No pictures from me this time. As I was on the bus heading down to Chicago's Grant Park, I got an alert that ICE goons were in my neighborhood. Headed back to keep watch at a busy intersection and to share some No Trespassing signs with a local business.
Rounding up and transporting American citizens and legal residents, and sorting out their status hours afterwards violates our most basic laws, so you can be sure that I was happy to be around to do my part in seeing that the laws are enforced.
Chris. Try to look at this in the big picture. As strong as this country may be....everyone suffers with an open border and then the ramifications of and 25 to 30 million illegalstrying to make their way.
If that doesn't make sense to you. Here's an easier way to look at it. The Biden administration used all those desperate people as political pawns. He knew full well they were all going to be sent back They play this stupid little badminton game with everyones lives. And these illegals know exactly what they were getting into.as none have had t
he luxury of sitting around theirsame- minded delusion middle to upper class neighborhoods. With no problem solving skills and absolutely no leadership to be found t
the only ones who don't gethow this works is the educated liberal left in America
Shouldn't you be focused more on tuition forgiveness that bidenpromisedknowing all to well the Supreme Court would shoot it down. Yes. Choosing upper middle-class college graduates professionals would not qualify for loan forgiveness. It's for all or none
Are you beginning to see how this works.
And no Kings has literally not one thing in common with the Tea Party.
Except. That it's Rackets way of trying to attract the crazy libs from Taibbis BernieDanders s old days.
Rock on Racket and we love you Tiabbi. I feel your pain.My husband said we should get matching helmets to wear through out the day
I do not have any idea of what you are talking about. Were they arrested? Were they illegals? Were they in the company of illegals and refusing to show identification? The rest of the story please.
FYI, I was rounded up at a pool room by sheriff's deputies about 65 years ago and had to show an ID. I was hauled to the county hospital emergency room for two guys (who looked like they had been hit by a freight train) to see if they identified me as their attacker. They had said it was one of those Stinespring boys. I was 5'-10" and weighed about 140 and had been playing snooker with a local surgeon for several hours. They said it wasn't me that did it. Sometimes associations raise suspicions that have to be checked out.
ICE was prowling my neighborhood to pick up people who didn't look right. And you were asking if they were involved in violent protests or interfering with law enforcement, and I asked why would anyone think that was happening where they were patrolling, which is FAR away from Broadview or anything like that.
Are we on the same page now?
I'm sorry (for you and Cameron) that today unfolded peacefully and didn't support the fictitious narrative in your heads that you've put a lot of work into mentally constructing. I can feel your disappointment all the way over here.
It’s pretty funny how a lot of maga righties were hot and bothered about the constitution before the election, but don’t seem to GAF about the erosion of the constitution since the election.
What a bunch of intellectually consistent folk these people are.
I believe there is a legal basis to be argued for all of President Trump's actions.
Regarding 1A, with a few long-standing exceptions, all citizens are free to speak without government interference. Nothing has changed. Non-citizens are prohibited from undermining or interfering with government policies and are subject to deportation for doing so.
Regarding posse comitatus:
From Shpwreckedcrew at The Insurrection Act: Officials In Blue States and Cities Are "Running with Scissors" Expecting Nothing Bad Will Happen From Opposing DHS/ICE.
“When state and local governments interfere, you end up here — 10 U.S.C. Sec. 252:
Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority.
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
“Obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellions against the authority of the United States….”
That is quite a distance short of an “insurrection” against the federal government. What it recognizes is facts on the ground — that state and local authorities are not capable of, or are unwilling to, maintain an environment in their communities where the federal government is able to enforce federal law. That is the extent of the justification required for the President to impose the conditions under which federal law can be enforced. It does not mean taking over policing via the military.
A second statutory provision that sometimes gets more attention is 10 U.S.C. Sec. 253, which reads:
Interference with State and Federal law
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it--
(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
The provision at issue in the current stand-off between the states/cities and the Trump Administration is (2) — the President shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a state, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it … “opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States…”.
