Trump is right to clamp down on Portland’s Jacobins

[Michie]

President Donald Trump ordered the National Guard to “war ravaged Portland” last week in a move that has been a long time in coming.

Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities have been besieged for months in the Oregon city with little indication that local authorities will do anything to get control of the situation.

In early September, after a serious anti-ICE riot in which protesters violently clashed with police, Portland Mayor Keith Wilson said that he would do nothing to help the federal government enforce the law and would protect the city’s “sanctuary” status for illegal aliens.

“We will not engage with the federal immigration enforcement that goes on,” Wilson said, according to KOIN 6 News. “That is our sanctuary city goals; that is what the governor’s goals are. So you can rest assured we won’t be engaging with or working with ICE in any circumstances.”

That came after Portland’s city council plotted earlier in the year not to stop the violence but to eject ICE from the city.

It couldn’t be clearer that Portland’s leaders have little interest in getting the rioters under control outside of pressure from the Trump administration.

Now, Oregon Democrats and their legacy media defenders are doing their best to spin a tale that Portland has no problems at all, and this is just the Trump administration being real mean.

Continued below.

Trump Is Right to Clamp Down on Portland's Jacobins

The Trump administration has a duty to step in and put the kibosh on Portland’s Jacobins since city leaders will do nothing.

www.dailysignal.com

 

[RDKirk]

So, what's been going on since September that troops should be sent in now?

I guess people have forgotten what a real riot looks like. And people don't know what "war ravaged" really looks like.

 

[Fervent]

It's strange to me how quickly the party of state's rights lines up behind concentrated federal authority when states do things they don't like.

 

[Yarddog]

President Donald Trump ordered the National Guard to “war ravaged Portland” last week in a move that has been a long time in coming.

Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities have been besieged for months in the Oregon city with little indication that local authorities will do anything to get control of the situation.

In early September, after a serious anti-ICE riot in which protesters violently clashed with police, Portland Mayor Keith Wilson said that he would do nothing to help the federal government enforce the law and would protect the city’s “sanctuary” status for illegal aliens.

“We will not engage with the federal immigration enforcement that goes on,” Wilson said, according to KOIN 6 News. “That is our sanctuary city goals; that is what the governor’s goals are. So you can rest assured we won’t be engaging with or working with ICE in any circumstances.”

That came after Portland’s city council plotted earlier in the year not to stop the violence but to eject ICE from the city.

It couldn’t be clearer that Portland’s leaders have little interest in getting the rioters under control outside of pressure from the Trump administration.

Now, Oregon Democrats and their legacy media defenders are doing their best to spin a tale that Portland has no problems at all, and this is just the Trump administration being real mean.

Continued below.

Trump Is Right to Clamp Down on Portland's Jacobins

The Trump administration has a duty to step in and put the kibosh on Portland’s Jacobins since city leaders will do nothing.

www.dailysignal.com

Trump’s antifa roundtable made some wild claims about Portland. Here’s the truth about 7 of them

Portland was mentioned repeatedly during the roundtable event.

www.oregonlive.com

 

[Tuur]

It's strange to me how quickly the party of state's rights lines up behind concentrated federal authority when states do things they don't like.

Um...Fervent?

In 1861, when about half the US didn't want to be part of the US anymore, they left to form their own country. The cited authority to do so was the 10th Amendment, which states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In other words, state's rights. That's where it comes from, and that was the argument that secession is permitted under the US Constitution. The rest of the US said "It's not," and spent about 300,000 of its side's lives to enforce that point.

The states that went with secession? They were predominately Democrat. The ones who opposed it? Predominately Republican. That's history.

 

[Fervent]

Um...Fervent?

In 1861, when about half the US didn't want to be part of the US anymore, they left to form their own country. The cited authority to do so was the 10th Amendment, which states:



In other words, state's rights. That's where it comes from, and that was the argument that secession is permitted under the US Constitution. The rest of the US said "It's not," and spent about 300,000 of its side's lives to enforce that point.

The states that went with secession? They were predominately Democrat. The ones who opposed it? Predominately Republican. That's history.

You do realize most of those southern democrats became republicans under Nixon's southern strategy, do you not? Republicans are no longer the party of the urban interests pushing progressive ideals, they are the party of "individual liberty" and de-centralized authority. At least they were, when they stood by their ideals.

 

[RDKirk]

You do realize most of those southern democrats became republicans under Nixon's southern strategy, do you not? Republicans are no longer the party of the urban interests pushing progressive ideals, they are the party of "individual liberty" and de-centralized authority. At least they were, when they stood by their ideals.

Actually, the process took longer than that.

The party flip began with Teddy Roosevelt deliberately pulling progressives out of the Republican Party in 1912 to form the Progressive Party ("Bull Moose" Party). That left the Republican party with just its industrial libertarian faction. For some reason a lot of people overlook that happened, even though it's historical fact.

The split parties (Republican and Progressive) consistently lost against the conservative Democratic Party in national elections over the next couple of decades.

