Jeremy Oliver, a resident of Temecula, California--a town that neighbors Murrieta--told Breitbart Texas that local police officers warned the protesters that "it's going to get ugly."Oliver said, "The feds are pissed that they haven't been able to use this facility. Officers out there warned people that federal agents will be in Murrieta on Monday--they are going to get the next bus through no matter what. Riot gear and shields will be used to push the crowd back."John Henry, a Murrieta resident since 1991, was told the same thing by local officers."We're being told that federal Marshals or ICE will be here in the next few days and that they are bringing riot gear," Henry said. "They're apparently going to be blocking off the street with concrete blockades so that no vehicles can get through. The River County Sheriff's Department showed up last night and brought a huge watch tower that shoots up into the air 35 feet."On Friday, six protesters were arrested in Murrieta. One was apprehended for crossing "the yellow tape that blocked protesters from the Border Patrol station entrance," according to USA Today.Henry expressed frustration at the fact that the illegal immigrants are being "rewarded" for breaking the law--after illegally crossing the border, they receive a slew of taxpayer subsidized benefits like housing, food, education, vocational training, and legal counsel. Most are then released onto U.S. soil.When U.S. citizens break the law, on the other hand, they pay the price. "If any one of us were to roll through a stop sign, we'd be pulled over and ticketed," Henry noted.
Leviathan wants to use their town to accommodate criminals, and it looks like protests against that will result in busted heads.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBattle lines being drawn, reminds me of a song from back in da day we were breaking the law to get our voices heard over forced conscription into an unpopular war many of us viewed as immoral I believe the response from government then was the same as it is today in this matter before us now. Won't you please come to Murietta
ReplyDeleteOr else join the other side?
What was immoral about the attempt to prevent the Communist takeover of South Vietnam?
ReplyDeleteAnd how popular was the Revolution at any given point in the late 1770s / early 1780s?
Ahh, but you are OK with protest if the issue is one you care about. If only for the civilians killed. It was also stupid, just reading an account of it, nothing worked, militarily, then domestically. Reread a short history. I guarantee you will be shaking your head in amazement over one stupid move after another. For over a decade. It was almost as if God really wasn't on our side, for once. For that you might blame rock and roll or some other such peaceful innovation of the 50s.
ReplyDeleteAmerica invaded Vietnam to prevent decolonization after World War II. It was fueled by the messianic Kennan containment policy, NSC 68, a puerile vision of falling dominoes and a Manichaean bipolarity of “Atheistic Communism” v. the “Free World.” America’s Cold War strategy transmogrified 1840s Manifest Destiny from continental subjugation to global imperialism. The demise of Nazism and Japanese militarism gave rise to a new militaristic hegemon whose objective was global domination under the dissembling guise of containment.
ReplyDeleteThe architects of illusion construed Ho Chi Minh as a cog of monolithic communism, and not as a valiant nationalist seeking independence after a millennium of colonization by China and France. There was no just cause. Vietnam was a preemptive war against a nation that sought unsuccessfully to obtain American assistance for independence in 1945. U.S. unilateralism eviscerated international efforts at conflict resolution with its cynical subversion of the comprehensive Geneva Accords (1954). In Iraq, Dr. Hans Blix’s UNMOVIC weapons’ inspections were interrupted as neoconservative militarists rushed to war.
- See more at: http://hnn.us/article/10422#sthash.4hV88rZG.dpuf
The U.S. pursued nation-building in Vietnam with Strategic Hamlets, pacification and Nazi-style assassination Phoenix programs. It forcibly segregated peasants from the Vietcong and coerced them to support a reclusive Diem or a megalomaniacal Ky. Nation-building failed. Guerrilla wars are waged for the hearts and minds of noncombatants: an invader cannot impose democracy on a nation chafing under occupation. The U.S. slaughtered two to three million Vietnamese, was never defeated in battle and lost the war.
ReplyDeleteAs for the popularity of the 18th Century Revolution in America, at any given point, I would guess it wasn't. Many preferred the status quo. Or some idyllic past. That is still true today.
ReplyDeleteYou don't believe that vile horse shit and you know it. There's something really warped about putting pro-Communist lies up just to "be offering another perspective."
ReplyDeleteThe West told North Vietnam at the 1954 Geneva accords to lay off the South and not try to foment insurrection.
This piece of dog vomit you quote is also a fan of Hans Blix. People with such a sick view of the civilization that spawned them are to be pitied.
And of course I'm "okay with protest if it's an issue I care about." I don't select "issues I care about" on a whim. Essential principle is at stake here: Rule of law, national sovereignty and a distinctly American character to our culture.
ReplyDeleteAnd for cryin' out loud, if we'd gotten involved in a Communist-led push for Vietnamese independence circa 1945, what kind of message would that have sent to our allies the French, that we had just rescued from the Nazis?
ReplyDeleteKeep fightin' it. You lost there, you lost in Iraq, a lot of us don't want to follow your ilk's hawkish ways. Look up Operation Rolling Thunder and find what folly our kick ass ways are.
ReplyDeleteHaven't viewed Dinesh D'Souza's latest but tell me Manifest Destiny (our Mission from God) never happened, nor did the genocide, nor did slavery. Even Glenn Beck admits to faults now, including the fucked-up foray into Iraq which you now try to blame your freedom haters for. Sure glad we got Sadaam and retained our freedom(s) stateside because of our brave incursion.
ReplyDeleteBeck is wrong. Iraq was stabilized circa 2008 as a result of the surge and the prospect of a Status of Forces Agreement, which, as we know, never came about.
ReplyDeleteD'Souza's movie is great. Among the edifying moments is a list he scrolls down the screen of black slave owners.
How convenient, Iraq was stabilized at the end of the Bush administration. Can't believe that for a second because it simply was not. It is not. Same shit, different day with Nam and Iraq. You are wrong.
ReplyDeleteNo. There was consensus between Shiites and Sunnis, as well as among the factions within each, that a long-term alliance with the US was in Iraq's interest. Bombings were down. The Iraqi economy was healing.
ReplyDeleteVery fragile situation, always and apparently forever. The public certainly did not think so, Cheney's approval rating was 13% when he left office and we all know he was the architect of this morass (former Def Secy) every bit as f'd up as McNamara, who later admitted his most grievous faults.
ReplyDelete