The import is that Congress has already considered how a President shall be allowed to respond to UNLAWFUL conduct by state/local officials that interferes with federal law enforcement. There is no exception written into the statutes for “demonstrations” given support — officially or tacitly — by state and local politicians of the opposition party.
The “process” begins AFTER arrest — steps or “unlawful combinations” taken in advance of arrests that interfere with those arrests are obstructing to execution of federal law. It is entirely appropriate for the federal government to arrest state and local officials involved in these efforts.”
Regarding Venezuelan drug runners:
From: Just Security, September 3, 2025. Legal Issues Raised by Lethal U.S. Military Attack in the Caribbean
“War Powers Resolution
When the U.S. president directs certain military actions in the absence of prior congressional authorization, those actions must be reported to Congress under the 1973 War Powers Resolution. Further, when U.S. armed forces are introduced “into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances,” the president must not only report the action to Congress within 48-hours but terminate such military action within 60-days unless Congress votes to authorize it.
The War Powers Resolution does not define what it means for U.S. armed forces to be introduced into hostilities. Nonetheless, the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s report on the Resolution explains:
The word hostilities was substituted for the phrase armed conflict during the subcommittee drafting process because it was considered to be somewhat broader in scope. In addition to a situation in which fighting actually has begun, hostilities also encompasses a state of confrontation in which no shots have been fired but where there is a clear and present danger of armed conflict. “Imminent hostilities” denotes a situation in which there is a clear potential either for such a state of confrontation or for actual armed conflict.
Unsurprisingly, the executive branch has espoused different, narrower interpretations of these terms that are less likely to constrain the president’s ability to use military force without congressional authorization. In the most oft-repeated formulation, the State Department’s Legal Adviser informed Congress in a 1975 letter that its working definition of “hostilities” meant “a situation in which units of the U.S. armed forces are actively engaged in exchanges of fire with opposing units of hostile forces.” “Imminent hostilities” means “a situation in which there is a serious risk from hostile fire to the safety of United States forces.” “
Re: 1A. Colbert discontinuation was a more iffy example perhaps. CBS needed feds to ok a merger, and Colbert is not being renewed next year. Still kinda stinks, but I wouldn’t consider it a smoking gun.
Kimmels reeks to high heaven. FCC chair literally does a mafia style threat. Paramount needs clearance for their own merger. And boom
Instant cancellation. That is total literal overt disregard of 1a. Sure they walked it back, cuz they would’ve had their asses handed to them in court. But retreating after ignoring 1a doesn’t absolve them from having ignored 1a to begin with. And did you object to it?
Trump hasn’t “won” a single case yet, although he’s at least ahead in court in the LA situation. (And the DC case is fine cuz he doesn’t require governor-invitation there. ). What will you say if Trump ultimately loses any of those cases?
Re: Venezuela
Were US forces fired upon? Were they only returning fire? Are you suggesting those alleged drug boats were stupid enough to initiate engagement with the US Navy?
If not, where is the “imminent danger” to US forces? And if there wasn’t any, where is Trump’s authority being derived from?
It’s also been 47 days since the first boat attack. If Trump still can’t secure congressional approval and attacks another boat after Nov 2, then that’s even more overt flouting of his legal constraints.
TV show cancellations are eventually based on financial considerations. I feel pretty certain those two shows will be cancelled and remain cancelled after Trump leaves office. For sure Trump's FCC commissioner should never have opened his mouth. It's not a national issue and only about a million people care about it, one way or another.
If Trump loses the deployment cases in the Supreme Court, I will be surprised but that's the way it sometimes goes when dozens of legal "experts" have dozens of sponsors to finance court challenges to anything. The chief executive has enormous powers to determine what constitutes threats. The Supremes have most often deferred to executive judgment. The Oregon ruling seems extremely stupid in that it could conceivably be construed to prevent the Commander in Chief from mobilizing against enemy forces invading up the Columbia River. Of course, the order would be ignored in that case.
I suppose the drug runners could be intimidated into surrender on the open seas. If they don't, then what? That would require more resources and involve greater risk to our personnel. I also think that a legal argument can be made for the President's action and even if ordered to cease and desist there would be no punishment.
