The Coming War With Mexicans:
Trace
Full Story:http://home.earthlink.net/~karljahn/cw2.htm (page 2)
As many are now saying, it appears that America may well have a second
civil war. Our lousy Globlist Utopia politicians are not listening.
They are not paying attention to the will and desire of the American
public that has long wanted to stop illegal immigration. Both
political parties are involved in a drive to remove the borders on this
continent to duplicate the european union. This all fits in with their
desire to set up a global system under some central authority.
Although no politician will come forward and admit to this agenda when
asked, the signs are everywhere.
Black, Brown and White Americans are fed up. They are sick of the
excuses, and sick of the lying politicians who submit one proposal
after the other knowing full well that nothing will get done, and
eventually, GW Bush will attempt to pardon all illegals, and then
establish a so called "worker program" which is nothing less than the
removal of our southern border since this program will allow anyone
looking for a job into the USA.
The American public knows they are being sold a proverbial bill of
goods. They've seen President Bush act more concerned about illegal
aliens and what is going on in mexico, than in his own country.
Read the text below. You will not agree with everything the author
proposes, but you will agree with much of what he has to say. You
cannot have a subculture of many millions living totally unassimilated
in America and not have a conflict. That very conflict may escalate
into a national battle with people who want to reconquista (retake) the
land from America and claim it as their own. Read on for a great
story:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can America Survive?
Everyone in America, whether he wishes this country well or ill, should
read a dire warning of the consequences of mass immigration and ethnic
separatism called Civil War II: The Coming Breakup of America. Its
author, Thomas Chittum, fought as a mercenary in Rhodesia and Croatia,
which has obviously colored his perception; but one man who's lived
through history-in-the-making deserves more consideration than all the
pundits in the liberal echo-chamber called the Mass Media.
Chittum extrapolates from present demographic and political trends to
predict that the U.S. will (probably, with all the appropriate
provisos) break up into three new race-nations: a white North (from
Maine to Alaska), a Mexican Southwest, and a black Deep South -- with
much "ethnic cleansing" and general nastiness. He says nothing about
other minorities, but since they're unlikely to be sufficiently
concentrated in any strategically viable areas, they'll probably be
massacred by all sid (given his scenario).
Chittum carefully tries to equipose himself between mainstream
conservatives and the nazis: e.g., he repeatedly denounces "racist
affirmative action" and says that the war and breakup are likely,
though not desirable. The mood he projects is one of grim fact-facing,
as opposed to conservative evasion and racist apocalyptic fantasy. For
this alone, the book is well worth reading: it is such a refreshing
change from the usual mindless attitudinizing on racial issues. (It
would be interesting to be in the audience of a panel discussion of
this book including Fred Reed, Peter Brimelow, Dinesh D'Souza, and
Thomas Sowell.)
Liberals fulminate against "racism" (by which they really mean "white
people"). Racists, of whatever color, fulminate against other races.
Conservatives pay lip-service to the quaint ideals of color-blind law
and racial integration, but do nothing about them, and ignore the
ever-increasing dangers of mass immigration. Chittum presents us with
the prospect of race and racism as problems to be solved -- though he
is pessimistic about our chances of solving them.
There are a number of reasons to hope for a better outcome than a
triangular race war. First of all, insofar as there is a race problem
in America, it is really only a black problem. Hispanics are not a
race, after all, but mixtures in varying proportions of Spanish,
African, and American Indian stock. It is their language, the proximity
of their homelands, and their geographical concentrations -- not their
complexion and physiognomy -- that make Hispanics a threat to America.
Furthermore, the minorities that Chittum ignores (Orientals, East
Indians, etc.) are likely to be Americanized eventually, due to the
same social and economic forces that assimilated previous waves of
immigration. Certainly this happy outcome could be hastened or retarded
by good or bad public policy -- but to a significant extent they are
already part of a non-black, English-speaking majority.
It does not seem likely that Koreans, for instance, will merge with
either the anthropoid rabble of South-Central L.A. or with the
bean-eating siesta monkeys swarming up from Mexico. What we need to
worry about, is whether they remain an isolated tribe of
Koreans-in-America or become Americans of Korean descent, speaking
English as their native language and intermarrying with Americans of
other ethnic backgrounds. If Chittum is right, this is something the
Koreans themselves ought to be worried about.
