That’s what this is being called?
6 Likes
Clearly not 1’st amendment
6 Likes
Nope not 1st amendment. Should be dead right there. DRT
4 Likes
Any governor that lets that go on needs shot right along with the protestors. better yet just nuke the place.
6 Likes
When Newsom whined about the President “calling for the arrest of a sitting governor,” I couldn’t hold it in. Oh, you are so special, huh? What were you talking about doing to Trump?
5 Likes
Doing to America, these “protests” are insurrection against America and for lawlessness.
Owen on the Warroom had a brilliant POV suggesting if you look at the BS it doesn’t make sense, until you figure the timing of the “Big Beautiful Bill”
These (achem) protests create a viable need to enforce immigration laws, forcing lawmakers to vote for it, at which point the AI bill will pass, the new AI legislation could then put forth “any computational process derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, or artificial intelligence that issues a simplified output” that no state could challenge, i’e’ any AUTOMATED DECISION SYSTEM becomes AI
3 Likes
Yet they burn the US flag and are hoisting high flags from south america and Mexico
They should all be jailed
5 Likes
Most likely they should but not for anything to do with a flag. We don’t worship idols here and we don’t demand others respect our religion. If you didn’t physically harm someone you should be left alone or in this case ignored, feeling are not cause to call for government action, especially knowing this is the same incompetent government that got us here.
I kind of feel sorry for all the pawns being placed on the board right now, not going to be good for anyone but the leadership class, they’ll sacrifice all the pawns without a second thought.
4 Likes
It is not a protest that in obstruction and riot . I dont know if it rises to level of insurrection as no government is being overthrown but it isnt peaceful.
4 Likes
We’re speaking of “sanctuary” cities that defy federal law on immigration, that’s not enough to define insurrection of the US?
Their demands are get ICE out to restore peace and order, ICE policies immigration, it’s extortion, no peace without illegal immigrants, i’e’, no peace without breaking the US law, i’e’ overthrowing the government by force.
3 Likes
Nothing says free speech like the looting after the protest
4 Likes
Free enterprise 
5 Likes
In Jewish traditional law, the attempted seizure of landed property by bandits is one of the factors which obligates us to set aside the Sabbath and go to war. I completely support the official use of force to reclaim and secure the territory.
Violent attacks by foreign nationals illegally in the United States to seize state and federal property is clearly war to me. For a US citizen to give them aid and succor is an act of treason, rebellion and sedition.
When the Indians did the same thing to us, this is what the militia existed for. Really, the law should explicitly protect militia who fend off such invasions. I don’t see how it is in our national interest to have potential murder charges hanging over militiamen, let alone police, national guardsmen, and the USMC, in this situation.
5 Likes
Thoughts on the riots in California, and protests in general.
After reading a number of factual articles from NR, and less than factual reporting from legacy news sources plus the overwhelming coverage of the riots themselves, the murk clears.
-Donald J Trump does have the legal authority to impose order as federal property, laws and operations are being threatened and impeded.
-Troops are only safegaurding federal properties, not actively assisting ICE or California law enforcement.
-ICE does have full authority to conduct raids, and federal laws passed by democratically elected presidents and congress apply to all states, no opting out if you want to call yourself a ’ sanctuary ’ city or state.
- california politicians are extremely beholden to SEIU, the union which basically engages in illegal smuggling for profit.
- Bass and Newsom and other democrats are on the wrong end of the legal stick and clearly govern by not governing, while they depend on federated troops to protect vital assets while bleating about Trump.
- these are not mere protests, rather are coordinated and targeted events coordinated by dedicated organizers who are funded by democratic dark pacts funded by the secretive dem billionaires, the ones no one talks about, especially by the dems themselves.
Look at our Mastodon friends passing info on locations, dates and times.
A last thought.
While this will be controlled, the funders and organizers and unseen puppetmasters are testing systems to create anarchy, distribution of resources, signs, movement of agitators, fomenting disinformation and unrest. These people and their organizations need to be nipped now, while information is fresh. This is just a feint, testing the resources and response of the government and trump.
4 Likes
National Review. It costs a dollar a week (I think ) anyway, very little, and is one of the most objective sources for fact based news available.
5 Likes
On SEIU, the union signs up everyone, illegal or otherwise, so bringing in an illegal is encouraged. Businesses are prohibited from asking about an employees or applicants citizenship status, and are required to give an advance notice of a citizenship inspection. Failure to do so is a 25,000.00 fine for each infraction.
5 Likes
Playing devil’s advocate for a moment:
The left objects to Trump’s federalization of the California National Guard, on the grounds that the law says
Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States
Ostensibly, the law was written that way to limit the ability of a rogue president from taking control of the state’s military without the governor’s approval.
But as a Constitutionalist:
However, what if the governor himself is rebelling against the constitutional authority of the federal government? Then it makes no sense for the orders to be dependent on the governor’s approval.
Now, California might argue that rather than “usurping command” of the CA National Guard, the President has the legal authority to use other troops instead, such as the Marines. However, such troops would be less merciful than the state National Guard. For the most peaceful resumption of order, it is preferable to use state troops rather than federal troops.
Moreover, the President might also argue that the orders become lawful orders as soon as they are signed. It doesn’t matter who serves the order; they have independent force. As soon as the subject of the order becomes aware of the order, he is legally bound by it, regardless how he found out about it.
In general nobody has the authority to override an order of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and of the Militia of the several states (the President).
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
~ The Constitution, Article II, section 2
If such an unusual and major concept as allowing the governor to override the President was the intent of Congress, they should have made that power clear.
Rather, issuance through the governor is a mere courtesy, and helps to certify that the orders came from the President. However, if the governor rebels, it would be ludicrous to require the President to seek the governor’s approval.
6 Likes