As always, I would just accept the Supreme Court's ruling and just bitch about the ones I don't like. I would not dress up like a clown in black robes to protest in front of the Supreme Court Building.
I agree that Colbert and Kimmel getting cancelled would be perfectly fine as financial decisions. But I’d disagree that NOW it’s still not a national issue and only their viewership would care. I don’t watch them and would not have noticed their cancellation, but I sure know about it now. And I doubt I’m the only one in that category.
Yes, I noticed a hell of a lot more people at this one , than the first one in June. It took longer to do the same route this time than it did last time., lots more signs , lots more old people my age (71) & older than me , lots of families with babies
It needs be said: American conservatism is still based on Enlightenment liberalism. Americans are small-L liberals, and the capitalization matters when talking about Liberals (or Conservatives).
These clowns should have been protesting during the Biden Admin for its racist censorious overreach in so many ways, including insisting that men can enter women's spaces with no voting on it. And how about that Deep State Puppet Kamala Harris put up without a vote?
Just about every Boomer I know is clueless as to the why of Trump's moves to restore some semblance of what the US is supposed to be.
Wow, what a bad analogy. Doesn't work, sorry. The National Guard has been brought in to fight crime. Hochul called them in to NYC well before Trump brought them to D.C. Are they forcing you to do something you don't want to do? Are you angry that you can't burn shit down, throw cement at reporters, and stomp on the heads of concert-goers? Has your right to flash mob stores to steal thousands of dollars of merchandise being taken away?
The National Guard is expressly forbidden from operating in a "crime fighting" capacity by the Posse Comitatus Act.
Conservatives one upon a time understood and supported this.
Answer me this - how many stores were looted today by #NoKings protesters? Or is that just happening in your addled imagination?
For what it's worth, I'm angry that I have goons harassasing and kidnapping good people in my city. (The National Guard still being holed up under a judge's order.)
Why are you asking whether stores were looted during a No Kings Protest? That question reveals a complete incapacity to reason. The No Kings protesters are white BOOMERS.
The BLM protesters were messianic indoctrinated young people.
And thanks to BLM, it became acceptable for a militia of black teenagers to rush into stores and denude them of their merchandise.
The National Guard is called in to restore order. I've seen it many times in my adult life, and don't have a problem with it. I saw them standing in the W. 4th subway on Friday.
Meanwhile, thanks to the mythological assertions that certain people are randomly killed off by police, perps with numerous priors are out running around free to kill people.
The No Kings protest is a bunch of Useful Idiots on parade.
"Are you angry that you can't burn shit down, throw cement at reporters, and stomp on the heads of concert-goers? Has your right to flash mob stores to steal thousands of dollars of merchandise being taken away?"
This is a #NoKings post, not a #BLM post, and I was responding in that context. If you want to have a discussion about what I believe about the BLM folks (esp. local pols like Kim Foxx who made the problem MUCH worse with her prosecution amnesties), we can have that talk. I suspect that we have a lot more common ground there.
It's just interesting that you will cry about ICE enforcing the law in your city, but have nothing to say about the murders, rapes, break-ins, kidnappings, etc. that go on in your city on a daily basis.
No pictures from me this time. As I was on the bus heading down to Chicago's Grant Park, I got an alert that ICE goons were in my neighborhood. Headed back to keep watch at a busy intersection and to share some No Trespassing signs with a local business.
Fortunately, it's been a quiet watch.
Heaven forbid that laws are being enforced.
Rounding up and transporting American citizens and legal residents, and sorting out their status hours afterwards violates our most basic laws, so you can be sure that I was happy to be around to do my part in seeing that the laws are enforced.
Chris. Try to look at this in the big picture. As strong as this country may be....everyone suffers with an open border and then the ramifications of and 25 to 30 million illegalstrying to make their way.
