Illegal Immigration Ethics Train Wreck

Unethical Quote of the Month: The Minnesota Star Tribune

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

“Vang’s actions 20 years ago were awful, but so were the violent protests at the U.S. Capitol on Jan.6, 2021, and those folks received Presidential pardons.”

—–The Minnesota Star, cheering on Gov. Tim “Knucklehead” Walz’s sick decision to pardon a serial child rapist in an attempt to foil efforts to deport him.

No one can trust a news source capable of putting such illogical, unethical garbage in print. Defense by non-sequitur! “Sure, he raped a child repeatedly for years, but Jeffrey Dahmer ate people!” There is no basis for comparison between the J-6 rioters, all citizens and jailed, some for a couple of years, for a single act, and a non-citizen who never spent a day in prison despite pleading guilty to multiple child rapes. The Star’s bizarre logic doesn’t even rise to the level of the worst of all rationalizations, Rationalization #22, The Comparative Virtue Excuse, or “There are worse things.” Is the idea that Walz trying to let a child molester stay in his state is good because Trump’s pardon of the rioters wasn’t? What is the Star trying to say? Do the editors even know?

Then the Star’s grand finale is to quote with approval another one of Walz’s idiotic outbursts. “Taking them out with no due process”? Vang received a final order of removal in October 2006! There was due process to spare.

Not for the first time, I find myself wondering how the once great state of Minnesota came to such a precipitous decline in values and common sense. Once represented by the likes of Hubert Humphrey and Eugene McCarthy, it is led by a principle-free, incompetent fool, with an addled newspaper like the Star warping the news to disguise his incompetence. Minnesotans used to be smart, creative, rational. They had standards, they had pride. What happened? Now they are sitting by while their state’s #1 paper applauds their Governor for pardoning a child rapist, and one who made it clear that he doesn’t think raping children is anything to get upset about. Americans are just weirdly prudish about such things!

So the citizens of Minnesota just nod their heads as their governor first pardons the man who rapes little girls and pays them to keep quiet, because Kamala choice’s to be VP wants to foil efforts to remove criminal non-citizens. They keep nodding as that governor describes years of multiple rapes as the rapist’s “worst day” [Vang didn’t think they were bad days at all], and nod some more as the Star calls Walz a hero for trying to inflict a sexual predator on their state permanently.

What is that? Brain damage? Hypnosis? Insanity?

I just don’t understand.

Today’s “Nah, There’s No Mainstream Media Bias!” Note [ADDED: A Special Rebuke To A Banned Commenter]

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

The story is sad but not exactly one that should inspire much sympathy. From the AP report:

“A man running from an encounter with immigration and other federal agents in Florida was struck and killed by a tractor trailer on Tuesday, authorities said….The 28-year-old was among four occupants of a vehicle that stopped in the parking lot of a gas station and convenience store in the St. Augustine area before 7 a.m. During an encounter with agents from ICE and Homeland Security Investigations, the four fled on foot, with one darting across a busy road into the path of the semi…”

Let’s be clear, now: a man was eluding law enforcement officials when he ran across a “busy road” and was hit by a truck. There are exactly two possible parties responsible for that death: the man running across the road, and the truck driver. There is nobody else to blame, and finding the truck driver responsible requires a quite stretch. Here is how the Associated Press characterizes the fatality, however:

“It was the third death in a week involving encounters with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, following shootings in Texas and Maine…It was at least the 10th death involving encounters with immigration agents since President Donald Trump launched his mass deportation campaign last year.”

That is pure deceit and indecent false framing. In cases where an individual dies at the hands of ICE agents, justifiably or not, the conduct of the agents can be fairly considered factors in the deaths. However, an individual who resists arrest and recklessly flees into the grill of a truck has not been killed by ICE, nor is ICE responsible for the death. The dead man would be alive if he obeyed law enforcement, as anyone in this country is obligated to do. He chose to run into traffic; ICE didn’t make him do that.

Never mind, though. You know we’ll be reading diatribes from the open borders fanatics that the dead man had a family, and was a respected member of the community, and he is dead because of Trump’s Gestapo. The Associated Press (and others) enable these advocates for illegal immigration with their deliberate anti-ICE and Trump Deranged spin. Naturally, other agents of pro-illegal immigration propaganda will add this death to the total that we will see repeatedly cited to show how “brutal” the enforcement of our immigration laws are.

