Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

One Reporter's Opinion: Citizen Militia on the Border (George Putnam)
NewsMax.com ^ | 12/13/2002 | George Putnam

Posted on 12/13/2002 3:34:09 PM PST by SteveH

(Reprinted from NewsMax.com)

One Reporter's Opinion: Citizen Militia on the Border

George Putnam

Friday, Dec. 13, 2002

It is this reporter's opinion that I found it the height of hypocrisy when I read the headline "U.S. Plans to Seal Afghans' Porous Border." The plan is to slow the flow of illegals, illicit drugs, terrorists and contraband into and out of Afghanistan. The United States will finance the construction and maintenance of 177 checkpoints, staffed by 12,000 border police in that far-off land.

The cost is staggering – each checkpoint and its facilities to cost an average of $300,000. It is to include offices, sleeping quarters and, in some cases, clinics – this staggering expenditure to guarantee the sovereignty of Afghanistan.

Contrast this with the fact that our country cannot and will not control the flow of illegal aliens across our own porous borders – 15 million illegals that have poured into the United States, violating our sovereignty!

Where our government has failed us, several groups of patriotic citizens are taking up arms along the Arizona border with Mexico. One of these is Chris Simcox, a teacher-turned-newspaper-owner, who has formed the Tombstone, Ariz., militia called Civil Homeland Defense.

Chris says:

We will no longer tolerate the ineptness of our government in dealing with these criminals and drug dealers. It is a monumental disgrace that our government is letting the American people down, turning us into expendable casualties of the war on terrorism.

These armed civilian groups along our borders, providing civil homeland defense, are experiencing constant confrontations with illegals. There have been moments that bordered on extreme violence. It's bound to become more dangerous and, as one observer puts it, somebody is going to get killed.

Simcox, in a moment of frustration, told this reporter:

I defy our president to arrest any of us for doing what the government refuses to do to protect the sovereignty of our beloved country. This land belongs to every citizen; it's OUR land. I challenge my government to come and arrest me. We are not "crazies," we are concerned citizens, we are responsible people.

The groups are growing. There are now more than a dozen known militia organizations – armed civilian groups – on the border. It's time Congress and the president become involved.

Simcox says:

I am trying to force the president of the United States to do his job. He took an oath to protect us from enemies. He has no business sending troops to foreign countries when he has not sealed our own borders.

If we can protect the porous border of Afghanistan, with 177 checkpoints and 12,000 border police, surely we can protect the border of the United States of America.

I invite you to read on:

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/local/12_9_02armed.html

http://www.azstarnet.com/border/21206TOMBSTONEMILITIA.html

http://www.projectusa.org/Ezine/02-07-02-12.html

* * * * * *

The legendary George Putnam is 88 years young and a veteran of 68 years as a reporter, broadcaster and commentator ... and is still going strong. George is part of the all-star line-up of Southern California's KPLS Radio - Hot Talk AM 830.

Click here for George's complete bio

... and check out a new feature article in Insight magazine on George


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: arizona; borderpatrol; bush; illegalimmigration; immigration; ins; militia; simcox; tombstonemilitia

1 posted on 12/13/2002 3:34:09 PM PST by SteveH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SteveH
I wonder how long it will take the government to send the military to fight the militia?
2 posted on 12/13/2002 3:57:48 PM PST by Nephi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madfly
ping
3 posted on 12/13/2002 4:01:16 PM PST by Fish out of Water
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: SteveH
The plan is to slow the flow of illegals, illicit drugs, terrorists and contraband into and out of Afghanistan. The United States will finance the construction and maintenance of 177 checkpoints, staffed by 12,000 border police in that far-off land.

Nice gesture, that.

It nevertheless fails to recognize we probably have more "illegals, illicit drugs. terrorists and contraband" across OUR borders than their. And ours are a helluva lot closer!

5 posted on 12/13/2002 4:14:36 PM PST by Gritty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteveH
This is worth thinking about - that our government is more ready and willing to protect the sovereignty of Afghanistan than the sovereignty of the United States. In my opinion, it clarifies where our president, congress and government stand when it comes to serving our Constitution and the citizens of the U.S.
6 posted on 12/13/2002 4:22:02 PM PST by waxhaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: waxhaw
our government is more ready and willing to protect the sovereignty of Afghanistan than the sovereignty of the United States

That is a sobering thought.,Without a doubt, it's obvious now what the agenda of the Bush administration is.