If that doesn't make sense to you. Here's an easier way to look at it. The Biden administration used all those desperate people as political pawns. He knew full well they were all going to be sent back They play this stupid little badminton game with everyones lives. And these illegals know exactly what they were getting into.as none have had t
he luxury of sitting around theirsame- minded delusion middle to upper class neighborhoods. With no problem solving skills and absolutely no leadership to be found t
the only ones who don't gethow this works is the educated liberal left in America
Shouldn't you be focused more on tuition forgiveness that bidenpromisedknowing all to well the Supreme Court would shoot it down. Yes. Choosing upper middle-class college graduates professionals would not qualify for loan forgiveness. It's for all or none
Are you beginning to see how this works.
And no Kings has literally not one thing in common with the Tea Party.
Except. That it's Rackets way of trying to attract the crazy libs from Taibbis BernieDanders s old days.
Rock on Racket and we love you Tiabbi. I feel your pain.My husband said we should get matching helmets to wear through out the day
Ma'am. You're commenting on the wrong Racket. This site has NOTHING to do with Matt Taibbi.
I think you meant to land here:
https://www.racket.news/
I hope you have a nice day.
Thank you.
Too bad if they are involved in violent protests or interfering with federal arrests. That's the law.
Who at my local diner were doing either of what you were suggesting?
I do not have any idea of what you are talking about. Were they arrested? Were they illegals? Were they in the company of illegals and refusing to show identification? The rest of the story please.
FYI, I was rounded up at a pool room by sheriff's deputies about 65 years ago and had to show an ID. I was hauled to the county hospital emergency room for two guys (who looked like they had been hit by a freight train) to see if they identified me as their attacker. They had said it was one of those Stinespring boys. I was 5'-10" and weighed about 140 and had been playing snooker with a local surgeon for several hours. They said it wasn't me that did it. Sometimes associations raise suspicions that have to be checked out.
ICE was prowling my neighborhood to pick up people who didn't look right. And you were asking if they were involved in violent protests or interfering with law enforcement, and I asked why would anyone think that was happening where they were patrolling, which is FAR away from Broadview or anything like that.
Are we on the same page now?
I'm sorry (for you and Cameron) that today unfolded peacefully and didn't support the fictitious narrative in your heads that you've put a lot of work into mentally constructing. I can feel your disappointment all the way over here.
It’s pretty funny how a lot of maga righties were hot and bothered about the constitution before the election, but don’t seem to GAF about the erosion of the constitution since the election.
What a bunch of intellectually consistent folk these people are.
What erosion?
1A.
Posse comitatus (indirectly insofar as separation of powers).
Whatever is happening against Venezuela recently.
I believe there is a legal basis to be argued for all of President Trump's actions.
Regarding 1A, with a few long-standing exceptions, all citizens are free to speak without government interference. Nothing has changed. Non-citizens are prohibited from undermining or interfering with government policies and are subject to deportation for doing so.
Regarding posse comitatus:
From Shpwreckedcrew at The Insurrection Act: Officials In Blue States and Cities Are "Running with Scissors" Expecting Nothing Bad Will Happen From Opposing DHS/ICE.
“When state and local governments interfere, you end up here — 10 U.S.C. Sec. 252:
Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority.
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
“Obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellions against the authority of the United States….”
That is quite a distance short of an “insurrection” against the federal government. What it recognizes is facts on the ground — that state and local authorities are not capable of, or are unwilling to, maintain an environment in their communities where the federal government is able to enforce federal law. That is the extent of the justification required for the President to impose the conditions under which federal law can be enforced. It does not mean taking over policing via the military.
A second statutory provision that sometimes gets more attention is 10 U.S.C. Sec. 253, which reads:
Interference with State and Federal law
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it--
(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
The provision at issue in the current stand-off between the states/cities and the Trump Administration is (2) — the President shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a state, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it … “opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States…”.
The import is that Congress has already considered how a President shall be allowed to respond to UNLAWFUL conduct by state/local officials that interferes with federal law enforcement. There is no exception written into the statutes for “demonstrations” given support — officially or tacitly — by state and local politicians of the opposition party.
The “process” begins AFTER arrest — steps or “unlawful combinations” taken in advance of arrests that interfere with those arrests are obstructing to execution of federal law. It is entirely appropriate for the federal government to arrest state and local officials involved in these efforts.”