Ethics Dunce: Yes, It’s Ana Navarro Again!

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

This is a remarkable exchange for several reasons.

First, Ana Navarro, the long-time fake Republican, token Hispanic, DEI and Trump-Deranged shill who has a regular platform on ABC’s “news show” “The View,” makes a deceitful statement designed to mislead viewers, especially those who have been in a cave for the past two years. “There have been at least five” people killed by ICE she intones, as if the immigration enforcement agents have been going house to house murdering people. Her deception is right out of the playbook of the Left’s “defund the police” lunatics. Law enforcement officers sometimes have to shoot people to protect themselves. They also sometimes kill people who irresponsibly place themselves in harm’s way by interfering with the officers’ lawful execution of their duties, or when lawbreakers resist arrest. These incidents are investigated and sometimes result in discipline or even criminal charges.

Second, CNN’s Abby Philips, who has to be the most dead-faced round-table moderator in the history of television and one of the most incompetent, just sits there like a barnacle, as usual. An ethical moderator would correct Ana’s garbage on the spot, lest the discussion be built on a false foundation.

Finally, listen to Navarro’s babbling when she is caught like a rat in a trap! Caroline Sunshine asks, “Do you know the names as well of Americans who have been killed by illegal immigrants? Do you have that list, too?” [Aside: Sunshine is one of those people who makes me realize that I made a serious wrong turn somewhere in what I laughingly call “my career”: to say her credentials to be a pundit on CNN in such a discussion are paper-thin is to be generous. Sunshine is a former Disney and B-movie starlet who was rapidly advanced through GOP and Trump I press ranks substantially on the basis of her looks.] That was exactly the right question to expose Navarro’s bias and intellectual dishonesty. Navarro’s reply…

Pages: 1 2

Based On THIS Story, I Am Tempted To Take Back Everything Nice That I Wrote Earlier Today About Minnesota…

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

A three-person Minnesota panel including Gov. Tim Walz granted a pardon to prevent an immigrant convicted of sexually abusing a child from being deported.

Or, as PJ Media’s Matt Margolis more colorfully put it, “Imagine being so consumed by hatred for Donald Trump and his immigration agenda that you would hand a full pardon to a man who sexually assaulted a 10-year-old girl for four years, just to keep him from being deported. You do not have to imagine it. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D-Minn.) actually did it.”

This isn’t one of the “good illegal immigrants” the New York Times is always blubbering about. The pardonee, Tou Lue Vang, is a 42-year-old Laotian-born immigrant convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct after a guilty plea. The details of his crime are especially disgusting. Vang pleaded guilty in 2006 to repeatedly sexually abusing a young girl beginning when she was only 10-years-old and continuing for four years, starting in 2002. When police arrested him in 2005, Vang didn’t even deny his crimes, explaining that it was a “cultural thing” to “marry and have sex with girls as young as 12.” Vang also tried to pay his victim to keep her from telling anyone about the abuse.

A cultural thing, is it? Add one more reason to the long, long list of why the the U.S. should not permit immigration from countries that have values and traditions antithetical to American culture. You know, like child rape…

Vang’s plea deal kept him out of prison because woke states like Minnesota don’t believe in criminal penalties, or something. Nice. It cost Tou his legal immigration status, and he received a final order of removal in October 2006—yes, that’s during the Bush Administration. Never mind: Vang stuck around for nearly two decades until Trump’s Minnesota operation focusing on the “worst of the worst” illegals caught up with him last year. Vang applied for a pardon in July 2025, hoping that the crazies in Minnesota would give it to him and, with Walz’s help, they did.

The pardon came from a three-person panel that consisting of Walz, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), and Minnesota Chief Justice Natalie Hudson. Ellison defended his pardon of the pedophile by citing his opposition to President Trump. I think it is fair to diagnose Trump Derangement when public officials loose child rapists on the public to show their disrespect for the President of the United States.

Or am I being too judgmental?

