I read another blog this morning that wondered why ICE keeps going back to LA to “poke the bear”? Because the riots are anarchy. Because they are criminals. Because if you let it go then there is no rule of law.
This same blogger remains outraged over January 6th. I could ask the same question— why not let them riot?
Every single Democrat that sides with the protesters in LA shows they love votes and power more than their country. They hate Trump more than the rule of law.
The fact the protesters are shouting in Spanish and waving foreign flags tells you all you need to know. If Mexico is so great head on back.
10 comments:
Interesting. I’ve been getting some pushback from those who think I’m out of step when I speak out against using military force on U.S. soil against our own citizens. But history—and common sense—say otherwise.
Kent State, 1970. Four students were shot and killed by the National Guard during a protest. But what often gets missed is how we got there.
Ohio Governor James Rhodes, eyeing a Senate seat, called a press conference the day before and declared the student protesters “the worst type of people” in America. He compared them to Nazis, called them a cancer, and said they’d be eradicated. That wasn’t leadership. That was political theater—demonize the opposition, then call in the troops to handle the mess you just inflamed.
The tragedy that followed wasn’t just a failure of judgment—it was a failure of restraint.
And that’s the part we need to talk about today:
The National Guard is trained for combat, not diplomacy.
They aren’t peacekeepers, social workers, or mediators. They are trained to secure, neutralize, and control—not to engage in civil discourse or navigate constitutionally protected protests. Their very presence can escalate tensions, especially when deployed into emotionally charged environments. It’s not their fault—it’s simply not their mission.
Military force in a domestic protest should always be the absolute last resort, not a political opening move.
But here we are again:
A President fans the flames, paints protestors as anarchists and criminals, then sends in federal force to “restore order.”
He’s not trying to calm things—he’s provoking dissent to justify the crackdown.
And this time, right-wing media doesn’t condemn it—they cheer it.
So no, I don’t think I’m out of step.
I think I’m remembering something this country worked hard to learn:
That peaceful protest is not lawlessness, that military crackdowns create more danger, and that democracy depends on restraint, not force.
It’s not me that’s changed.
It’s the political climate that now rewards the overreach that used to end careers.
And I won’t apologize for calling that out.
You may be right about sending in the national guard. I do not agree that efforts to deport criminals should stop to cool things down. In fact, in light of these anarchist uprising enforcement should increase.
Re Kent State. Rioters burned buildings and certainly heightened tensions by throwing rocks at the guardsmen.
There shouldn’t have been any shootings for sure, but they were not innocent protesters either
If it weren't for hate-stirring, violence-inciting, perpetually-aggrieved Democrats, there'd be no Democrats at all.
I’m with you on arresting—and when legally warranted, deporting—criminals who are here illegally. No dispute there.
But here’s where I think we need to slow down and ask some hard questions:
Is that what’s actually happening right now?
Because when you send federal agents into working-class neighborhoods and start sweeping up long-settled families, union members, friends and neighbors, even American citizens for arrest, detention, and/or deportation that’s no longer just about removing violent offenders. That starts to look like political theater wrapped in the language of public safety. And that is the culprit of these protests.
Same goes for the protest response.
If the concern is law and order, why are we treating people expressing dissent as if they’re rioting?
As for Kent State, you’re right—it wasn’t all peaceful. There were broken windows, rocks thrown. But what stands out to this day is that those weren’t armed insurgents. They were young people, some just standing by, and the Guard—trained for war, not negotiation—opened fire on a college campus. Four dead. Nine wounded. And the takeaway wasn’t “Well, there was some bad behavior.” It was:
“This is exactly why we don’t send combat-trained forces to manage civil unrest unless there’s truly no other option.”
That’s the line I think we’re blurring again.
And we should be damn careful before crossing it.
Oh shut up. If you're so worked up 55 years after Kent State, maybe you should invite Neil Young to whine about your state.
Did I strike a nerve Cappy? I doubt that I’d have much influence on Neil Young but I do understand the demand to shut up about history is now the cool thing because it makes us all sad and feel bad.
So let’s talk about what’s going on now.
We’re seeing a troubling pattern: a constant cycle of fear-mongering about “hardened criminals” being sent across borders, linked to wild conspiracies with zero credible proof. Despite crime rates being stable or falling, the narrative insists these cities are being overrun — even throwing in bizarre claims like “they’re eating our pets.”
This isn’t accidental. It’s a deliberate strategy:
Invent or exaggerate threats to stoke fear.
Amplify division by blaming political opponents and local leaders.
Position one leader as the only “savior” who can fix the chaos.
Then, provoke unrest and use that unrest as “proof” the warnings were right.
Gaslight anyone who questions this narrative as “uninformed” or “unpatriotic.”
It’s a political playbook designed to keep people angry, divided, and distracted — often at the expense of truth, community, and real progress.
The hardest hit are those overwhelmed by constant information, those stuck in echo chambers, or those simply trying to make sense of a complex world.
If we want to break the cycle, we have to see the manipulation for what it is — and refuse to be pawns in a game of fear.
anyone here illegally IS a criminal.
OK, wise guy. Here's Neil, right to your front door.
Joe, I hear you, and I think that’s a common belief—but it’s more nuanced than it sounds.
Yes, entering the U.S. without permission can be a civil violation or a misdemeanor depending on how it’s done. But being “here illegally” doesn’t always mean someone committed a criminal act. For example:
Many people here without legal status entered lawfully—on visas or with permits—and later overstayed- which by the way both parties turned a blind eye to for decades, even welcoming and encouraging them to stay for their cheap labor. That’s a civil infraction, not a crime.
Asylum seekers often arrive at legal ports of entry and request protection, as permitted by both U.S. and international law. That process is fully legal—even if their paperwork is still pending.
Others were brought here as children—without any say in the matter. They didn’t choose to break the law.
So while some undocumented individuals may have broken immigration laws, it’s important to note that immigration violations are not the same as criminal ones like theft or assault. And under our Constitution, we don’t label someone a “criminal” until they’ve had due process—a hearing, a ruling, a chance to present their case.
It’s also worth considering: what’s the goal? If we use the label "criminal" to justify deportation, we risk brushing aside people with decades of contributions—parents, workers, neighbors—with no violent history, and no fair chance to tell their story.
So I’m not excusing violations of immigration law—but I am saying we should apply the label “criminal” carefully, honestly, and in a way that reflects what kind of nation we want to be.
Re-enter a 2nd time it’s a felony
Post a Comment