Regarding Venezuelan drug runners:
From: Just Security, September 3, 2025. Legal Issues Raised by Lethal U.S. Military Attack in the Caribbean
“War Powers Resolution
When the U.S. president directs certain military actions in the absence of prior congressional authorization, those actions must be reported to Congress under the 1973 War Powers Resolution. Further, when U.S. armed forces are introduced “into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances,” the president must not only report the action to Congress within 48-hours but terminate such military action within 60-days unless Congress votes to authorize it.
The War Powers Resolution does not define what it means for U.S. armed forces to be introduced into hostilities. Nonetheless, the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s report on the Resolution explains:
The word hostilities was substituted for the phrase armed conflict during the subcommittee drafting process because it was considered to be somewhat broader in scope. In addition to a situation in which fighting actually has begun, hostilities also encompasses a state of confrontation in which no shots have been fired but where there is a clear and present danger of armed conflict. “Imminent hostilities” denotes a situation in which there is a clear potential either for such a state of confrontation or for actual armed conflict.
Unsurprisingly, the executive branch has espoused different, narrower interpretations of these terms that are less likely to constrain the president’s ability to use military force without congressional authorization. In the most oft-repeated formulation, the State Department’s Legal Adviser informed Congress in a 1975 letter that its working definition of “hostilities” meant “a situation in which units of the U.S. armed forces are actively engaged in exchanges of fire with opposing units of hostile forces.” “Imminent hostilities” means “a situation in which there is a serious risk from hostile fire to the safety of United States forces.” “
Re: 1A. Colbert discontinuation was a more iffy example perhaps. CBS needed feds to ok a merger, and Colbert is not being renewed next year. Still kinda stinks, but I wouldn’t consider it a smoking gun.
Kimmels reeks to high heaven. FCC chair literally does a mafia style threat. Paramount needs clearance for their own merger. And boom
Instant cancellation. That is total literal overt disregard of 1a. Sure they walked it back, cuz they would’ve had their asses handed to them in court. But retreating after ignoring 1a doesn’t absolve them from having ignored 1a to begin with. And did you object to it?
Re: posse
Can Trump send the National Guard to cities around the US? - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/can-trump-send-national-guard-cities-around-us-2025-10-06/
Trump hasn’t “won” a single case yet, although he’s at least ahead in court in the LA situation. (And the DC case is fine cuz he doesn’t require governor-invitation there. ). What will you say if Trump ultimately loses any of those cases?
Re: Venezuela
Were US forces fired upon? Were they only returning fire? Are you suggesting those alleged drug boats were stupid enough to initiate engagement with the US Navy?
If not, where is the “imminent danger” to US forces? And if there wasn’t any, where is Trump’s authority being derived from?
It’s also been 47 days since the first boat attack. If Trump still can’t secure congressional approval and attacks another boat after Nov 2, then that’s even more overt flouting of his legal constraints.
TV show cancellations are eventually based on financial considerations. I feel pretty certain those two shows will be cancelled and remain cancelled after Trump leaves office. For sure Trump's FCC commissioner should never have opened his mouth. It's not a national issue and only about a million people care about it, one way or another.
If Trump loses the deployment cases in the Supreme Court, I will be surprised but that's the way it sometimes goes when dozens of legal "experts" have dozens of sponsors to finance court challenges to anything. The chief executive has enormous powers to determine what constitutes threats. The Supremes have most often deferred to executive judgment. The Oregon ruling seems extremely stupid in that it could conceivably be construed to prevent the Commander in Chief from mobilizing against enemy forces invading up the Columbia River. Of course, the order would be ignored in that case.
I suppose the drug runners could be intimidated into surrender on the open seas. If they don't, then what? That would require more resources and involve greater risk to our personnel. I also think that a legal argument can be made for the President's action and even if ordered to cease and desist there would be no punishment.
As always, I would just accept the Supreme Court's ruling and just bitch about the ones I don't like. I would not dress up like a clown in black robes to protest in front of the Supreme Court Building.