As for black Americans, it may very well be a good thing that many of
them are migrating back to the South. It is painful for a Yankee to
admit, but most, if not all, of the race-riots since 1965 have occurred
in Northern (or Left Coast) cities. I am not aware of any Ork-hole like
Anacostia or South-Central L.A. anywhere within the states of the
Confederacy; it seems that Southern blacks are as much more
conservative than their Northern counterparts as Southern whites are.
This brings me to my next, somewhat paradoxical reason for hope:
Northern liberals. As much as I despise them, it is precisely because I
despise them that I see the chief flaw in Chittum's thesis: he expects
the white population to turn from sheep to wolves overnight. I ponder
the liberals, and I wonder.
I'm sure that all those white liberals who condone, incite, and reward
the anti-white racism of their pet minorities, believe deep in their
hearts (deeper than they'd ever admit, not even to themselves) that
they'll be able to keep their pets on a leash forever. But once you've
filled people with hatred of anyone with a white skin, will they be
able to tell you apart from the "racists"? I hope not!
I'm not at all sure that the average bleeding-heart, thug-hugging pinko
would rather commit a "racist" thought or action than be robbed, raped
and/or killed by some gutter-ape who happens to be non-white. Certainly
the average pinko would pretend that such a dilemma didn't exist --
until it was too late. Liberalism just doesn't equip people to deal
with unpleasant realities -- or with any kind of reality, for that
matter.
The bright side of this, though, is that liberalism's failure will
become increasingly obvious, the consequences increasingly unendurable
-- yet again, as in the 1970s, and bring an equivalent reaction.
America is big enough, and still free enough, that the reaction should
be peaceful and democratic, as it was in 1980. Bad policies will be
replaced, the catastrophe averted. The sooner the problem is faced, the
less drastic the reaction will be.
The ordinary American -- the dimwitted sap who isn't a liberal, but
thinks President (ugh) Clinton is "doing a good job" because the
liberal Ministry of Truth tells him so -- would, I'm sure, make the
right choice in the moment of truth. As long as the
education-news-entertainment complex is able to hide reality behind a
fog of lies, he'll go right on thinking everything is fine; but when
push comes to shove, his instinct of self-preservation hasn't been
indoctrinated out of him -- I hope. If a major, violent crisis in
race-relations were to occur, he might be manipulated by demagogues and
react to the emergency by lunging in the wrong direction (just as most
Americans did in 1932 et seq. by voting for Franklin
"President-For-Life" Roosevelt).
What can be done to avert such a crisis? The answer is simple:
1. End affirmative discrimination for certified minorities,
2. Severely restrict immigration,
3. Round up and deport all illegal aliens,
4. Secure the position of English as the language of the United
States,
5. Reaffirm American unity and patriotism, rejecting all
"multicultural" nonsense,
6. Stop the liberals from disarming the white civilian population so
that, if worse comes to worst, we can defend ourselves.
Only the implementation of it will be hard, because America has so many
entrenched enemies who will bitterly fight each of these policies.
Will conservatives be able to avert the crisis? I fervently hope so,
but I'm not entirely optimistic. If not, how many whites will join the
nazis for self-preservation? We won't know until it's too late.
Beyond these six points I will venture to suggest a seventh, which
might sound a little radical, but is worth considering. Maybe we should
take the America-haters at their word, and strip them of citizenship in
a country to which they deny their loyalty. Why shouldn't the devotees
of Afrocentrism be deported to Liberia? Why shouldn't a bunch of hijos
de putas who lay claim to part of America be marched back to Mexico at
bayonet-point?
Of course, anyone who says such things will be denounced as a "racist."
But anyone who says anything the liberals don't like will be denounced
as a "racist." You might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb --
especially if you know perfectly well that the accusation is nonsense.
And if we don't say such things today, we're in for a hell of a time
tomorrow.
by Karl Jahn
Midjis
> Liberals fulminate against "racism" (by which they really mean "white
> people").
A generalisation. Most people who protest against racism oppose
discrimination based on race. For myself, that means that I abhor white
discriminating against black, and black discriminating against white. I
disapprove of standards that are applied to one group that are not
applied to another. For example, here in Britain there are 'black
community centres', but 'white community centres' would be (rightly)
considered racist. We have black, gay and women's groups within unions
and large corporations - yet white groups, men's groups or groups for
straight people would be condemned (again, rightly), as discriminatory.
