The Swamp is powered by Vocal.
Vocal is a platform that provides storytelling tools and engaged communities for writers, musicians, filmmakers, podcasters, and other creators to get discovered and fund their creativity.
How does Vocal work?
Creators share their stories on Vocal’s communities. In return, creators earn money when they are tipped and when their stories are read.
How do I join Vocal?
Vocal welcomes creators of all shapes and sizes. Join for free and start creating.
To learn more about Vocal, visit our resources.Show less
Round One: Sessions versus Schaaf over Sanctuary City policies
The Feds have told California Sanctuary Policies "We're Not Going to Take it Anymore!"
ICE is saying it in actions to back up those words as the immigration debate plays out between both sides with California as the battleground.
Now that the feds have stopped playing with California officials on Sanctuary ordinances, might California's Swan Song end up being "I Fought the Law and the Law Won?"
Clearly the feds will not negotiate with California on the matter.
A rapid exchange of "how dare you's" happened after US Attorney General Jeff Sessions said it first at a speech in Sacramento, the California state capitol, on March 7, 2018.
A battle of words with each side using the same statements as a rally cry seem to herald a brewing showdown between Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf and US Attorney General Sessions over Schaaf warning Oakland residents about impeding ICE law enforcement activity in late February 2018.
Attorney General Sessions stated, "So here’s my message for Mayor Schaaf: How dare you. How dare you needlessly endanger the lives of our law enforcement officers to promote a radical open borders agenda."
Schaaf responded, "My response to the attorney general’s statements … “How dare you vilify members of our community by trying to frighten the American public into thinking all undocumented residents are dangerous criminals?… How dare you distort the reality about declining violent crime in a diverse sanctuary city like Oakland, California to advance your racist agenda?"
What is with the poison nomenclature use of the dreaded "R" word in a legal rebuttal to a sound legal argument? Sessions is simply reminding Schaaf, a lawyer by profession, about ... the law on the books as outlined in the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA).
The Mayor and other like minded California officials and politicians are not the Judiciary. Did they submit a Writ of Certiorari in federal court to petition a rewrite ruling by the Supreme Court on US Constitutional law and the INA? If not, why not, almost all of them are lawyers!
Is Schaaf defending just the illegal aliens in Oakland or did her response include American citizens and legal immigrants in her City too?
Some say, "Go Grab Libby #ICE. #LockLibbyUp! Didn't she say she would be willing to get arrested over it."
Will Acting ICE Director Thomas Homan get authorized by the DOJ to personally and publicly make the arrest of Oakland's Mayor on federal charges of obstruction?
If so it would be the type of legal and political intrigue that would make Machiavelli pray for resurrection after being dead for centuries just to be in the thick of the situation.
Imagine what kind of intellectual chess like machinations Niccolo would devise if he sided with Sessions. Chilling or riveting depending on what side of the fence or border (pun intended) you stand.
Will it end up in federal court with the United States of America vs. the Mayor of Oakland?
If this were a political thriller film, the theme song would be an adapted lyrical version of Sting's song, "I'm an alien. I'm an illegal alien. I'm an undocumented in LA or San Fran for that matter".
The political climate is brewing towards a showdown at high noon as the Trump Administration butts heads and locks horn to ram ICE enforcement down on California Santuary policies and officials.
Both sides are saying "We're Not Going to Take it Anymore" but who will end up singing "I Fought the Law and the Law Won?" My money is on the feds.
Time, a federal judge, or the Supreme Court Justices may be the ones who decide.
If Lady Justice ends up casting the decisive ruling on this immigration issue will she rule on the side of the rule of law?
So much energy, money and time has been invested by both sides. Each wants the final victory on the immigration debate.
In this high stakes political poker game which would render the loser by a court ruling, it begs the question: Why isn't the Left, Liberals, and Democrats investing their collective resources and efforts towards advocating for Native Americans instead? After all, this is their land and it's borders the Left is fighting for or against enforcing. Native Americans are the first and the true Americans who have been ignored and all but abandoned as the left fights for illegal aliens, even those with criminal records for multiple counts of rape, murder, assault, etc.
Trump wants a wall to secure our frontiers. Like the saying goes "good fences make for good neighbors". Meanwhile the left makes metaphors likening it to the Berlin Wall. Such analogy is baseless. Checkpoint Charlie and the Brandenburg Gate divided a nation. Trump's Wall is intended to secure a united country aptly called the United States of America.
East and West Germany were divided for decades until the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. Germany was "reunited and it felt so good". Just like the song.
Hopefully America won't need to wait that long to again feel like "One Nation Under God Indivisible."
For now, the US is one nation under ICE with California flirting, teasing and tempting the DOJ to dispatch federal roops to end the polarization caused by a Sanctuary State acting like an out of control "Rebel Without A Cause". A cause that is invalid by federal law.