I agree that Colbert and Kimmel getting cancelled would be perfectly fine as financial decisions. But I’d disagree that NOW it’s still not a national issue and only their viewership would care. I don’t watch them and would not have noticed their cancellation, but I sure know about it now. And I doubt I’m the only one in that category.
Yes, I noticed a hell of a lot more people at this one , than the first one in June. It took longer to do the same route this time than it did last time., lots more signs , lots more old people my age (71) & older than me , lots of families with babies
Thank you!
It needs be said: American conservatism is still based on Enlightenment liberalism. Americans are small-L liberals, and the capitalization matters when talking about Liberals (or Conservatives).
Love the Jerusalem cross outfit! Thanks for grabbing that pic
These clowns should have been protesting during the Biden Admin for its racist censorious overreach in so many ways, including insisting that men can enter women's spaces with no voting on it. And how about that Deep State Puppet Kamala Harris put up without a vote?
Just about every Boomer I know is clueless as to the why of Trump's moves to restore some semblance of what the US is supposed to be.
Basically this is an NPR propaganda wet dream.
It’s possible to oppose abuse and overreach on both sides.
Your opposing abuse and overreach on both sides seems to be missing from most of your posts.
Based on what I'm seeing, the overreach that they're protesting is mythological. But hey, maybe they'll get laid.
That time Biden federalized the Vermont National Guard to force gender neutral bathrooms upon Mississippi was WILD, man.
Wow, what a bad analogy. Doesn't work, sorry. The National Guard has been brought in to fight crime. Hochul called them in to NYC well before Trump brought them to D.C. Are they forcing you to do something you don't want to do? Are you angry that you can't burn shit down, throw cement at reporters, and stomp on the heads of concert-goers? Has your right to flash mob stores to steal thousands of dollars of merchandise being taken away?
The National Guard is expressly forbidden from operating in a "crime fighting" capacity by the Posse Comitatus Act.
Conservatives one upon a time understood and supported this.
Answer me this - how many stores were looted today by #NoKings protesters? Or is that just happening in your addled imagination?
For what it's worth, I'm angry that I have goons harassasing and kidnapping good people in my city. (The National Guard still being holed up under a judge's order.)
Why are you asking whether stores were looted during a No Kings Protest? That question reveals a complete incapacity to reason. The No Kings protesters are white BOOMERS.
The BLM protesters were messianic indoctrinated young people.
And thanks to BLM, it became acceptable for a militia of black teenagers to rush into stores and denude them of their merchandise.
The National Guard is called in to restore order. I've seen it many times in my adult life, and don't have a problem with it. I saw them standing in the W. 4th subway on Friday.
Meanwhile, thanks to the mythological assertions that certain people are randomly killed off by police, perps with numerous priors are out running around free to kill people.
The No Kings protest is a bunch of Useful Idiots on parade.
I was responding to your comment:
"Are you angry that you can't burn shit down, throw cement at reporters, and stomp on the heads of concert-goers? Has your right to flash mob stores to steal thousands of dollars of merchandise being taken away?"
This is a #NoKings post, not a #BLM post, and I was responding in that context. If you want to have a discussion about what I believe about the BLM folks (esp. local pols like Kim Foxx who made the problem MUCH worse with her prosecution amnesties), we can have that talk. I suspect that we have a lot more common ground there.
I seriously doubt that is happening. Are you talking about arrest of illegals?
Are you referencing the goons on the south side, Chris?
Nope - Stephen Miller's goons driving around my northside neighborhood.
Let me know if you need a Cliff's Note to catch you up.
It's just interesting that you will cry about ICE enforcing the law in your city, but have nothing to say about the murders, rapes, break-ins, kidnappings, etc. that go on in your city on a daily basis.
But they can protect Federal LEOs. I have yet to see the Guard imprisoning anyone.
They're not doing anything at the moment, due to the Administration repeatedly beclowning themselves in court.
From what little I've seen locally, "No Kings" seems to mean "retired and moved south from up north and I know more than you yokels".