In Britain we have a 'Commission for Racial Equality' - an established
pseudo-political entity which exists ostensibly to fight racism wherever
it finds it, and relies for its funding on being able to find it. Thus
we have a situation where the agency created to fight racism must
continue to find it in order to fight it - not unlike the old 'penny-per-
witch' witch-finders, who were under financial pressure to continue to
find witches, whether they were really there or not.
> Racists, of whatever color, fulminate against other races.
> Conservatives pay lip-service to the quaint ideals of color-blind law
> and racial integration
I do believe that law should be colour-blind, in that a crime should be a
crime, no matter what the ethnicity of the person who commits it. And
equally I believe that there should be no such thing as 'racially-
aggravated' crimes. Most crimes are 'hate' crimes. A person who commits
an assault does so usually because of hate - yet the law tells us that if
you assault someone the same colour as you, that's not so serious. This
is patently ridiculous.
As to 'racial integration', however, I am not someone who believes that
anyone who comes to Britain must adopt all the ways of the British. For
a start, the British are already a pretty diverse bunch. There is no
reason why someone who comes to live here must follow a particular
religion, or rather, NOT follow a particular religion. I would argue
that it should be expected of immigrants that they learn to speak English
to some degree, which position I know is considered fiercely racist by
some - however I believe I simply cannot be expected to learn every
language on Earth in order to address every potential immigrant in his or
her own mother tongue. I would impose the same standard on myself were I
to move to a country where English is not spoken.
But where I find the ultimate nonsense in racism - in which I include
those who protest about preserving their racial and cultural 'purity' -
is the fact that we none of us have been racially or culturally pure.
Not ever. Not while there have been sexually-reproducing lifeforms on
this planet. I am a mongrel, if you like, and happy to be so. Billions
of years of mixing and merging have gone to create me, just as the same
process has created everyone else here. I am (technically) human, first
and foremost.
edi...@netpath.net
>As to 'racial integration', however, I am not someone who believes that
>anyone who comes to Britain must adopt all the ways of the British. For
>a start, the British are already a pretty diverse bunch.
Face reality. How long can Britain stay "British" if any
substantial percentage of its residents: aren't European, speak
languages other than English as their primary language, don't belong to
either of the two historic main religions of Britain, can't relate to
who Churchill or Shakespeare were - and have diametrically-opposed
staunch views on the role of women in society than 99% of Brits whose
grandparents' grandparents were Brits?
Preparedness necessities! Shop the http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com
George Z. Bush
(Snip)
>
> ......Of course, anyone who says such things will be denounced as a "racist."
> But anyone who says anything the liberals don't like will be denounced
> as a "racist.".......
Patent nonsense.....the entire xenophobic rant get the credence anyone who
refers to Mexicans as "bean eating siesta monkeys" deserves. Anyone who uses
those words obviously knows no Mexicans, nor has he ever observed Mexicans on
the job, whatever it happens to be, usually easily outhustling our native born
Americans (when they were willing to do that kind of work) who they replaced.
Stereotypes do you in more often than not.....bean eating siesta monkeys indeed!
I can't help but wonder why the author of this tripe forgot to include the
sombrero on the head of the Latino snoozer.
BTW, in case you've never noticed, not a one of us has forbears who sprang from
the soil of this blessed land of ours.....even our American Indians, who we now
think of as "native Americans" originally came from Siberia. We every one of us
are in our backgrounds immigrants who hailed from somewhere else.
George Z.
edi...@netpath.net
>Patent nonsense.....the entire xenophobic rant get the credence anyone who
>refers to Mexicans as "bean eating siesta monkeys" deserves. Anyone who uses
>those words obviously knows no Mexicans, nor has he ever observed Mexicans on
>the job, whatever it happens to be, usually easily outhustling our native born
>Americans (when they were willing to do that kind of work) who they replaced.
Then just take the federal statistics. Latinos in America have
almost double the illegitimate-birth rate (40% vs. 23.6%) of
European-Americans now - and a VD rate 4 to 15 times that of
European-Americans, according to the federal Centers for Disease
Control. Yes, race and immigration status do matter in real life.
No $6 admission! Shop the http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com
Trace
to keep out who we do not want in. We have the right to control our
borders. When our polticians are fighting against the very laws they
are supposed to support, then we understand that they have an agenda
that is not ours.
Limited Legal Immigration is a good thing, but it must be limited, and
legal. At present, we have between 10 and 30 million illegal aliens
from various countries in the USA. Most are mexicans. Do Americans
have the right to demand the deportation of people who broke into their
country? Of course they do.