Pages: 1 2

Supreme Court Ethics 2: It’s Not SCOTUS’s Job To Make The Laws Nicer

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

CNN’s summary of yesterday’s SCOTUS ruling that President Trump could fire heads of Executive Branch agencies went like this: “Supreme Court expands Presidential power.” That’s absolutely false. The ruling held that the law blocking Presidents from firing heads of agencies in the Executive Branch was unconstitutional, as many legal scholars have argued for decades, and that the 91-year-old decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the law at the center of the dispute, was wrongly decided and violated the constitutional separation of powers between the three branches of government. The Constitution has always held that the President, not Congress and not the Supreme Court, has the power to manage the Executive Branch. Fans of judicial activism and our “shadow government” by unelected agencies liked to call this the “unitary executive” theory, as if the idea that the President should have control over the his own branch of government is just a theory. It’s not a theory. It’s the law. SCOTUS was not “expanding” Presidential power by affirming it.

The Supreme Court expanded its own power when it green-lighted a Constitutional amendment in the form of an unconstitutional New Deal law.

The news media, your friends, and even some Supreme Court Justices seem to misunderstand the essence of the judicial review thingy, as well as the Constitutional role of the Supreme Court itself. It doesn’t help that some of the Justices on the Court have similar misconceptions. The two immigration decisions hostile to the Left’s open borders agenda handed down yesterday are causing SCOTUS to be condemned when all they have done is rule that the current administration of the law is legal. And the news media—fuggetaboudit.

Notable was the caterwauling over the Supreme Court ruling this week that the openly abused and distorted Temporary Protected Status really and truly is supposed to be “temporary.” Here is Jake Tapper of CNN “objectively” grilling DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin over deportations of Haitians with that “temporary protected status”:

Tapper: “Will you be deporting all of them?Will they be all deported back to their home countries, Haiti and Syria? And when will these deportations start? Will it be immediately?”

Mullin: “Well, Jake, first of all, Temporary Protected Status was never intended to be permanent. And there’s a lot of people that came over here 15, 20 years ago underneath TPS that’s already changed their status.The whole time these individuals have been here underneath the Temporary Protected Status, they could have applied for a visa. They could have applied for LPR. They could have applied for different directions. But the status itself can be ended in its name itself by saying temporary.”

Tapper: “The Trump administration’s argument is that this was only supposed to last 18 months. My understanding of how the process works is, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security has the discretion to extend it if the U.S. State Department says that the countries that these people are from are still considered unsafe, which is why they were afforded TPS status to begin with. Is it the position of the Trump administration that Haiti is a safe country to send these people to?”

Mullin: “Well, we take a lot of things in consideration. Secretary Rubio, the President and I have had multiple conversations about this, obviously… The qualification isn’t quite just that simple. And keep in mind, a lot of these individuals haven’t been here 18 months. They have been here 18 years. Some of them have been here 20 years, 30 years. They have had plenty of time to reestablish their status inside the United States. They have just chosen not to. Then there’s some that has been here the underneath the Biden administration that took advantage of an open border. And those individuals didn’t really come over here because they needed protective status. They came over here because they were taking advantage of a weak leadership. So what we want, and the President has made this very clear, those that are coming to this country legally, they need to be able to contribute to the United States, not be a burden on the taxpayers. And so we are continuing looking at our Temporary Protected Status. Those individuals that do need assistance because of the country they’re in, we’re always looking at them. There isn’t a more generous country in the world than the United States, but we don’t want people to take advantage of it.”

Tapper: “But do you maintain that it is safe in Haiti to send these people back?…The reason I ask is because I heard Stephen Miller, who is driving a lot of this, say that Haiti is safe for Haitians. And I just looked at the State Department’s website, and they have a level four do not travel advisory for Haiti just from a few months ago, from April, and it says, ‘Violent crime is rampant. The expansion of gang organized crime and terrorist activity has led to widespread violence. Crimes involving firearms are common. Crimes include robbery, carjacking, sexual assault and kidnappings for ransom.’ That doesn’t sound safe to me.”

Mullin: “Well, that “do not travel” is not for Haitians.That’s do not travel for the United States, because they are kidnapping or trying to kidnap individuals from the United States because they feel like their family has the money to pay the ransom.”

Tapper: “I understand that. But based on everything I have read, including the U.N. and Human Rights Watch, it doesn’t sound safe for Haitians. More than 8,100 killings documented last year, those weren’t Americans. Haiti is among the top five countries with the highest rates of rape and sexual abuse, with more than 1,200 cases of sexual violence last year. That’s not Americans; 1.4 million people have been displaced. Those aren’t Americans.”

