I find it very curious that we have not learned the identity of the female victim. There were claims of a doe eyed young woman on some forums but nothing confirmed from mainstream media. Wouldn’t that be important? To know his target and to honor her memory.
I wonder if this is the “Coulter Rule” in reverse, holding that the longer the time the victim’s identity is not shared implies her identity would be very alarming to authorities and their narrative. If it is indeed a young woman starting her career in the big city, then it would spark great anger and fear. If it’s a homeless woman, then there would be less identification with the victim from the voting public.
Perhaps she was homeless and the authorities can’t figure out who she was. That’s likely the answer but it does seem to be a pattern of the mainstream media just keeping things vague and not identifying victims (such as the “car attack” on the Christmas village in Germany rather than identifying it immediately as terrorist attack by an Arab given asylum even despite warnings from Saudi Arabia about his criminal tendencies and threats).
My senior year in college at The University of Arizona (1996), I took a class on the history of the US-Mexico border. The professor, a Mexican national, said something I've never forgotten. He said that the Mexican government had a LONG track record since the Revolution (1910s) of using the United States as a pressure relief valve to avoid a repeat of the Revolution of 1910. He said that it was the intentional policy of PRI (the then-dominant party) to use the US to export people who were either malcontents or strivers in order to keep the country from having a critical mass of discontented people to rebel against the abuses of their corrupt system. He said that, had it not been for this policy, that at a minimum PRI would have been run out (which did eventually happen with Vicente Fox) or there would have been a Revolution.
Now here we are thirty years later, and all of Latin America has learned that lesson.
As an aside, I work with the courts in rural Alabama. My county has 16,000 people in it. We have a serious problem with illegals HERE. Here, in a county that, 25 years ago, had NEVER seen an Hispanic person, let alone an illegal immigrant. The town of Russellville 50 miles to our north is now majority Hispanic.
It isn't just our enforcement but our laws themselves that aren't ready. This can not be handled within the framework of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as reinterpreted by SCOTUS over the years. How to fight TdA is well known; ask Bukele or Duterte. But our racialist legal regime can not handle that even if our population were ready to accept it, which they're not.
I have to be honest, I wouldn't like to live under a regime like that either, but I'd be willing to do it to save the country.
What’s going to happen when Biden does a blanket pardon of all illegals, which is well within his rights? The only thing - I think - that is holding them back is the prospect of losing the next 10 elections.
I think though, that what will happen could end up spurring a constitutional amendment to rescind those pardons. Would it pass? I think it would have a chance.
I don't think Biden would dare. He (or whoever is actually running the country) would foresee that doing so would push enormous numbers of Americans to support giving Trump extra-legal power to ignore and/or void any such pardon.
That's terrifying. I had never considered the possibility. Are you sure he could do that? Some instinct tells me he couldn't, and I guess it's because as closely as I have followed the illegal immigration catastrophe - for thirty years now - I have never heard anyone broach such a thing.
If he could, and did, though, I think you're right about the reaction of the American people. What makes me think that even if he could do it, he wouldn't, is even his knowledge that if he did so, history would revile him as the greatest villain in the American saga.
I find it very curious that we have not learned the identity of the female victim. There were claims of a doe eyed young woman on some forums but nothing confirmed from mainstream media. Wouldn’t that be important? To know his target and to honor her memory.
I wonder if this is the “Coulter Rule” in reverse, holding that the longer the time the victim’s identity is not shared implies her identity would be very alarming to authorities and their narrative. If it is indeed a young woman starting her career in the big city, then it would spark great anger and fear. If it’s a homeless woman, then there would be less identification with the victim from the voting public.
Perhaps she was homeless and the authorities can’t figure out who she was. That’s likely the answer but it does seem to be a pattern of the mainstream media just keeping things vague and not identifying victims (such as the “car attack” on the Christmas village in Germany rather than identifying it immediately as terrorist attack by an Arab given asylum even despite warnings from Saudi Arabia about his criminal tendencies and threats).
My senior year in college at The University of Arizona (1996), I took a class on the history of the US-Mexico border. The professor, a Mexican national, said something I've never forgotten. He said that the Mexican government had a LONG track record since the Revolution (1910s) of using the United States as a pressure relief valve to avoid a repeat of the Revolution of 1910. He said that it was the intentional policy of PRI (the then-dominant party) to use the US to export people who were either malcontents or strivers in order to keep the country from having a critical mass of discontented people to rebel against the abuses of their corrupt system. He said that, had it not been for this policy, that at a minimum PRI would have been run out (which did eventually happen with Vicente Fox) or there would have been a Revolution.
Now here we are thirty years later, and all of Latin America has learned that lesson.
As an aside, I work with the courts in rural Alabama. My county has 16,000 people in it. We have a serious problem with illegals HERE. Here, in a county that, 25 years ago, had NEVER seen an Hispanic person, let alone an illegal immigrant. The town of Russellville 50 miles to our north is now majority Hispanic.
Here. In rural Alabama.
“Our law enforcement people are not ready”
It isn't just our enforcement but our laws themselves that aren't ready. This can not be handled within the framework of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as reinterpreted by SCOTUS over the years. How to fight TdA is well known; ask Bukele or Duterte. But our racialist legal regime can not handle that even if our population were ready to accept it, which they're not.
I have to be honest, I wouldn't like to live under a regime like that either, but I'd be willing to do it to save the country.
Merry Christmas, Max.
The Civil Rights regime is like a parallel legal system. It exists stop civilization from maintaining itself.
Merry Christmas to you also.
What’s going to happen when Biden does a blanket pardon of all illegals, which is well within his rights? The only thing - I think - that is holding them back is the prospect of losing the next 10 elections.
I think though, that what will happen could end up spurring a constitutional amendment to rescind those pardons. Would it pass? I think it would have a chance.
I don't think Biden would dare. He (or whoever is actually running the country) would foresee that doing so would push enormous numbers of Americans to support giving Trump extra-legal power to ignore and/or void any such pardon.
This is not something you need to worry about. He can pardon them for entry into the United States but their continued presence is an ongoing crime.
That's terrifying. I had never considered the possibility. Are you sure he could do that? Some instinct tells me he couldn't, and I guess it's because as closely as I have followed the illegal immigration catastrophe - for thirty years now - I have never heard anyone broach such a thing.
If he could, and did, though, I think you're right about the reaction of the American people. What makes me think that even if he could do it, he wouldn't, is even his knowledge that if he did so, history would revile him as the greatest villain in the American saga.