7 posted on 12/13/2002 4:44:24 PM PST by ActionNewsBill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: waxhaw
When the International Bankers tell the Federal Researve that the milita is a problem, word will be sent to Bush to get rid of milita. The unwritten order to Bush will be to do whatever it takes shutdown milita.
8 posted on 12/13/2002 4:55:25 PM PST by Wilkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Gritty; waxhaw
How about this!

Washington spends Millions on Other-Lands Border Security !

International Information Programs
Washington File

Washington File
06 December 2002

Fact Sheet: U.S. Assistance to Turkmenistan - Fiscal Year 2002

(Nov. 15: State Department Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs)
(700)

The following fact sheet on U.S. assistance to Turkmenistan updates a
fact sheet issued in June 2002:

(begin fact sheet)

U.S. Department of State
Fact Sheet
Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs
Washington, DC

November 15, 2002

U.S. ASSISTANCE TO TURKMENISTAN - FISCAL YEAR 2002

The U.S. Government (USG) has budgeted approximately $218 million to fund assistance programs in Turkmenistan, plus $45 million in surplus Department of Defense and privately donated humanitarian commodities from Fiscal Year 1992 through Fiscal Year 2002.

Snip

Turkmenistan is benefiting from $5 million from the Emergency Response Funds for Export Control and Related Border Security (EXBS) assistance. The EXBS program provides support for the Turkmenistan Border Guards and other border security organizations to ensure interoperability and enhanced control of Turkmenistan's borders. The goal is to prevent the transit of weapons of mass destruction, proliferation-related technology, and other illicit weapons trafficking. In addition the U.S. has allocated $450,000 in International Military Education and Training for FY 2002.

Anti-crime training and technical assistance will build on current counter narcotics efforts and improve detection, interdiction, and enforcement capabilities. Specifically, assistance will support establishment in Turkmenistan of units with enhanced counter-narcotics capabilities.


9 posted on 12/13/2002 6:17:04 PM PST by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth; Spiff; HiJinx; MissAmericanPie; CIBvet; AZHSer; AnnaZ; Mercuria; georgiabelle; ...
ping
10 posted on 12/13/2002 6:17:41 PM PST by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free the USA; Tancredo Fan; Marine Inspector; Ajnin; agitator; Tancred; Spiff; backhoe; ...
ping
11 posted on 12/13/2002 6:19:22 PM PST by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Militiaman7; widowithfoursons; Sungirl; Arpege92; Myrean; SouthernFreebird; Fighter@heart; ao98; ...
ping
12 posted on 12/13/2002 6:20:16 PM PST by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madfly
This is incredible..simply unbelievable..is our nation a commody that those in power exchange for more power? It sure looks that way
13 posted on 12/13/2002 6:25:15 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Nephi
"I wonder how long it will take the government to send the military to fight the militia?"

Indeed. And I wonder how the media will spin it when the hammer eventually does come down.

14 posted on 12/13/2002 6:56:52 PM PST by Paulie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: waxhaw
"This is worth thinking about - that our government is more ready and willing to protect the sovereignty of Afghanistan than the sovereignty of the United States. In my opinion, it clarifies where our president, congress and government stand when it comes to serving our Constitution and the citizens of the U.S."

I couldn't have said it better myself. A classic example was that embarrassing appearance of Congressman Jeff Flake (an appropriate surname as it turns out) on O'Reilly's show last night. When asked why officials in Arizona were asking for federal funds to pay for the incarcertaion, prosecution, medical services, etc., for illegals when these same state and federal politicians are not calling for more to be done to seal the border, Flake proceeded to babble about how the illegals were helping Americans by using other people's Social Security numbers and pumping money into the system. He then rambled on about a "guest worker" program, but refused to take a stand as far as tightening the border. A truly pathetic performance.

With representatives like McVain and this Flake character, it's embarrassing to admit being a Republican in Arizona. Throw in Ed Pastor, incoming Congressman Raul Grijalva Janet Napolitano on the Dims side, and there is little hope for an improvement in the situation down here.


15 posted on 12/13/2002 7:18:11 PM PST by greggery_peccary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: waxhaw
It is beyond inexplicable - I'd have shut all the borders down about 12:00 PM 11 Sept. 2001 - nobody in, or out - nobody, I mean nobody, leaves the country. Not even if you're Osama's kin. Especially if you're Osama's kin.

