The Next Waco?

[lostone1413]

Living in Arizona I for one support Ranch Rescue. . The paper keeps out how many times they have stopped drugs form getting into this country or how much property they destroy. If people from any other country then Mexico came in here like that we would look at it as an invasion and an act of war. If you look at the border patrol or the police or FBI to protect you and your rights you will be in for a shock! Somebody has to do something are goverment has showin us they don't care. As far as Waco if they could get most of them in Ranch Rescue together another Waco bet on it!

 

[longrifleman]

The charlie foxtrot on the border is clearly civilian policy makers refusing to enforce the law. The grunts crawling through the dirt are doing what they are allowed to do. My guess they are far more livid than I about the situation because they see the memos and talk to the supers. I do not think the grunts are the source of the problem. I assign that responsiblity squarely on Bush's shoulders. He will pay the price if we have a terrorist hit because of his refusal to enforce the law.

Hitting nail (almost) squarely on head. The problem pre-dates Bush, although he is the chief law-enforcement ossifer NOW.

One thing that troubles me greatly is the almost total lack of respect for private property that the media and, unfortunately, most LEO's seem to be showing. These illegals are breaking the law by being on the private property uninvited. They are lucky they aren't being shot on sight. If this isn't fixed it may very well come to that point. That will be a disaster for everybody for obvious reasons.

Nethercott's south Texas arrest, from what I read in the papers, sounded phony, and I'm willing to believe the accusers lied. But, I don't know.

I read about the arrests at the time and came to the same conclusion about the accusations being a set-up. I would be interested to find out more about the Cali stuff.

One thing to keep in mind with anyone challenging the authority of the govt and any arrests they may have. There is no better way for the govt to destroy the credibility of their "problems" than to gin up some charges and feed the info to the all too willing press. Since anyone challenging the govt is probably on the edge legally it is easy to do. The effectiveness is obvious from the previous posts of Cacque500 and Ozendorph.

 

[Ozendorph]

The effectiveness is obvious from the previous posts of Cacque500 and Ozendorph.

Hey, I was asking a question. If you (or anyone) has good reason to believe the charges are phoney, please share. I don't take the Fed's word as gospel, nor am I quick to buy into random anti-gov theories. If you have evidence relative to the case, throw it out there.

 

[Wildalaska]

I don't take the Fed's word as gospel, nor am I quick to buy into random anti-gov theories. If you have evidence relative to the case, throw it out there.

Thats BS ya aint supposed to let facts get in the way of a good old anti govt tirade!!!!!!!

WilddownwithjbtsAlaska

 

[one-shot-one]

for better or worse

i don't have a problem with a group like rr existing but they may want to screen their membership better and if your a member and "get framed" maybe you should drop out for the greater good of the group. like it or not ifyou want to win the media war you got to stay as "clean" as possible.

 

[sendec]

There are plenty of bad guys out there, the government does'nt need to make work for itself by "ginning up" charges.

RR's stopped a lot of drugs, huh? Um, what happens to all those drugs they stop? Felons on the team starts to make sense.

Spent some time in AZ this summer, about 75 miles from the boarder. Stayed near the entrance to a Border Patrol Post, or whatever they call'em. Noticed a constant, continuous stream of BP vehicles in and out, usually with some souls on board, in the rigs into which I could see. I might recommend that you actually talk to some BP guys, they do not complain that they have nothing to do.

So what'll it be, more JBTs, viglantes or narco-terrorists? Take your pick, I am guessing you wont like whatever you choose.

 

[Michigander]

Hardly!

As others have pointed out, the similarities are very few and the differences almost endless.

Hint for "unauthorized groups": Do not allow members who are felons.

 

[Standing Wolf]

The federal government is far more concerned about people who are keeping an eye on the supposed "borders" than the millions upon millions of illegal aliens who infect our nation like cancer.

Disgusting!

 

[Old Dog]

Do you really believe that, Standing Wolf?

 

[joe sixpack]

It is a sign of our conflicted borders "policy".
On the one hand the gov't is not doing it's job.
On the other hand it doesn't want John Q. to know that it isn't
doing it's job. And, as the gov't has lot of hands, the third would be making sure no one else does the job either.

cheers, ab

 

[Jon Coppenbarger]

Lets see if I get this right do not hire felon's what was he convicted of I think it was the same thing he was arrested for last year ., Now I wonder how easy it is to get a gun convection against soemone in CA.?
I also would like to find out about the conviction in Ca..
Do you know about the trial that ended in june for this guy?

