Gunther Abels loved Germany but loved America more. He had a great opportunity to study engineering at University of Buffalo. He never married but he found a young woman to have two young boys and developing a worthy life in the New World. He stayed longer than his original Student VISA allowed. He was a loyal Bills fan and would cut his neighbors grass freely when away. He never told anyone that he was here illegally. In Germany, being an illegal alien is a criminal offense under the Residence Act, punishable by a fine or a potential prison sentence of up to one year. In practice, the primary consequences often involve administrative detention, deportation, and a potential entry ban. He knew he should have gone home. But, this is America! There is always Grace and he hasn't done anything wrong.

Can we all just agree that staying in a country that you are not a citizen, longer than required, makes you illegal? No single country has completely "open" borders in the absolute sense, but the Schengen Area in Europe offers the closest model, allowing passport-free, unrestricted movement between 29 European nations for EU citizens, while regions like the UK/Ireland Common Travel Area also feature minimal internal checks. Other agreements exist, like between India, Nepal, and Bhutan, but full national sovereignty means most borders retain some controls for security and immigration, even if they seem "uncontrolled" in practice. In most countries, a person who overstays their visa or permitted entry period is considered to be in violation of immigration law. The specific legal status of such an individual is typically defined by terms such as:

• Undocumented: This term is often preferred by advocates and some government agencies as a descriptive term for someone without the proper documentation, without a criminalizing connotation.
• Unauthorized: This term is used to indicate that the person does not have official permission from the government to be in the country.
• Irregular: This is a term frequently used by international bodies and some legal scholars to describe the status of a person who does not have legal authorization to remain in a country.
• Unlawful: This term directly indicates that the individual's presence is contrary to the laws of the country.
• Illegal: While commonly used in everyday language and some political discourse, this term is often debated. Critics argue that a person cannot be "illegal," but rather their action of overstaying or entering without inspection is what is unlawful. Legal professionals often advise against applying the term to a person's entire identity, preferring terms that describe their immigration status.

Can we all agree that the Democrats initially made coming into our country without permission illegal? Yes, the law making unlawful entry into the U.S. a crime, the Undesirable Aliens Act of 1929 (also Blease's Law), was championed by a Democratic Senator, Coleman Livingston Blease of South Carolina, who was a segregationist and anti-immigrant. While earlier laws restricted Asian immigration, this 1929 law specifically criminalized unauthorized border crossing, largely targeting Mexican immigrants, and it became part of the foundation for current immigration enforcement. The 1929 Immigration Act, often referred to as the Undesirable Aliens Act (or Blease’s Law), was a pivotal piece of U.S. legislation that criminalized unauthorized entry, making it a misdemeanor, while illegal re-entry after deportation became a felony. It aimed to restrict Mexican immigration and stiffened penalties, setting the stage for increased border enforcement. Immigration History reports: "During the 1920s, the severest immigration restrictions in U.S. history, the 1924 Johnson-Reed Act and the national origins quota system, did not limit migration within the Americas. However, the Undesirable Aliens Act of 1929 (Blease’s Law) criminalized border crossing to limit the rights of Mexican immigrants. The segregationist and anti-immigrant Senator Coleman Livingston Blease (D-SC) led the legislative push to limit Mexican immigration. Disagreements between employers who depended on Mexican labor, particularly in agri-business, and restrictionists had prevented Congress from putting numeric limits on Mexican immigration. Blease proposed a solution criminalizing border crossings that occurred outside of official ports of entry." The Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 was promoted by a coalition of restrictionist politicians, primarily Republicans, including its architects Representative Albert Johnson (R-WA) and Senator David Reed (R-PA), supported by President Calvin Coolidge (R), with aims to drastically cut immigration and favor Northern/Western Europeans using a national origins quota system, appealing to nativist, eugenicist, and labor interests. The Democrats one upped the Republicans with bigotry and hate. Jim Crow keeps on giving. In 1929, the U.S. Immigration Service, including its newly formed Border Patrol, enforced immigration laws, particularly the restrictive 1924 Act, with customs officials handling ports and the Border Patrol securing land borders, all under the Department of Labor. While the 1929 Act itself was the Undesirable Aliens Act criminalizing unauthorized crossings, the larger enforcement structure, including agents with expanded powers, carried out these duties, focusing heavily on Mexican immigration during the Great Depression. U.S. Border Patrol agents in 1929 were armed. They were issued pistols and used other firearms, such as rifles and shotguns, in the line of duty. When the U.S. Border Patrol was established in 1924, agents, then known as Patrol Inspectors, were issued a badge, a pistol, and little else. They often had to supply their own equipment, including horses and saddles, and the government provided oats and hay.

Can we all agree that if you do something illegal you have committed a crime? Yes, fundamentally, an illegal act is a crime because a crime is defined as an act violating the law, but the key nuances are that not all illegal things become criminal cases, some illegal acts are civil (like breaking a contract), and proving criminal intent (mens rea) is often needed for criminal charges, though ignorance of the law is rarely an excuse. Society generally agrees that breaking laws meant to protect public order and safety constitutes a crime, though definitions evolve.