Fascinating! Because of woke logic like Tapper’s, the Supreme Court decision that it was long past the time when Haitians and Syrians permitted to enter the U.S. under Temporary Protected Status based on conditions of decades ago could be told to go home is being called racist and “cruel” by the Axis of Unethical Conduct. The sad (and apparently permanent) fact that Haiti cannot get itself civilized or secure does not make everyone on that perpetually dysfunctional island nation the responsibility of the United States forever. Nor is the reality that Haiti probably will never be safe for Haitians the concern of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The job of the Court is to determine what laws require and prohibit,, not whether one is a good law or a bad law, or whether it is being administered in the most kind and caring manner possible. What is Tapper advocating? He seems to think that SCOTUS should have ruled that all Haitians have a right to stay in the U.S. indefinitely, as long as the U.S. is safer than Haiti. If that’s true for Haiti, it’s true for Syria. If it’s true for Syria, it’s true for Gaza. Somalia. Ukraine. Heck, it’s true for the U.K. If that is the policy our nation wants to embrace, crazy and irresponsible as it is, fine—one of the Communist wackos who won her primary in New York this month advocates that policy—but it is not the Supreme Court’s role to render such an edict. The Court’s job is to declare whether it is illegal for the U.S. to end Temporary Protected Status decades after the events that caused Haitians and Syrians to be temporarily admitted into the U.S.

It isn’t.

Bye!

Pages: 1 2

The Denver International Airport Scandal [Page Break Fixed!]

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Democrats cheat.

Have I mentioned that here? I think I have; I think about 500 times since October, 2026. For example, there is this recent scandal out of Denver, where the Rocky Mountain High makes people woke and unethical, apparently.

The Denver City Council voted overwhelmingly against a lease for Key Lime Air last December after learning the charter airline had contracted with federal immigration authorities to transport illegal immigrant detainees. Of course Key Lime had to be punished for working with ICE to, you know, enforce that law thingy. How dare they?

That vote created a problem, however: it violated the law. Federal Aviation Administration rules bar cities from treating airlines unequally based on political grounds or any other reason. The council’s pro-illegal immigration action put $90 million in federal grant funding for the airport in jeopardy. According to multiple sources, City Attorney Miko Brown attended a meeting last January 6 with airport and Mayor’s Office officials including airport Chief Executive Phil Washington, airport attorney Everett Martinez, the mayor’s interim chief of staff Emily Garnett, and other senior airport and mayoral staff. They agreed on a cover-up plan that involved concocting an investigation into the airline’s safety record, so that could be cited as the reason for denying the lease, thus preserving the $90 million grant.

Imagine: not a single official in the room had the integrity to say, “Hey, we can’t do this. It’s wrong!” Huh. I wonder why…

It is a rhetorical question.

Ah, but when Martinez was later placed on administrative leave, he filed a federal lawsuit against the city and spilled the metaphorical beans. The suit alleges that Brown suggested at the January meeting that Denver International Airport investigate Key Lime Air’s safety record. (Martinez could justify revealing in his suit what would otherwise be a breach of lawyer-client confidentiality by citing the crime-fraud exception, although in my view it doesn’t excuse his participation in the meeting.)

Pages: 1 2

On Trying To See Both Sides Of The Illegal Immigration Issue…

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments
A Guest Post by Ryan Harkins

[This guest post’s origin was the most recent Open Forum. Personally, I don’t believe there is a rational, ethical, realistic “other side” to the issue. As I wrote in a longer response to Ryan that you can read here, “the issue of illegal immigration is quite simple. It’s against the law. It’s against the law because open borders to a country like the US is literally national suicide…The immigration laws we have, flawed or not, have to be enforced uniformly and strictly.”—JM]

My wife and I have been debating the illegal immigration issue on and off for a while now, and part of the reason we keep returning to ethics of the illegal immigration issue is the fact that so many in leadership in the Catholic Church have been very critical of Trump’s deportation efforts.  As faithful Catholics, we believe we need to listen when our bishops speak.  It doesn’t mean we mindlessly agree, but in cases where the bishops take a position we initially oppose, it is incumbent upon us to study and ponder the issue as thoroughly as we can before making any objections.  

To that end, my wife and I are trying to be as open as we possibly can regarding the issue of how to manage people who are in our country and in our local communities illegally.  I have told her that I think the best way to understand a viewpoint with which we disagree is to argue from that viewpoint and to steelman its arguments as best we can.  Interestingly enough, my wife and I do highlight differing aspects of why we have problems with illegal immigration.  I focus very heavily on the human trafficking issue.  She focuses very heavily on the financial injustices the illegal immigration causes. 

From the trafficking standpoint, I think that is it clear that a lot of illegal immigrants end up practically as slave labor, which has largely been overlooked because it seems like it keeps prices down in the supermarket.  But far more devastating is the sex trafficking which never seems to get the attention it deserves, especially when so many of these “lost and displaced children” end up serving the debauched desires of affluent Americans who believe they can continue their predations because “Who would dare contact the authorities?”. 

Pages: 1 2

Unethical (But Informative!) Quote of the Month: Katie Porter

/ Jack Marshall / 16 Comments

“It’s the job of the California governor to protect every single Californian,” Porter said. “The sanctuary state policy is designed to make sure that our state resources, the taxpayer dollars, the public servants that we have, are focusing on doing their jobs, which is not cooperating with the federal immigration authorities. These are Californians. They contribute to our economy, they pay taxes, and they’re one of the only ways our state has been growing in recent years.”

  —Former California Congresswoman Katie Porter in this week’s gubernatorial debate  explaining why “sanctuary” states  are crucial to Democrats.      

I have chosen to write as little as possible about California Governor candidate Katie Porter, I think because her very existence embarrasses me and the fact that such an awful human being could be elected to Congress by California voters shows just how beyond redemption that rotting state is. Here was my only entry regarding Porter, from last October:

“In California, the leading candidate to replace Gavin Newsom as governor, Rep. Katie Porter, has been bedeviled by emerging videos of her abusing staffers, refusing to tolerate probing questions from interviewers, and generally acting like a witch on wheels (It’s Halloween!) Porter and her political allies insist that these clips don’t show “the real Katie,’ which is comforting, since that demon impersonating Porter just stops short of spewing green vomit.”

The good news is that Porter isn’t leading in the polls any more, and in fact has the same chances of being governor of the tarnished Golden State as Frosty the Snowman has of being elected Mayor of Hell. The other good news is that her statement above was a public admission of why Democrats are so keen on open borders. It’s not quite a confirmation of “The Great Replacement” conspiracy theory, but it is close enough for horseshoes.

Axis-dwellers are so engulfed by their bubble that they can’t imagine anyone being bothered by a statement like that in their own party. This means, as night follows day, that they can’t imagine any progressives or Democrats possessing an understanding of law, national security, fairness, honesty…oh, lots of things.

Her state has welcomed illegal aliens in the hundreds of thousands while an estimated 10 million California residents have fled the state in the last decade. Illegal immigrants are not Californians by definition. They cannot be, because they aren’t citizens, and California cannot make them so. California’s elected officials, she admits, are not cooperating with federal law enforcement to allow millions of law-breakers to continue breaking the law, in order to provide illicit political support to Democrats, and to artificially inflate census numbers so Democrats can cement their power in Congress.

Nice.

To her credit, Porter’s explanation was frank, honest and except for her misunderstanding of that citizenship thingy, ethical. It reminds me of bank robber Willie Sutton’s legendary response when he was asked why he kept bobbing banks.

He said, “Because that’s where the money is.”

Good Guys and Bad Guys

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

Huh. Who, if anyone, are the “good guys” in this scenario from Maryland?

A Maryland woman, Karen Travino, has been accused of hiring illegal immigrants to fix her roof, then calling I.C.E. on them to avoid having to pay for the work. Nice.

In the video shot from the roof of the property in Cambridge, Maryland by Bryan Polanco, a worker with legal permanent residency, federal agents are e seen waiting on the lawn in front of the house, ready to arrest Polanco’s co-workers. His voice speaking over the video explains that he and his colleagues had come at teh woman’s request to fix the her roof, then she called ICE to have them taken into custody as soon as they were done, saving herself $10,000. “We came to fix this lady’s house, and she’s the one who turned us in. Fixing up her house and still with hatred in her heart,” Polanco says. “What she did tell me, and I told one of the other guys, is that if immigrants come back again to finish the project, she’s always going to call ICE.”