As far as letting in 10's of thousands of people since 11 Sept 2001 from "areas of concern" as terrorist-producing countries are now euphemistically known, are they insane? Sorry, the Sec. of State is wrong on this one. If this makes me a Xenophobe, so be it, I wear the moniker proudly, then. There is no benefit to allowing an avowed enemy of our culture live in our midst and plot against us on our dime.
16 posted on 12/13/2002 7:25:06 PM PST by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SteveH
Roger that.
17 posted on 12/13/2002 7:54:52 PM PST by Mad_Tom_Rackham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: waxhaw
You're so right.

Perhaps we should contact the Afganistan Embassy and inquire about sponsoring a few thousand families over there in exchange for a few thousand able bodied males ages 18 to 30 to be sent over here to protect our borders.

Past experiences would lead me to believe the ethnic tribes over there don't take kindly to trespassers on their turf.
18 posted on 12/14/2002 4:54:19 AM PST by taxed2death
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SteveH; sweetliberty; rintense; Tancredo Fan
FYI ping (sorry if you've already been pinged):

It is this reporter's opinion that I found it the height of hypocrisy when I read the headline "U.S. Plans to Seal Afghans' Porous Border." The plan is to slow the flow of illegals, illicit drugs, terrorists and contraband into and out of Afghanistan. The United States will finance the construction and maintenance of 177 checkpoints, staffed by 12,000 border police in that far-off land.

* * *

Contrast this with the fact that our country cannot and will not control the flow of illegal aliens across our own porous borders – 15 million illegals that have poured into the United States, violating our sovereignty!

I don't understand our President on this border issue. His, his Administration, and Congress's stand dismays any rationale.

19 posted on 12/14/2002 5:10:25 AM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteveH
Looks like this one could use a good BUMP...

I defy our president to arrest any of us for doing what the government refuses to do to protect the sovereignty of our beloved country. This land belongs to every citizen; it's OUR land. I challenge my government to come and arrest me. We are not "crazies," we are concerned citizens, we are responsible people.

This fella sounds like he understands the concept of a Free Republic...

20 posted on 12/14/2002 8:33:32 AM PST by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nephi
I wonder how long it will take the government to send the military to fight the militia?

These boys better hold their meetings on the church steps after services on Sunday. They better have a reporter tied to their belts. They better keep it squeaky clean. You can bet every third member is an agent or an informer.

21 posted on 12/14/2002 8:49:58 AM PST by MARTIAL MONK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MARTIAL MONK
I set this thread aside this morning 12-14, to read it in depth later. The Bush-bots have not made an appearance it seems(don't want to defend the indefensible), and I am amazed that the thread died. This is evidence of treason, in my book. Ifn Jethro Clinton had ignored the influx of illegals in the midst of terrorism, the replies would be well over 100, maybe closer to 500. Our country is dying, and few care enough about America, they are to busy thinking politics.
22 posted on 12/14/2002 11:56:50 PM PST by jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SteveH
In regards to government support for third-world country border patrol at the expense of domestic border patrol, please see a potential connected event described in

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/806945/posts

The general idea is that multinational corporations may be willing and able, through developed world governments, to put enough investment into third world infrastructure to support exploitation of local natural and labor resources, with a notion of eventually shifting operations away from regulation-burdened locales such as the US to those third world locales (current examples for which include Mexico, China, and Vietnam).

23 posted on 12/15/2002 11:43:57 PM PST by SteveH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #24 Removed by Moderator

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

To: cryofan3; RnMomof7
The degree to which selling corporations act to protect their target market seems to me in large part dictated by the exigencies of the stock market and its attendant short term planning/investment horizon: maybe something on the order of 5 or so years at most, for most normal industries, and more often, a lot less than 5 years. So if current national policy is to reduce the cost of labor at any price (and this seems to be the case via my own unscientific observation), then it is only a matter of time before prices, and demand, follow. The market can't support both low wages *and* high prices of goods sold *indefinitely*, because sooner or later the workers/consumers won't earn enough to be able to buy enough.

The "sooner or later" refers to economic "elasticity", where (for example) housing prices remain artificially high due to fortuitious profit-taking in the stock market being re-invested in real estate (home upgrades, home additions, etc.) and causes a temporary resistance to falling prices in certain segments of the market (for example, housing) due to artificial constraints (for example, the mortage tax breaks built into the income tax structure at the behalf of the banking industry interests).