Lets see he had a hung jury and they would not retry him AS I understand it on the charge he beat the guy up.
Man it made headlines when they arrested him I remember it on every news chanel and I live in CO.
How many news chanels nation wide also told you he did not get convicted, I must of missed that broadcast?
But you want to know the funny part , they found him guilty for using a gun in the crime.
How do you covict someone that did not do the crime as per all of the witnesses but convit him of having a gun.

I think it came down to they had to get him on something din't they and its real funny how within two months they just happen to try to pull him over and you are right the feds OWN you and you better pull over RIGHT now or else we will have you or shoot your women and children.

Waco= dead women and children
ruby ridge= dead women and children
now hogg county in a food store they shoot down a women. they had reason to ? Was she armed and did she threaten them. I want to know?

dON'T YOU

They arressted him for threatening a pb agent?
I wonder if their story is different than the folks at the COMPOUND!
I hope there was alot of witnesses at the food store. So anybody in the area let is know what is happening.
Thank you

 

[Tamara]

Drjones,

I don't know that the spongecakes here could handle the truth.

Try us.

Being all non-spongecakelike yourself, we can safely assume that:

1) Your dues to the NRA, GOA, JPFO, and CRPA are all paid up.
2) That you have attended a protest or two in the last couple months.
3) That you have written and/or called all your federal, state, and local Elected Things in the last couple of months.
4) That you have actively participated in the election campaigns of pro-gun candidates recently, handing out flyers, posting signs, answering phones, et cetera.
5) That you have donated money to the election funds of pro-gun candidates.

You've done all this, right? I mean, obviously, this is all chump change stuff that would prove that you have the mettle to stand in the door when the ballot box failed, and in the meantime would qualify you to type bold words calling everyone else on the forum a "spongecake" for not participating in the process as much as you, right?

 

[tyme]

Nethercott, 37, has a criminal record. He was convicted of assault with a firearm in California and was on parole when he joined Ranch Rescue.

Before deciding that this guy isn't worth the air he breathes, consider that it's possible that "assault with a firearm" in CA means that he tried to stop a violent crime in progress, maybe without a ccw.

It's speculation either way, but a violent crime conviction doesn't always mean someone's a bad person.

 

[Michigander]

A convicted felon is a convicted felon, by definition.

As many are fond of saying on this board, if you don't like the law, get it changed!

Whether or not you, I, Joe Blow, or whoever agrees that a particular crime is a crime in the first place or a felony in the second place, the law that is on the books and the law he was found violating are still the law.

Myself, I think convicted felons, after doing their time (including parole or probation, which I do not like) should be allowed to own and carry firearms. But that is not the law in most places, constitutional or not.

 

[2nd Amendment]

Sure it does, Tyme. That way it's much easier to blindly defend fedgov and yell "Cop-Bashing!".

 

[DMF]

But that is not the law in most places

It's not the law in all places, because the prohibition on felons possessing firearms is federal. 18USC922(g)

 

[Coronach]

Sure it does, Tyme. That way it's much easier to blindly defend fedgov and yell "Cop-Bashing!".

As oppsed to, say, blindly yelling "JBT!" when the cops kill someone who owns a gun and belongs to a group you support?

I mean, heck. The guy belongs to the NRA and he owns a gun! This is obviously jack booted thuggery in action.

No, the far more intelligent position is to wait for the facts, see what happened, and then decide if what happened was proper, or not.

Newsflash: not all LEO shoots are good shoots.

Newsflash: not all people who own guns are good guys.

Of course, I can only think of a few times when the (collective) readership of THR was able to restrain the old knee-jerk reflex long enough to let the actual truth come out- the threads all got drowned in rhetoric and locked prior to this point, with a few exceptions.

[Opinion]
It seems like he was given every opportunity to end the situation peacefully. "What we have heah is...failure to communicate."

Sounds like he got what he wanted.
[/opinion]

Natch, I'll reserve judgement until the facts are in.

As to this lovely bit of spleen:

Translation: Be a good sheep. Don't do or say or own anything that might go against the wishes of the Masters. Never question what is right or wrong, simply accept what you're told. And remember, if it wears a uniform or claims to represent a government it is smarter/faster/wiser/better than you.