Can we all agree that a crime requires law enforcement? A crime is defined as an act punishable by law; it is the violation of a legal statute. The existence of a crime is determined by law, not by the presence or involvement of law enforcement. While law enforcement plays a crucial role in investigating, detecting, and responding to criminal activity, their involvement is not a prerequisite for an offense to be classified as a crime. A crime is committed when an individual violates a law that is already in effect, regardless of whether the act is immediately observed, reported, or investigated by police.

Can we all agree that illegal immigration is punishable by law ?

In the United States, certain actions associated with illegal immigration are punishable by law as criminal offenses, while other violations are considered civil infractions.

Criminal Offenses

Specific actions are classified as federal crimes under Title 8 of the U.S. Code and can lead to fines, imprisonment, and deportation.

Illegal Entry (8 U.S.C. § 1325): Entering or attempting to enter the United States at a place not designated for entry, eluding inspection, or obtaining entry through willful misrepresentation are criminal offenses.

A first offense is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine and/or up to six months in prison.

Subsequent offenses are felonies and can result in up to two years in prison.

Illegal Reentry (8 U.S.C. § 1326): Reentering or attempting to reenter the U.S. after having been previously deported or removed is a felony.

This offense is punishable by up to two years in prison, with potential sentences of up to 10 or 20 years if the individual has prior convictions for certain serious crimes.

Can we all agree that if you are here illegally you have to go home on your own or be evicted by ICE? It seems like you're expressing a strong opinion or response about a sensitive topic.

Feel the Republicans getting wobbly? I see a cave ahead and its the Republicans? The remainder of the MAGA World are bracing for "Summer of Love 2.0"!

The "2020 Summer of Love" refers to the massive, nationwide Black Lives Matter protests in the United States, ignited by the murder of George Floyd by police on May 25, 2020, demanding justice and an end to systemic racism, leading to widespread demonstrations, increased awareness, and significant societal shifts, even amidst a pandemic and political polarization.j

• Insured Property Damage: The estimated insured property damage across the United States was between $1 billion and $2 billion. This figure covers a two-week period from late May to mid-June 2020, but the total may be higher as the unrest continued in many places long after.
• Fatalities and Injuries: At least 42 deaths were confirmed during the period (May 2020–January 2023), with over 2,000 law enforcement officers and an unknown number of civilians injured.
• Arrests: Over 14,000 people were arrested nationwide as of late June 2020.
• Legal Settlements: U.S. cities have paid a record of more than $80 million in legal settlements to individuals injured by law enforcement actions during the protests.

What? No Plandemic this time? Mid-Term Elections are coming? The Marxists are planning riots for when it gets warmer! The Republicans are feeling woozy! The Minneapolis-Saint Paul area experienced some of the most concentrated violence and damage, with estimates reaching over $500 million in damages. If they can afford $19 Billion in Fraud then what's another $500 million?

Lance Smith Facebook Post (01/24/2026) 4d

The Left’s “Victory Plan” for 2026:

Overwhelm President Trump and the American people with crisis after crisis until we’re all so exhausted that we vote his party out, desperately hoping for a return to “normalcy.”

But make no mistake—everything happening right now is 100% planned and executed by the Democrat Party and their accomplices in the media. They start the fire, fan the flames, point at Trump as the arsonist, then claim they’re the firefighters you need to vote for. That’s all they’ve got left.

This is not about ICE; it's about destabilizing America in an election year. Let me break this down as basic as I can:

1. America elects a President that the Democrat/Media Complex does not like.

2. Democrats engage in violent riots over whatever their otherwise perfectly legal cause du jour might be.

3. "See? The fact that this guy is President is causing riots. If you vote for us, this abnormal rioting that the President is causing will stop."

4. Democrats win the next election. Riots stop.

This is no different than the Mafia threatening to burn down a store unless the owner pays protection money.

IT IS EXTORTION.

They did it with George Floyd, and they’re doing it with ICE now. Just wait until spring/summer when more blue sanctuary cities join Minneapolis. They have no real policy or platform—just oppose anything/everything Trump, and foster chaos.

The truth is, the entire Democrat Party ceases to exist without taxpayer money, election fraud, and the mass importation of foreigners. It’s a 20% party without those crutches. They have been on the wrong side of every 80/20 policy for over a decade. It’s why Trump won the last election. Understand that, and you’ll see why they fight so hard for them—their entire existence is on the line.

It’s time to reject their toxic games and stand firm against their manufactured outrage. America deserves better than their endless cycle of deceit, lawlessness, and destruction.

