motions in limine that I posted in the last blog entry. Given how the court system works, there's a fairly good chance the police would have been successful in prohibiting a large chunk of testimony and evidence during trial meaning the jury wouldn't have been allowed to hear the full story.

While I think we would have still prevailed on a number of key issues, most likely damages would have been limited to next to nothing which in turn would have limited leverage for injunctive relief, attorney's fees, etc. This in turn would have forced more appeals and several more years of litigation, etc, etc, etc....
2012-06-16 @ 11:20

Roadblock Revelations - Police Defendants Pay $210,000 To Settle Illegal Roadblock Lawsuit


Tribal Police - the Tohono O'odham Police Dept., not the DHS/CBP
 
Last edited:
So, let's review the thread. You first said:I posted the statute sections and you didn't bother to respond or acknowledge in any way.I posted the list of those who have not yet complied. And you even admitted there are still 2 (or more) that have not complied.

It seems to me you are not all that familiar with the facts, and when presented with those facts, you fail to be convinced by the facts.

So, there is little reason to continue this discussion.
None of the sections you posted stated a person could be detained without probable cause as you claimed. In order for anybody to be detained they must have a warrant issued against them per those very Acts requirements.

Missouri and Mississippi both received waivers, which extended their compliant dates, which expire in October 2018.
Missouri gets waiver on REAL ID, so a state license will still get you on an airplane

“I am pleased DHS has recognized the state’s efforts on this issue,” said Joel Walters, director of the Missouri Department of Revenue, the state agency that oversees issuance of driver licenses. “With this extension, Missourians will not be inconvenienced while we continue our work to improve state-issued identification.”

Seems to be a state financial issue as neither of those 2 states are very budget friendly. Also appears they are in compliance with the requirement issued by the feds, acting in accordance to those very requirements.



The facts you have presented are outdated and in most instances pure embellishment by you. You don't seem to know as much as you are claiming, Anderson, as the example, did not have his rights violated and he received a settlement for damages against the Tohono O'odham Police Dept, unlike you claiming his rights were violated.

There is little reason to continue the discussion, as most of it is off topic anyway.
 
Last edited:

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The facts you have presented are outdated and in most instances pure embellishment by you. You don't seem to know as much as you are claiming, Anderson, as the example, did not have his rights violated and he received a settlement for damages, unlike you claiming his rights were violated.

There is little reason to continue the discussion, as most of it is off topic anyway.
For whatever its worth to you - among other positions held Tom Cassidy has been a Law Enforcement Officer.
Oh and a college professor with a doctorate (I believe).
 
For whatever its worth to you - among other positions held Tom Cassidy has been a Law Enforcement Officer.
Oh and a college professor with a doctorate (I believe).
Good for him, credentials don't matter much. His claims and interpretations are what are in question and are what have been shown to be either, at best, embellished, or, at worst, incorrect.
 
Last edited:
Top