Had the oppurtunity to talk to a Congressman today.

Status
Not open for further replies.

thumbtack

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
647
Location
Little Elm, TX.
Today Congressman Pete Sessions from the 32 district of Texas stopped by work today and had a little chat session. Here are a couple of issues he brought up.

• Currently there are about 1,000 Taliban members believed to be in the country. I hope he is rounding up, because a thousand organized people can wreck havoc on millions.

• The Democrats are playing hardball with the appointment of Judge Gonzales. The Democrats are afraid that a conservative Hispanic will be a role model, and bring more Hispanics to the Republican Party.

• The Department of Homeland Security is currently developing plans to secure the borders. The biggest setback is the sheer size of the borders.

• He also would like to get out of the UN he stated “they are a socialist organization and are Anti-America†He had a lot to say about the UN and none of it was good.

• I also asked when the AWB sunsets next year if he going to support any new legislation. He said that he is a lifetime member of the NRA, he would not support any new legislation and “I do not want to take your guns away.â€


Overall he seemed very straight to the point and no BS, I wish I lived in his district. I thought some of the other DFW THRs would like to know what their Congressman is saying.
 
The Department of Homeland Security is currently developing plans to secure the borders. The biggest setback is the sheer size of the borders.
I’ve been saying this for months now. Even made this point back on TFL. Nobody seems to listen though, it must be easier to complain. :rolleyes:
 
Excellent report!

Do you know if he's related to the former FBI director?
 
Sounds just like Federal District Court Judge William Sessions, who was appointed FBI Director by G.H.W. Bush and scapegoated by Clinton to get rid of him.
 
Currently there are about 1,000 Taliban members believed to be in the country

:eek: Spooky when you just think of the damage just one could do! :what: We need to just close th borders until we figure out a different strategy for protecting our borders.
 
10-ring, sorry, but I have to disagree. Have you driven through AZ, NM, and TX? There's NO WAY to patrol and close off the borders down there!

Have you seen how big the Canadian borders are to us? Walk right across.. or drive right across.. No problems..

There are a few border places I've seen between us and Canada; the road has an orange cone... THAT'S IT. The only thing stopping terrorists from coming in is an ORANGE CONE...
 
And that's not even talking about issues related to boats and beaches...:rolleyes:.

We're on the front lines, boys. Well, 'cept for Twoblink at the moment :D.
 
The last time that I talked to my congressman, I checked to make sure that my wallet was still in my pocket, and that I had all of my fingers on my right hand. Had my wallet alright, but had to chase down the congressman to get back my thumb and ring finger!:what: :neener:
 
Regarding illegal immigration:
I’ve been saying this for months now. Even made this point back on TFL. Nobody seems to listen though, it must be easier to complain
Wrong. The proper response from delegated governmental authorities is , "We're working the problem." I guess you'll consider me one of those who complain. I draw my conclusions on the basis of infomation reaching me. I do not draw conclusions based on trust. Bush and company have said NOTHING about illegal immigration. Information reaching me is they are turning a blind eye to the problem for a host of illegitimate political reasons.

If they intend to focus on the border as THE way to stem the flood, once again fed.gov gets it wrong. Everyone entering the US illegally has one of two destinations when they get here. The most popular is a job. Second most popular is a location where social services are administered. So why not grow a brain and do workplace enforcement. Its worked in the past and it will work today. . . . .if we have the political will.
 
Waitone,

Wrong. The proper response from delegated governmental authorities is , "We're working the problem." I guess you'll consider me one of those who complain. I draw my conclusions on the basis of infomation reaching me. I do not draw conclusions based on trust.
Yet again you have managed to completely miss the point. As I have said in just about every single immigration/border thread we have had here and most of the later ones on TFL the actual actions being done by this administration prove me correct. I have even personally pointed you towards resources that would back up what I am saying. The fact that you continue to ignore those tells me that rather than actually discern the truth, you would rather whine and complain.

Which administration wants an additional three thousand Border Patrol Agents (actually this number probably includes Immigration Inspectors as well)? Which administration has completely revamped the entire “INS†system? Which administration has put forth actual steps for constant re-evaluation of the citizenship process, with an oversight process? I could go on, but I’ll stop. As I’ve said before, much harm was done under the previous administration and it will take a whole lot of time to recover. Nevertheless, more has been done in the past two years to help than has been done in the prior 10 combined. You’re right though, this administration is “turning a blind eye to the problem for a host of illegitimate political reasonsâ€. :rolleyes:
 
Border closing tough to accomplish

without creating a Berlin wall approach.

I've personally invaded Canada many times, usually by canoe and armed with a medium weight spinning rod after Walleye. There are lots of places where you can walk, drive or paddle across and you never know which side of the border you're on until you see either a provincial police uniform or a US park service badge.

Saying "seal the borders" sounds good but with out making the borders a true "Checkpoiint Charlie" type of arrangement, it's next to impossible to do.

I am in favor of stronger border patrols and real penalties for illegal immigrants and prison for the "coyotes" that bring them across for a living. But I don't want to see armed HUMMV's cruising the borders with full auto weapons. Put that kind of militant regime in place and who knows what the next Liberal Demo President will do with it? The line between keeping them out and keeping us in could get very thin, very fast.

Tighten them up, make all immigrants register at least once a year or more, like they used to every January so we can keep track of them and hunt down and export every one that misses their registration appointment.

Don P.
 
This last weekend I was visiting a friend not 50 miles as the crow flies from the Canadian border.

There is NO WAY to seal that area. Heck, even a naive inexperienced woodstromper like myself could be three days into Canada without a soul knowing.

And there's THOUSANDS of miles of border and coast just as easy to slip through. There's just no way to do seal it off without committing massively more resources than are realistically available.

point of fact:
Wall of China: failure.
Maginot Line: failure.

If the administration wants to "seal the borders" the only remotely effective way I can think to do it is to "call out the militia" like the old-timey days, and essentially deputize anyone within 10-60 miles of the border.

I don't think that idea would go over to well outside of flyover country.

-K
 
Sounds like a Congressman who has brains (or at least is telling you everything you want to hear from him). Regarding Al Qaeda in our midsts, they're here as sleepers waiting for the green light from Bin Laden. As citizens, if we see something suspicious, call the police and the FBI. Let them know they are being watched. German spies were caught by the FBI during WW II and "racial profiling" to catch them, well, it just didn't come into play.
 
Sounds like a Congressman who has brains (or at least is telling you everything you want to hear from him).
He's pretty smart. I remember noticing him during the Clinton impeachment saga during hearings of one of the committees he was on.
 
Wow, my congress-critters won't even acknowledge my letters, emails, and phonecalls any more.

Whether or not he's being completely truthful is not in my ability to predict, but at least he's talking to you. That sure sounds nice.
 
Pete Sessions is indeed a son of former FBI Director William Sessions.

Another member of the Sessions family is married to a relative of mine, and I talked gun control with him some time ago. I had the impression that he didn't favor concealed carry, and wasn't too keen on private ownership of firearms. Interestingly, he's a lawyer...He did seem mildly interested in going hunting sometime, but we never did. I haven't seen him for several years.

From what I could tell from his term as Director, Judge Sessions was also not a strong supporter of gun rights.

However, from all that I've heard and read of Pete, he's a solid pro-gunner, and a staunch conservative. His district is one or two beyond where I vote, but I'd vote for him, based on what I've learned about him. I think he's a good guy, and shooters should spread the word.

Lone Star
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top