By the end of the Great Depression, progressives (notably Teddy's distant cousin Franklin) had infiltrated the Democratic Party in the North. The industrialists in the Republican Party continued with mostly libertarian policies. Because the American public will flip leadership arbitrarily from time to time, they got Eisenhower into office (but it should be noted that Eisenhower's economic platform would be considered solidly liberal today). The nation did its arbitrary flip again putting Kennedy into office (ironically, because the Republicans appeared weak on defense). Eisenhower's administration deserves a lot more study than it gets...some aspects are quite remarkable. Ike was not a party wonk.

Barry Goldwater became the Republican Party leader after Eisenhower, and he was determined to be tougher on defense. Part of that stance was the Republican industrialist pressure to leap all the way into the Military-Industrial Complex that Eisenhower pushed against.

Goldwater himself is another person who deserves a lot more study. Goldwater was firmly libertarian, but he himself was not a segregationist. He had desegregated his own family business. He had voted for both of the 1950s Civil Rights Act. He had been a vigorous leader in de-segregating the federal government in the 50s.

Goldwater was firmly libertarian, so he drew the line against the proposed 1960s Civil Rights Act because it dictated from the federal level how private businesses must operate. He was just as opposed to Southern laws that required segregation, but he wanted more to win the 1964 election.

Republicans opposed the Civil Rights Act on libertarian grounds. Southern Democrat segregationists (the Dixiecrats) also opposed the Civil Rights Act on racist grounds. The Republican's first "Southern Strategy" began with Goldwater as he got into bed with the segregationist southern Democrats.

Now in bed with the Dixiecrats, the Republican Party continued accommodate them. Nixon's "Southern Strategy" was just a continuation of what Goldwater started. However--and this is a twist to be noted--the Dixiecrats of that time were only one step removed from the Democrats of the Civil War. Many of them personally knew their grandfathers who were Confederate soldiers. Even though they supported Republican policies at the ballot box, most of them would rather die than actually register into the "Party of Lincoln."

The party flip was completed during the Reagan and Bush Administrations as the old Dixiecrats literally died off and their children registered as Republicans.

 

[Fervent]

Actually, the process took longer than that.

The party flip began with Teddy Roosevelt deliberately pulling progressives out of the Republican Party in 1912 to form the Progressive Party ("Bull Moose" Party). That left the Republican party with just its industrial libertarian faction. For some reason a lot of people overlook that happened, even though it's historical fact.

The split parties (Republican and Progressive) consistently lost against the conservative Democratic Party in national elections over the next couple of decades.

By the end of the Great Depression, progressives (notably Teddy's distant cousin Franklin) had infiltrated the Democratic Party in the North. The industrialists in the Republican Party continued with mostly libertarian policies. Because the American public will flip leadership arbitrarily from time to time, they got Eisenhower into office (but it should be noted that Eisenhower's economic platform would be considered solidly liberal today). The nation did its arbitrary flip again putting Kennedy into office (ironically, because the Republicans appeared weak on defense). Eisenhower's administration deserves a lot more study than it gets...some aspects are quite remarkable. Ike was not a party wonk.

Barry Goldwater became the Republican Party leader after Eisenhower, and he was determined to be tougher on defense. Part of that stance was the Republican industrialist pressure to leap all the way into the Military-Industrial Complex that Eisenhower pushed against.

Goldwater himself is another person who deserves a lot more study. Goldwater was firmly libertarian, but he himself was not a segregationist. He had desegregated his own family business. He had voted for both of the 1950s Civil Rights Act. He had been a vigorous leader in de-segregating the federal government in the 50s.

Goldwater was firmly libertarian, so he drew the line against the proposed 1960s Civil Rights Act because it dictated from the federal level how private businesses must operate. He was just as opposed to Southern laws that required segregation, but he wanted more to win the 1964 election.

Republicans opposed the Civil Rights Act on libertarian grounds. Southern Democrat segregationists (the Dixiecrats) also opposed the Civil Rights Act on racist grounds. The Republican's first "Southern Strategy" began with Goldwater as he got into bed with the segregationist southern Democrats.

Now in bed with the Dixiecrats, the Republican Party continued accommodate them. Nixon's "Southern Strategy" was just a continuation of what Goldwater started. However--and this is a twist to be noted--the Dixiecrats of that time were only one step removed from the Democrats of the Civil War. Many of them personally knew their grandfathers who were Confederate soldiers. Even though they supported Republican policies at the ballot box, most of them would rather die than actually register into the "Party of Lincoln."

The party flip was completed during the Reagan and Bush Administrations as the old Dixiecrats literally died off and their children registered as Republicans.

Yeah, there's more to the party dynamics and we also can't dismiss the "Silent Majority" movement of the Reagan and Bush years even in getting us to the point where an authoritarian figure like Trump has come to be the party representative. It's almost ironic given the full heritage of the Repbulican party if we include the displacement of the (Jeffersonian) Democratic party and the Whigs that they are in the position they're in.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

I am not a legal expert, I will defer to the Supreme Court to determine whether it is constitutional for the National Guard or Marines to suppress protestors and address violence on the streets of America.