The disproportionate corporate influence in government is probably behind the disproportional government response to terrorism overall, i.e. the passage of a Homeland Security Act which actually contains ever-widening encroachments on individual civil liberties and Constitutionally guaranteed rights (in an attempt to promote safeguarding of corporate assets and the basic industrial infrastructure needed to support those assets), and which otherwise reads like a Christmas wish list of changes in the law for certain large corporate interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry.

Perhaps the current sweet spot in terms of careers is to be involved somehow in Pacific Rim sales (and even that is not a guarantee). However, sooner or later, the short term corporate idea of profit-taking heaven is, judging from the corporate walk, likely to lead us all towards some virtual location where Bangalore meets Belmont (with all that that implies).

Guys like Simcox putting fingers in the illegal immigration dike are involved in a noble effort but I suspect the decisions made in the corporate boardrooms already have doomed his efforts...

26 posted on 12/16/2002 8:44:45 AM PST by SteveH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jeremiah
Our country is dying, and few care enough about America, they are to busy thinking politics.

This is not a party issue but a class and power one..

27 posted on 12/16/2002 8:54:53 AM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: cryofan3
If they want Mexicans working for Americans on farms as laborers, then these people should be given work documents allowing them to remain at farm A or B or wherever for a limited period of time. The Ranchers must then become responsible for their whereabouts for the entire time period. They should be charged with civil/criminal penalties for avoiding the legal process of getting work papers and for any failure to maintain adequate "control" over their whereabouts. And if thefts/crimes are committed, they must, as well, assume some responsibility for these people. It would make the potential employer want to check Mexicans' criminal backgrounds, etc., prior to hiring. I dare say, they would be more discriminate about who they hire and where these people are. At the end of their work permit, they return to their homes: in Mexico; not be free to wander and "get lost" in America and then commit crimes upon Americans or receive benefits for which they are not entitled.
28 posted on 12/16/2002 11:05:00 AM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: cryofan3
immigration and labor and wages and citizen rights in general.

IMHO, I am not focusing on a small part of the problem. What I'm trying to say is, I recognize that farmers/ranchers want to employ people they can pay with cheaper wages. They are doing this, right now, illegally and with no accountability. People show up who have no working papers. This is encouraging illegals to come into the country, and American employers are not discouraged from this practice because they aren't "getting caught" or "being held accountable." If there is a process where they feel they, the Ranchers/Farmers, are getting want THEY want (cheaper labors/greater profits), they will cooperate with the need to go through proper channels to achieve their goals.

You can't make Americans accept the kind of wages the Ranchers/Farmers want to pay. And if the Ranchers/Farmers have been getting by with lower wages to illegals, they'd rather go that route than pay higher wages to Americans.

But Farmers/Ranchers must be forced to help with this problem: their alternative: no Mexicans to pick their berries, avacados, or whatever.

And if employers are required to keep track of the Mexicans in their employ, and are forced to hire people through the legal process, i.e., only those Mexicans who have proper work papers and who will only get them if they, the Mexican workers, promise to return to their country at the expiration of the work permit, if the employer understands that he/she/it is required to monitor the Mexican workers, at all times while in their employ, then American citizens will less likely be on the receiving end of criminal activity, of hospitals being used for free (but paid by U.S. taxpayers) by illegals, etc. I don't see how that does not fit into the bigger picture.

If everybody is feeling like their getting something out of this "new" situation, they will more likely than not see the benefit to actually complying with the new situation. Citizens are protected, Mexicans have jobs and don't have to hide, employers don't have to fear INS raids and losing trained employees.

30 posted on 12/16/2002 12:10:11 PM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: cryofan3
If the American people present a "plan" to their Representatives/Senators to help with a solution, they "the traitors" to whom you refer, may be forced to go along with it. The alternative is that we have more and more of the citizenry forming into militias along the border....this problem will not go away, IMO, any more by their ignoring this, and they know it...the people are getting, justifiably, angry over this mess. The "traitors" cannot continue to ignore what may end up becoming a mob of Americans at the borders....which I can, eventually, foresee happening. Emotions are escalating now.
31 posted on 12/16/2002 12:18:00 PM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson