Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you haven't yet seen the "newsflash" out of Helenwood, Tennessee, you soon will. Apparently two enraged neighbors tried to "burn out" a man charged with "kiddie porn' and in the process, the "accused' escaped, but his wife died in the fire, and the house was destroyed.
My thought went out to President Bush, who some time ago used the term "vigilante" to describe the "Minutemen". Essentially, these are a group of harmless, unarmed old men armed with binoculars, sitting in lawn chairs, and "watching" illegal immigrants. Call them "pests" if you will, but they are not "vigilantes", a fact seemingly lost on "The Decider". They are probably more comparable to a "neighborhood watch" committee than anything else.
Those folks in Tennessee, of course, ARE vigilantes. They "took the law into their own hands" and "administered justice". Big difference. Wish the President could see this.
But, in some respects, there's a connection. Both represent the "Third-worldization" of the US, in the fact that BOTH groups essentially did what they did, because apparently those who are SUPPOSED to do it, have elected not to. Whether it's keeping out illegals by the Border Patrol, or putting away kiddie-porn users by the police, both examples are cases of "community outrage", and both bear an eerie resemblance to a third-world reality not usually seen in the USA.
In the past few years, the southern Mexican state of Chiapas witnessed several instances of "community outrage" as fed-up villagers, having lost faith in the corrupt and ineffectual local police, dragged accused thieves or other miscreants out into the street to be beaten or lynched (I think one man was even burned to death). Mexico, of course, is a third-world country. The US is not supposed to be.
I felt like asking our president, "Is that what we're looking at here, sir? Just what is your 'grand plan' for our society, and does it have a place for 'rule of law', or not? What is your plan, sir, when the 'little people' get fed up?'--or have you thought of that?"
Ah, Mac... you should probly call Hillary or one of her cronies. They're more interested in meddling in 'the peoples' lives' than are conservatives. Either way, this would be a good time to support 2nd Amendment rights.
I've always wondered why Presidents (or Presidential candidates) have 'grand designs' for 'our society', believing the only good design for government is 'less is more'.
So, what do you do when the 'little people get fed up?' Throw the bums out.
Congress... 535 reasons to support term limits, with NO benefits and NO grandfathering tenure.
Send these people home now. The same applies at any local level, there's just too many to count.
That is a good post and spot on about the potential future need for vigilante justice. Is thee anyone that wouldn't like to do a smack down on som injustice. My smack down would go first to the liberal judges, not to conservatives. Not that conservatives don't deserva a few smackdowns. I would like to see the following laws inacted instead of vigilante justice.
1. Every time a liberal judge sets free a pedophile, the pedophile must spend one year of
probation living on the same block as his grandaughter.
2. Every time a liberal judge acquits a rapist, the rapist must spend one year of probation living in a taxpayer funded mother in law suite behind a hedge adjacent to his wife or daughters bedroom.
I don't want to hog the stage so I invite each of you vigilantes to write your own law regards responsibility of the public official that invites tragedy upon his fellow citizen. Please feel free to expand.
I think we should rise up, as a people fueled with the power of righteous anger and indignation, and simply FIRE the entire US Government in Washington---all three branches. We should then seek some reasonably honest, sincere, and hardworking illegal aliens and replace every government official with one of these "undocumented legislators"- We'd offer them a flat salary of 50K per year. Even if they were MODERATELY honest, and spoke SOME English, (preferably without a "twang"), the new sense of accountability would be truly breathtaking. And we'd have the satisfaction of knowing we'd hired "Good, sincere, hard-workin' folks who showed up here lookin' for work, and they're willin' to do the legislatin', the deal-makin', the politickin', and the honest day's work that AMERICANS won't do".....
Looks to me like we'd ALL be winners. Would this make us all anation of "vigilantes?"---I sure hope not---but some of the "guys who lost their jobs" would probably call us that...
I think we'd need a Constitutional amendment to make only illegal aliens eligible to hold national elective office, but it seems pretty certain that it would otherwise assure some significant improvements over the lot we've seen in there recently. I'd bet that the illegal alien Contract with America would look a lot better than the last one did, for instance. At the worst, we'd end up with people who showed up on time, worked hard, and weren't afraid to go back and do things a second time in order to get them right. Hard to argue against that sort of thing...
Hell no. Give me 50k I'll do it. Course don't check my bank account at the end of my term and don't ask me to explain the 5 million that got there. Cattle futures, global crossing early out invests, things like that.
I think we'd need a Constitutional amendment to make only illegal aliens eligible to hold national elective office, but it seems pretty certain that it would otherwise assure some significant improvements over the lot we've seen in there recently. I'd bet that the illegal alien Contract with America would look a lot better than the last one did, for instance. At the worst, we'd end up with people who showed up on time, worked hard, and weren't afraid to go back and do things a second time in order to get them right. Hard to argue against that sort of thing...
saggy, are you only speaking of "illegal" aliens or would you apply it to law abiding legal immigrants as well?
saggy, are you only speaking of "illegal" aliens or would you apply it to law abiding legal immigrants as well?
I think you'd have to ask <macmeal>, as it was he who originated the proposal. I was only commenting on some of the potential positive aspects of it. He did seem to want to focus just on illegal aliens, but I'd refer you to him for any definitive response...
saggy, are you only speaking of "illegal" aliens or would you apply it to law abiding legal immigrants as well?
The original proposal specified "illegals" only---legal immigrants would probably be a lot more "cocky", and a WHOLE lot more expensive. We have a Governor here who's "legal", but he sure ain't cheap.....Also, he kind of talks "funny". He has as much trouble saying "California" as some others have in saying "nuclear"....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