Even if the Supreme Court determines that it is constitutional for the President to deploy the National Guard when local governments hesitate to address unrest in a U.S. city, Americans should carefully evaluate whether granting such authority to the federal executive branch aligns with our democratic principles. More significantly, we must consider whether we wish to see America become a nation where armed soldiers are empowered to confront and detain citizens, as occurs in countries like Iran or Pakistan or China where the executive branch uses military force to suppress instability.

 

[RDKirk]

I am not a legal expert, I will defer to the Supreme Court to determine whether it is constitutional for the National Guard or Marines to suppress protestors and address violence on the streets of America.

Even if the Supreme Court determines that it is constitutional for the President to deploy the National Guard when local governments hesitate to address unrest in a U.S. city, Americans should carefully evaluate whether granting such authority to the federal executive branch aligns with our democratic principles. More significantly, we must consider whether we wish to see America become a nation where armed soldiers are empowered to confront and detain citizens, as occurs in countries like Iran or Pakistan or China where the executive branch uses military force to suppress instability.

The reality on the ground is that the federalized National Guard is not necessary to be deployed into these cities (the situation with DC is a bit different because it's the federal district). This foo-foo about "war ravaged cities" is just absurd propaganda. Anyone who remembers the real situations in the past that called for deployment of the National Guard would know that. They wouldn't have to flog visuals from months ago, they would have streets aflame today if National Guard deployment was necessary today.

The Administration is pushing for a "just in case" permanent deployment of the National Guard into blue cities, and that is a critical problem. It's not at all clear this Supreme Court would not prevent it. But the real question would be just in case of what, exactly?

That's the question the military leadership is asking itself right now.

 

[Tuur]

You do realize most of those southern democrats became republicans under Nixon's southern strategy, do you not? Republicans are no longer the party of the urban interests pushing progressive ideals, they are the party of "individual liberty" and de-centralized authority. At least they were, when they stood by their ideals.

I was there. Anyone who was remembers LBJ bowing out, George Wallace running and taking most of the South, and Humphrey taking Texas. If you check, you'll find Nixon took most of the states. I look forward to an analysis of how the "Southern strategy" won the state of Wisconsin.

In 1972, the biggest thing to help Nixon was McGovern, which made the whole Watergate thing ironic. The Nixon win that year was a true landside. Guess it was the "Southern strategy that won New York State for Nixon - New York State went for Humphry in 1968.

McGovern did much to crack the Democrat hold. Reagan widened the cracks further. By the time George H.W. Bush ran for a second term, some were trying to start an alternate party (not Perot - another effort) rather than vote Republican.

Of course, not much is said out that, or of Bryd remaining a Democrat, or the lesser known Lester Maddox, or the even lesser-known-than-he J.B. Stoner. I personally heard Stoner TV ads that used the "N" word.

Now we come to the point where this eyewitness to such will be told he is wrong, that what he saw didn't happen;.

 

[Fervent]

I was there. Anyone who was remembers LBJ bowing out, George Wallace running and taking most of the South, and Humphrey taking Texas. If you check, you'll find Nixon took most of the states. I look forward to an analysis of how the "Southern strategy" won the state of Wisconsin.

In 1972, the biggest thing to help Nixon was McGovern, which made the whole Watergate thing ironic. The Nixon win that year was a true landside. Guess it was the "Southern strategy that won New York State for Nixon - New York State went for Humphry in 1968.

McGovern did much to crack the Democrat hold. Reagan widened the cracks further. By the time George H.W. Bush ran for a second term, some were trying to start an alternate party (not Perot - another effort) rather than vote Republican.

Of course, not much is said out that, or of Bryd remaining a Democrat, or the lesser known Lester Maddox, or the even lesser-known-than-he J.B. Stoner. I personally heard Stoner TV ads that used the "N" word.

Now we come to the point where this eyewitness to such will be told he is wrong, that what he saw didn't happen;.

Just because states that weren't southern states went to Nixon doesn't negate that he targeted southern democrats nor that there was a mass party switch where the southern democrats by and large began voting republican, and that one of the key planks in the Republican platform has historically been state's rights and limited federal government.

 

[RDKirk]

Just because states that weren't southern states went to Nixon doesn't negate that he targeted southern democrats nor that there was a mass party switch where the southern democrats by and large began voting republican, and that one of the key planks in the Republican platform has historically been state's rights and limited federal government.

Limited federal government had been a key Republican plank since Teddy Roosevelt pulled the progressives out of the party. That had been one of the divisive issues between the progressive moralists and the libertarian industrialists of the party over issues like labor rights and conservationism.

 

[bèlla]

The incidents involving ICE are no comparison to what we witnessed a few years ago during the George Floyd protests. If you had a similar level of unrest in your area you’d be glued to the news and police scanner and wishing for the National Guard. We had 250k protestors at the No Kings march and over a million for Floyd which exacerbated the problem.

The city hasn’t enacted any of the measures we saw in that period. No curfew, or bridges raised, no barring of exits on the expressway for shopping districts, or suspension of buses and trains downtown. We haven‘t witnessed the violence, unrest or property damage we saw at that time.

~bella