I dunno about all that, but in this instance it did seem to be the better shot.

Thus passes another Warrior Prince.

Mike

 

[2nd Amendment]

I'd be much more amenable to the idea of waiting for the "whole story" if instances of overly agressive LEO were not on the increase. If the militarization of police was not on the increase. If LE "leadership" did not sit on TV spouting ignorant anti-gun and knee-jerk rhetoric. if certain members of this board did not so often go over the top in defense of every action an LEO makes, no matter how absurd. If I did not get to personally see the ever more gung-ho activities of certain local LE...

There is a basic mistrust of LE and their government/political bosses today and it is becoming well earned.

 

[Coronach]

Actually, I'll dispute one of the foundations of your premise.

I'd be much more amenable to the idea of waiting for the "whole story" if instances of overly agressive LEO were not on the increase.

Have you ever talked to an 'old timer' LEO? Ever read some of the older books written by cops? 'Back in the day' cops could, and did, get away with a lot more than what they can now. I'm not saying our current situation is ideal, nor will I turn a blind eye to real problems when the occur, but lets not pretend for an instant that the police are more aggressive now than they were in the past. Break bad on a cop 'back in the day' and you would be lucky if your actions merely earned you a trip to jail by way of the local ER- the other option was the morgue. And no one would bat an eye, especially if you happened to be of less than lilly-white complexion.

There were a lot of good cops back then. There were some bad ones, too. And they had a lot more latitude and discretion. No one talked about it then. They talk about it a lot now, freely and openly. Any wonder why we percieve things as we do?

That said, I think we get upset that the cops are now enforcing laws that didn;t exist years ago, and thus they come across as draconian. Well, the cops do enforce the laws that the elected critters promulgate. If the elected critters make a law you do not like (CCW restrictions, the AWB, WoD), its not productive to get angry with the cops. Change the leaders, change the law. Note that the ATF is really wailing and gnashing its teeth that it can't go after people for bayo lugs now?

Wait...its not.

But DiFi sure is.

Mike

 

[2nd Amendment]

Analysis on a purely local level...

In this town in the past twenty five years our police force has doubled in size. We have more than twice as many cars. They are armed with everything up to M16's. We have our own sniper, by golly! The town has a population of 6000...just like it did 25 years ago.

20 years ago a bar fight got the brawlers a knock on the head and a nite in jail. Today they are in the street cuffed and looking at felony raps. A kid driving home tipsy got a ride to the cop shop and a phone call to his parents. Today he's looking at a felony wrap. A traffic stop then got you a guy you knew shaking his head at your ignorance. Today it may(and has) get you three patrol cars with at least two weapons drawn by guys in ninja suits.

We never heard of a no-knock and yet people still got busted regularly for drugs. We never needed a "sniper". So far we still haven't. Then a traffic stop in a parking lot where people already were got an audience and a laughing cop. Now it gets me a 21 year old punk shouting in my face because I didn't get far enough away(too bad he didn't say anything about it beforehand). Bad thing to do to a member of the Chamber...the mayor didn't appreciate the mindnite phone call...neither did the spittle-spraying kid cop.

They are increasingly agressive. Yes the old cops did things we would not accept today. But the new ones do things, because they are told they are the sole thing holding society together and are a notch above the "rabble", that are often worse because they are supported officially in their actions and we are expected to accept it. Because they are the authority.

In the past it was a function of a few bad cops and a less "tolerant" society towards "differences". Today it is increasingly a function of the institutionalization of the idea of "us vs them" and the ever-expanding power of government in every facet of people's lives.

I didn't say it was perfect "back then". I'm saying it's worse now because the abuses are not centered in bad cops but in an entire operational mind-set of power and control and "authority". That and, as you say, a plethora of absurd laws designed to control every aspect of behavior if someone cares to use them. And yes, that comes from the top down. But the interaction the average Joe has with it is at that local police level. Thus your first reaction is going to be there, not to some largely faceless parasite at the federal level.

 

[Jon Coppenbarger]

AMEN

Thank you

 

[wingman]

The Southwest is a disaster and the government seems not to care,
prop 200 I believe would help hold back funding for illegals, right now the
average taxpayer cost is $2400 a year. Mr McCain wants to defeat 200
although most of the people in AZ want it.








