Donnelly's Office Tells Us To Take A Hike

[Ayatollahgondola]

OK, I see the problem that's causing our differences. I do not consider Jeff Schwilk a leader per se. I'm glad he stands up for our causes, but that doesn't mean I think he sets the standard(s) for our movement.

I don't wish to debate the comparison between the Vietnam war and immigration, as it isn't the real subject anyway

[Cole Younger]

Originally Posted by Ayatollahgondola

OK, I see the problem that's causing our differences. I do not consider Jeff Schwilk a leader per se. I'm glad he stands up for our causes, but that doesn't mean I think he sets the standard(s) for our movement.

I don't wish to debate the comparison between the Vietnam war and immigration, as it isn't the real subject anyway

I do not consider Jeff Schwilk a leader

Nor should anyone.

There is a genome missing in the followers of this movement. The genome missing is the inability of the followers to question or challenge the people who are self appointed leaders....The fear of being labeled this or that or.....be kicked out of the movement entirely is so great that it has muted common sense....

The followers are so blind to this it is beyond funny as the self appointed leaders have to use divide and conquer tactics to stay in a leadership roles. It should be the responsibility of everyone in this movement, if they truly care about it, to question the leadership. This is not a military operations all though the way these idiots act, they think it is.

This is a political / public relations / awareness campaign and until that is understood, the movement will lose. That leads me to my next questions / thoughts...

Gilcrest wants to put 200 former Marines on the border? You have to ask...for what purpose? If...you plan on doing border operations (observe and report), wouldn't it be much wiser from a political / public relations standpoint to put retired people and other volunteers on the border? I have to ask, why former Marines?

I don't see the political or public relations benefit of this tactic. Marines, former or otherwise (and I am a former Marine), make terrible observe and report personal. Unless Gilcrest is expecting a fire fight, anyone should be able to volunteer for his next project. A decent hunter / outdoors man can easily move into remote areas to observe and report.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Originally Posted by Cole Younger

Nor should anyone.

There is a genome missing in the followers of this movement. The genome missing is the inability of the followers to question or challenge the people who are self appointed leaders....The fear of being labeled this or that or.....be kicked out of the movement entirely is so great that it has muted common sense....

The followers are so blind to this it is beyond funny as the self appointed leaders have to use divide and conquer tactics to stay in a leadership roles. It should be the responsibility of everyone in this movement, if they truly care about it, to question the leadership. This is not a military operations all though the way these idiots act, they think it is.

This is a political / public relations / awareness campaign and until that is understood, the movement will lose. That leads me to my next questions / thoughts...

Gilcrest wants to put 200 former Marines on the border? You have to ask...for what purpose? If...you plan on doing border operations (observe and report), wouldn't it be much wiser from a political / public relations standpoint to put retired people and other volunteers on the border? I have to ask, why former Marines?

I don't see the political or public relations benefit of this tactic. Marines, former or otherwise (and I am a former Marine), make terrible observe and report personal. Unless Gilcrest is expecting a fire fight, anyone should be able to volunteer for his next project. A decent hunter / outdoors man can easily move into remote areas to observe and report.

Well, if you please; I'd rather the Gilchrist question be brought up in the radio show thread, or starting one up in a different section of the forum.

And I share most of your views on the leadership issue. But that's why those of us who are still here, are still here.

[Twoller]

Perhaps the anti-illegal immigration movement has confused itself with the border patrol movement. They are not the same thing. Where we have seen private citizens going out to our borders, there are entirely different issues involved. Sometimes there are property issues and somebody has to be in charge of volunteers who show up for these kind of things. They are not anything like showing up for demonstrations. Different kinds of leadership are required.

A similar kind of distinction has to be made between activists in border cities and the rest of us who are only confronting illegal settlements on the interior.

Just making the distinctions between different kinds of activists might do a lot to remove a lot of abrasion between them.

For example I am a very strict illegal immigrants issue oriented voter. The way that a candidate stands on the issue of illegal immigration determines whether they get my vote or not. I do not care to fool around with other issues on the premise they are at the root of illegal immigration. As far as I am concerned the issue starts and ends with illegal immigration and the fact that illegal immigration is an immigration issue is as broad as I care to take it. I might go as far as being concerned with national security and illegal immigration is an international issue, obviously. This is where SOS attracts my attention and for no other reason.