Vile politicans and brown racists are telling illegal aliens that they
have a right to be here, or that America welcomes them with open arms
when in fact, not one poll has found that Americans want illegal aliens
in the USA, nor do they want continued illegal immigration. The
temperature of this issue is heating up rapidly.
It is very possible that as illegals begin to feel the pressure to go
back to their countries, some may rebel. If they respond the way
muslims have in France to the very country that has provided food and
liberty for them though they are illegally here, then you can rest
assured that the American public will not sit quiet in the corner like
a good Frenchman.
George Z. Bush
> George Z wrote:
>> Patent nonsense.....the entire xenophobic rant get the credence anyone who
>> refers to Mexicans as "bean eating siesta monkeys" deserves. Anyone who uses
>> those words obviously knows no Mexicans, nor has he ever observed Mexicans on
>> the job, whatever it happens to be, usually easily outhustling our native
>> born Americans (when they were willing to do that kind of work) who they
>> replaced.
>
> Then just take the federal statistics. Latinos in America have
> almost double the illegitimate-birth rate (40% vs. 23.6%) of
> European-Americans now - and a VD rate 4 to 15 times that of
> European-Americans, according to the federal Centers for Disease
We were discussing "bean eating siesta monkeys". Are they the only "Latinos in
America"? Don't many of those "Latinos" come from parts of South and Central
America other than Mexico? You've broadened the discussion into an area I don't
know much about and suspect that you know even less about, which makes it a
discussion I'm not prepared or able to take part in.
> Yes, race and immigration status do matter in real life.
Now there's some shocking news.....it's also a non-sequitur.
George Z.
Midjis
> Face reality. How long can Britain stay "British" if any
> substantial percentage of its residents: aren't European, speak
> languages other than English as their primary language, don't belong to
> either of the two historic main religions of Britain, can't relate to
> who Churchill or Shakespeare were - and have diametrically-opposed
> staunch views on the role of women in society than 99% of Brits whose
> grandparents' grandparents were Brits?
Okay. Here's some reality for you, then:
Britain will remain Britain as long as there are borders around an area
called Britain. I note you complain that Britain cannot be Britain while
a 'substantial percentage' of its residents are not *European* - itself
an interesting shift from those British people only a few years ago who
would have complained loudly had anyone suggested they were European. So
it would appear even your idea of what constitutes being British is
different from those before you.
As to speaking English as the primary language, I believe I addressed the
point about immigrants learning to speak English - but so long as they
can do so I see no reason why it must have been the first language they
learned. Bear in mind also that there are a number of British languages,
and only historical events have established English as the dominant one.
It does not in itself mean that Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Irish Gaelic,
Manx, Cornish, and so on, are in themselves inferior to English. It is a
matter of regret for me that I did not take the trouble to learn any of
these other languages, and it is something I still intend to remedy.
Religion: *I* do not belong to one of the two historic main religions of
Britain. By your argument this would mean I cannot be British - yet I
am.
I *know* who Churchill and Shakespeare were. Whether I 'relate' to them
I really couldn't say, since I did not know them as men - only as
historical figures. I do not 'relate' to Churchill and Shakespeare any
better than I relate to George Washington, Julius Caesar, Atilla the Hun,
Cleopatra, Saladin or Napoleon: they are people I know of in history.
As for my views on the role of women in society, as I've already
mentioned I believe very firmly in equality. And with regard to my
grandparents, yes - I believe they were probably British (I'm not
sufficiently interested in genealogy to know for sure). However, as I've
said before, clinging to your 'racial purity' requires you to draw a line
across your past at some stage, and disregard what came before that line.
I am British - but 'British' is a relatively recent idea, and before that
I can only wonder at how many races might have gone to form my genetic
makeup.
In short, the idea of racial purity is fatuous. Britain is the British,
and despite the claims of some, the British do *not* need to conform to
some preset template in appearance, attitude and belief.
Feel free to accuse me of 'hating Britain' now, if you wish.
Ike
Italian, and Jews, etc. of yesteryear. It's just the current crop of
immigrants. You know.... like your grandparents, or great-grandparents?
Mexican-Americans are doing fine. The standard of living is good, incomes
are high enough that a substantial percentage of total earnings gets shipped
south, education suggests that assimilation of next generations will be
excellent (as usual with U.S. immigrants), and every year a higher
percentage pays into the tax stream. And, families that once had 5-6
children don't need them to work the soil, and today would rather spend the
money on a new car or a television set, so the immigrant Total Fertility
Rate (TFR) is dropping rapidly as that population subset approaches
equilibrium.
The Instituto Tecnologico de Monterrey produces fine engineers that often
left Mexico to find opportunities in technology, but Mexico has just
committed 1% of its GDP ($6B next year!) to growing a new tech industrial
base, and the maquiladora industry is expanding south, so the U.S. won't get
so many immigrant electronic engineers, technicians, assemblers, and quality
inspectors (yes, and janitors). Too bad, as they were my company's best
employees - by far.
Next month I'm supposed to make a presentation to the Mexican-American Bar
Association.... I'd let you know what those folks think about the coming
civil war, but even raising the question would be foolish.
As it is here...
Ike
Mike P
While I can agree with you on most of what you said George. DNA and
mtDNA testing has shown very few Native People have the markers that
include Asian ancestry. Native People have a unique genetic marker of
their own just like Asian, European, and so on. With finds showing
Native People have been in North America more than twenty thousand
years, and South America more than a hundred thousand years there is
nothing to show our people came from anywhere else.
Mike
Now climbing back into his way back machine.
George Z. Bush
> George Z. Bush wrote:
>> Trace wrote:
(Snip)
>> BTW, in case you've never noticed, not a one of us has forbears who sprang
>> from the soil of this blessed land of ours.....even our American Indians,
>> who we now think of as "native Americans" originally came from Siberia. We
>> every one of us are in our backgrounds immigrants who hailed from somewhere
>> else. George Z.
>>
>
> While I can agree with you on most of what you said George. DNA and
> mtDNA testing has shown very few Native People have the markers that
> include Asian ancestry. Native People have a unique genetic marker of
> their own just like Asian, European, and so on. With finds showing
> Native People have been in North America more than twenty thousand
> years, and South America more than a hundred thousand years there is
> nothing to show our people came from anywhere else.
>
> Mike
> Now climbing back into his way back machine.
Are you telling me that there's no truth to the commonly accepted version of
ancient history that some sort of human beings crossed the land bridge between
Siberia and North America hundreds (or thousands) of years before Europeans even
suspected that there were people in the western hemisphere?
I'm sure you know far more about American Indian history than I, but I heard
that years ago in school long before blogs were invented. I hope that you
noticed that I didn't claim that those were the ONLY source of American Indians,
but don't at least some tribes trace their roots back to the Siberian land mass?
George Z.
Mike P
There are a few that do trace their line back to them, and is backed up
by DNA for it as well. Most are very Northern Tribes. Like many theories
the Bearing Land Bridge just washed out for those racist people that
wish to use it.
Mike
A member of my family had a drug trade with Egyptians five thousand
years ago. We had been trading Tobacco for at least 20 thousand years
before that wiht them.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/mummies.htm
Red Jacket The Laughing Indian !
Everything you said is backed up Mike.
Including the Coco plant.
There is allot of proof that people visited that AO from the
Mediterranean AO. Including written language proof.
"Mike P" <nospam-...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:JcMdf.4205$Mr4.3466@trnddc08...
Mike P
> This is backed by early copper mining in the Wisconsin AO.
> Everything you said is backed up Mike.
> Including the Coco plant.
>
> There is allot of proof that people visited that AO from the
> Mediterranean AO. Including written language proof.
>
I kind of think our people traveled over there long before they came
here. They really needed the Coco bad as all their woman had to wear
wigs, and the Spanish hadn't met them yet with their sheep. They had to
raid other Countries for clothes. (thought I was talking about something
else didn't You ;-))
Mike
Red Jacket The Laughing Indian !
"Mike P" <nospam-...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:WRMdf.4519$Mr4.2164@trnddc08...
Mike P
>
I was going something like that once, but I joined the Army. Then ended
up like this.
I heard a couple of times that there may have been a Tribe that spoke
Welsh before The French or English came here. Never could find anything
that may prove it as the Tribe in question was wiped out by the English,
and Small Pox.
Mike
Red Jacket The Laughing Indian !
> Red Jacket The Laughing Indian ! wrote:
> > Something like that.
> >
>
>
> I was going something like that once, but I joined the Army. Then ended
> up like this.
> I heard a couple of times that there may have been a Tribe that spoke
> Welsh before The French or English came here. Never could find anything
> that may prove it as the Tribe in question was wiped out by the English,
> and Small Pox.
>
> Mike
I wonder if we ever will know ? So many argue I can't make heads or tails.
I was looking into the origin of copper and came across all kinds
of stories about this.
Mike P
> "Mike P" <nospam-...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:asOdf.5281$Mr4.4153@trnddc08...
>
>>Red Jacket The Laughing Indian ! wrote:
>>
>>>Something like that.
>>>
>>
>>
>>I was going something like that once, but I joined the Army. Then ended
>>up like this.
>>I heard a couple of times that there may have been a Tribe that spoke
>>Welsh before The French or English came here. Never could find anything
>>that may prove it as the Tribe in question was wiped out by the English,
>>and Small Pox.
>>
>>Mike
>
>
> I wonder if we ever will know ? So many argue I can't make heads or tails.
> I was looking into the origin of copper and came across all kinds
> of stories about this.
>
I remember there was some writings from a French Trapper and Trader
about a copper boulder on one of the lakes. He said something like it
was as large as a house, and if there were any clouds in the sky.
Lighting would strike it killing fish in the lake. The people would then
row out collecting them. Of course this was well before there was any
States there, and other cultures started moving into the areas. Most all
the arguments stem from religion or covering up bad acts by others. Many
feel that if they say well their people didn't origionaly come from here
anyway what we did was OK. They didn't really own the land. Then with
the destruction of anything felt evil or against the ultra Christian
removed most of every thing that was left. Just last month someone took
a hammer to picturegraphs on my reservation that dated back over 9
thousand years. They have caught them before, and it was taking them to
be sold or destroying them because the picturegraphs were anti-Christian.
Mike
Ike
about this discussion.
RESPONSE: Ike, you're a lousy stand-up comedian. Keep your day job.
Red Jacket The Laughing Indian !
They should cut the hands off those kind of thieves including the
US Government types.
Some day look up copper mining in the Wisc. AO. It interesting
and comes back to the history you refer to.
Some time back all the artifacts we had in the Turtle ( Indian Museum)
was sold off by the IRS. That was sick. They sold of things like the
Ghost shirt and local wampum all to *collectors.
The Turtle was shaped as a turtle and was beautiful inside. Lot of Pow Wows
and dancing in that place. Now its empty.
Mike P
It's a never ending circle. The Pombo amendment pending will sell off
Treaty and Land Trust land. Not counting some Federal Parks to the
highest bidder on each one. Just think land that was given to your
family after being move from your home. (which was better) Now being
taken away, and you are homeless with nothing from it. Top of the list
is Western Shosone land in Nevada and Sioux Treaty land in South Dakota.
Some members of Congress all ready wanted to take money away from
Veterans, and Military Retired to save money for other areas more
deserving to them. Which by the way was yelled down. Strange no one says
anything about this.
Pot hunters have all ready stripped as much as they can from just about
every site. The Federal Government has said see we are protecting as
much as we can now. Like two guards for Monument Valley that greats
visitors.
Mike
http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/g/h/ghb1/southwest/anasazi.html
Red Jacket The Laughing Indian !
Our government like others turns a blind eye to artifacts. I'm guilty too.
In '75 I got a 15th century Buddha that came from Burma, I obtained it in
Thailand. Little did I know at that time its 20 years in that old Jap prison
for taking out any religious items out of country. The prison is in Bangkok.
WHEW !
At that time you could bring anything into the US. The UN is trying
to stop it now. If you get caught with anything, it goes back to the
country of origin. To bad there is no law like that for our country ?
The trouble about Indian news/laws is that no one talks about it. It needs a
strong voice so others may hear.
You only hear about laws is when the FBI is in a shootout and of
course the other guy started it.
Mike P
I got to go R & R there in Bangkok. The last thing I was looking for is
something to send home. (Happy happy a Turkish Bath) The second time I
went there I did get to see some of the area. Back Country and streets.
I did like the way every shop or store had a picture of the Prince or
King, and met you with a drink if you wanted it. I loved ice coffee.
One big problem with the laws here is they are on the books, but not
enforced by the courts. Then the laws are different for different
people. If you got the money you can get away with anything. Leonard
Peltier was lucky they were FBI. If it had been the ATF they would have
been shooting from Tanks at the cars. Worse than goons, and none of them
can tell a NDN from a tree.
Mike
Free Leonard Peltier the FBI admitted they lied.