McCain seeking ways to help defeat Prop. 200
By Mike Sunnucks
The Business Journal (Phoenix, AZ), September 15, 2004

U.S. Sen. John McCain will meet with opponents of a controversial immigration ballot question in the coming days to see how he can help defeat the measure.

McCain will sit down with those opposed to the Protect Arizona Now/Propostion 200, which will be on the November ballot.

PAN looks to curtail illegal immigration into the state requiring those seeking public welfare benefits to prove they are eligible for such services and those seeking to votes to prove they are U.S. citizens.

The measure also requires state agencies to report illegal aliens to federal authorities and those state workers who do not do that face criminal sanctions.

McCain, the rest of the state's congressional contingent, Gov. Janet Napolitano and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce are among those opposed to PAN. They contend that border security and immigration are not state issues. Critics also worry that if PAN passes it will stall federal guest worker and immigration reforms next year.

McCain said Wednesday he will soon meet with PAN opponents to see what role he can play in the effort against Prop. 200. Former attorney general Grant Woods, lobbyist Steve Roman and state chamber officials are leading the effort against PAN.

Napolitano and Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon also worry that if PAN passes, government agencies and office will have to hire extra staff and dedicate time and resources to proving the citizenship of those seeking services.

PAN director Kathy McKee disputes those assertions, saying the welfare benefits portion of PAN is reinforcing the need to prove eligibility and will not impact all government service and offices not covered under state welfare and public benefits rules.

McCain stressed Wednesday that he understands frustrations within the state regarding border security and continues to press the federal government and Congress to focus more on the matter. The senior senator is a powerful political force with moderate and independent voters.

Polls show a majority of Arizona voters supporting PAN. Supporters include conservative State Reps. Eddie Farnsworth, Russell Pearce and Andy Biggs and state Sen. Thayer Verschoor and Jack Harper.

Valley car dealer Rusty Childress and the Washington D.C-based Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) also back PAN.

The state chamber has been meeting with national pro-immigration business advocates, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on the matter.

Arizona Congressman Jeff Flake and Jim Kolbe and McCain are also sponsors of federal guest worker program to license Mexican immigrant workers and provide undocumented aliens already working the U.S. a path towards citizenship.

 

[R.H. Lee]

McCain will sit down with those opposed to the Protect Arizona Now/Propostion 200, which will be on the November ballot.

PAN looks to curtail illegal immigration into the state requiring those seeking public welfare benefits to prove they are eligible for such services and those seeking to votes to prove they are U.S. citizens.

The measure also requires state agencies to report illegal aliens to federal authorities and those state workers who do not do that face criminal sanctions.

Why would any reasonable mind oppose this? Is it not illegal for illegal immigrants to receive welfare benefits or to vote? Is is not illegal for employers to hire illegal immigrants?

McCain, the rest of the state's congressional contingent, Gov. Janet Napolitano and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce are among those opposed to PAN.

Translation: Business wants the cheap labor. Makes no difference that it is a violation of law. The state legislature is a willing lapdog in a conspiracy to violate the law.

They contend that border security and immigration are not state issues.

Great. Except there's no federal initiative process. How do the people of AZ compel the feds to enforce existing law regarding illegal immigration?

Critics also worry that if PAN passes it will stall federal guest worker and immigration reforms next year. Napolitano and Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon also worry that if PAN passes, government agencies and office will have to hire extra staff and dedicate time and resources to proving the citizenship of those seeking services.

Weak excuses.

McCain stressed Wednesday that he understands frustrations within the state regarding border security and continues to press the federal government and Congress to focus more on the matter.

What? He just now realizes it's a problem? This statement really frosts me. It is more equivocation and pap.

I hope the people of AZ are able to pass the proposition and that some "judge" does not strike it down-as usually happens here in California after the people have spoken.

 

[sendec]

Militarization

Is bad?

So you dont want the BP agents and the state, county and locals on the border to have airships, remote sensors, humvees, nvg and such? Or military support?

 

[R.H. Lee]

So you dont want the BP agents and the state, county and locals on the border to have airships, remote sensors, humvees, nvg and such? Or military support?

These resources are purchased at public expense for the purpose of enforcing immigration law. These resources should not be used by law enforcement for the purpose of achieving some agenda of their political masters.