Six Guatemalan men had driven 70 miles from Glen Burnie to finish the job, being assured that they would be paid.

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said that if the allegations against the homeowner are true, she could face legal consequences under the Maryland law prohibiting the use of immigration threats to obtain labor or avoid payment. I don’t see that in the fact pattern. Pro-illegal immigrant activists are now claiming that Trevino threatened the men, forcing them to do the work for nothing or face deportation. That makes no sense, and seems contrived. I don’t know if there is any law covering what the homeowner did, although it would seem that the workers might have a civil suit for the money owed to them under breach of contract. Being illegal doesn’t cancel out the right to due process and protection under the law.

Who are the “good guys” and “bad guys” in this incident? I believe that a citizen is only being responsible to assist in the apprehension of illegal immigrants: that’s a civic duty. But to deceive vulnerable workers, running a veritable sting—that’s not admirable or ethical is it? Even less admirable is Karen Trevino trying to take advantage of illegal immigrants before blowing the whistle on them.

Good citizen and cheap home-owner Karen is complaining because she is being flamed on social media. I’m tempted to say she deserves it.

Are there any victims here? Are there any people to admire?

Divisive?

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

The Great Stupid’s warped values have made the term “divisive” particularly problematical regarding societal ethics. If, for example, a sign condemning sex with children is deemed to be divisive to some sick SOBs, my reaction is, “Good. Live with it. You’re wrong and normal people are right. We don’t care if you feel denigrated. You should be denigrated. And shunned.”

Then we have the divisive appeal for funds I highlighted earlier today. I firmly believe that an appeal for charitable assistance for one “tribe” or group to the exclusion of others who have exactly the same claim to charity, empathy, humanitarian aid and generosity is divisive, destructive, and wrong.

Two examples of controversies involving art and messaging also came across my ethics metaphorical radar screen today….

I. The mural honoring murdered refugee Iryna Zarutska in Providence, Rhode Island. The last moments of the innocent young woman slaughtered for no reason in particular by a deranged criminal repeatedly released to prey on an unsuspecting public is on the left, the now condemned mural in her honor is on the right. Mayor Brett Smiley (D, of course) ordered the unfinished mural, largely funded by Elon Musk, taken down. “The murder of the individual depicted in this mural was a devastating tragedy, but the misguided, isolating intent of those funding murals like this across the country is divisive and does not represent Providence,” he said in a statement. “I continue to encourage our community to support local artists whose work brings us closer together rather than further divides us.” Smiley’s Democrat primary challenger, Rhode Island state Rep. David Morales, said, “We’re seeing a right-wing movement that is exploiting the death of the refugee for the purposes of trying to spread division. Ultimately, we want to make sure that every community member that calls Providence home feels safe … and we can both agree that this mural behind us does not reflect Providence’s values.”

That’s interesting. What values do the honoring of a young woman who died because of elected officials, judges and law enforcement officials determination not to punish criminals and wrong doers “not reflect”? The fact that Iryna Zarutska was a Ukranian refugee is irrelevant, isn’t it? A young woman named Ann Jones, or a young man named Bill Shaw, or an old fart named, oh, say, Jack Marshall, being murdered while using public transportation would be equally worthy of public anger, wouldn’t it? Is dividing people who care about law abiding citizens being murdered because of irresponsible policies from those who shrug such horrors off as “collateral damage” a bad thing? What kind of people is Mayor Smiley and David Morales standing up for? Killers? Maniacs? Is the mural divisive because this particular maniac was black and his victim was white? I think the message of the mural is “Shame on you!” to all of the progressives, “restorative justice,” “defund the police” activists whose hands are stained with the blood of victims like Iryna Zarutska. Why should that message be suppressed or discouraged?

In its groveling statement sucking up to the woke and offended by justice, the owners of the building where the mural appeared mewled “We heard you [Providence]. We are deeply and sincerely sorry for everything that has taken place over the past week. After reflecting and learning, we have made the decision to discontinue this project and will move forward with removal as soon as possible. We remain committed to fostering unity, safety, and care for all members of our community, and we will continue to listen, learn, and act with those values at the forefront.”

Sure, you foster safety by supporting the removal of a strong statement against pandering to criminals. Got it. You’re disgusting.

[Pointer: JutGory]

Pages: 1 2