Remember this in November, and vote accordingly! 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

Marxism needs to defund and disarm law enforcement in order to cripple and overthrow the capitalist State. Yes, a core tenet of revolutionary Marxist theory is that the existing capitalist state apparatus, including law enforcement, must be dismantled and replaced through revolution to overthrow the capitalist system. The goal is to weaken the capitalist state's ability to repress the working class and defend private property. The "defund the police" movement advocates reallocating police budgets to social services, growing from Black Lives Matter activism after Michael Brown's 2014 death, peaking in 2020 after George Floyd's murder, and calling for systemic change to address police brutality and invest in community well-being, building on decades of abolitionist thought but facing debate over effectiveness and public safety concerns. Marxists view the police as "special bodies of armed men" whose primary function is to protect the interests and private property of the ruling capitalist class (bourgeoisie), not society as a whole. This force is seen as a key instrument of state repression that maintains an inherently unequal social order through force and intimidation, often against working people and oppressed communities. The existing capitalist state, including its police and prison systems, cannot be reformed into a neutral body that serves the working class; it must be overthrown and "smashed" by a workers' revolution. This process involves replacing the old state machinery with new democratic institutions, such as a workers' militia, that are controlled by the working class. Demands to defund or disarm the police under capitalism are considered important tactical steps to weaken the state's repressive capacity and expose its class character, but they are not the end goal itself. The ultimate goal is the complete abolition of the institution of policing as part of the broader abolition of the capitalist system. In a transitional socialist state, where the working class holds power, the use of a repressive force would be necessary temporarily to defend the revolution against counter-revolutionary efforts by the former ruling class. However, in the final stage of a fully communist society, class antagonisms would disappear, and the state, along with its coercive apparatus (police, military, prisons), would "wither away" as it becomes obsolete.

Ahmed K & Florence O. of Workers' Voice in "What Do We Mean By Police Abolition?" write, "Here we begin by showing why liberal reforms are a dead end. Next we review pertinent arguments from the abolitionist current. The core idea of abolitionism, with which Marxists agree, is that you cannot isolate police violence from other forms of state violence, that to address the criminalization of communities we need to first address its root causes such as poverty, unemployment, lack of healthcare, and other material conditions, and that, therefore, abolition is part of a process of a deep social transformation. Abolitionists and Marxists, currents which are of course not mutually exclusive, agree that in order to abolish state forms of harm and repression, we need to adopt an anti-capitalist perspective. Third, we distinguish our strategy from the reformist current dominant in DSA, clarifying what our revolutionary Marxist position is versus, in our view, the fundamentally mistaken approach of the reformists. Unlike the strategy of the abolitionists, the reformists’ entire project is flawed. Finally, we present a Marxist strategy for abolition that, we argue, addresses some of the limitations of popular abolitionist strategies." In Marxist theory, law enforcement is considered a core part of the "repressive state apparatus" used by the ruling class to maintain power and protect private property. The ultimate goal of communism is a stateless, classless society where this apparatus, including police and prisons, would "wither away". Marxists generally argue that the existing capitalist state and its institutions cannot be reformed to serve the working class; they must be overthrown and dismantled through a revolution. The idea is to replace these forces with new institutions, such as a democratically controlled workers' militia composed of the working people themselves. While the long-term strategy involves the complete abolition of the existing police and state, some modern Marxist and socialist organizations support immediate demands such as "defunding" and "disarming" the police as tactical steps to overwhelm the existing State. The call to defund and disarm police, rooted in critiques of policing's role in racial capitalism and state power, gained significant mainstream attention after the 2020 murder of George Floyd, but its ideas emerged earlier from activists like Angela Davis in the 1960s and gained traction post-2014 Ferguson protests, evolving from radical abolitionist thought into broader political discourse.

The list of 1960's radicals that called for disarming and abolishing the police include:

• Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. linked social issues to militarism and racism, though he did not explicitly call for the abolition of police: "We must see now that the evils of racism, economic exploitation, and militarism are all tied together. And you can't get rid of one without getting rid of the other".
• Angela Davis, who became a prominent activist in the late 1960s and early 1970s, has long advocated for the abolition of police and prisons. Her later work in books like Are Prisons Obsolete? expanded on ideas that were circulating in activist circles during and after the 1960s.
• The Black Panther Party was a prominent group in the 1960s that directly challenged police authority and created community self-defense patrols. Their messaging focused on police brutality and the need for community control and accountability, which aligns with some modern abolitionist principles.
• W.E.B. Du Bois, whose work was foundational to later movements, wrote about "abolition-democracy" in 1935, advocating for the removal of institutions rooted in racist practices, including white police forces. This earlier work influenced activists in the 1960s and beyond.

Dr. King?! He called for the dismantling of law enforcement. and was received the inaugural Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood in 1966 and you celebrate him because, like Joe Biden, he copied a speech! Dr. King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech** wasn't entirely original; he synthesized themes and phrases from his own past sermons (like the "dream" motif from a 1960 speech in Chicago) and other speakers, notably incorporating the "let freedom ring" ending with similar lines from an earlier speech by Archibald Carey Jr., making it a powerful, collage-style oration built from shared language rather than pure invention. While plagiarism in his doctoral thesis is well-documented, the "Dream" speech is seen more as skillful integration of existing powerful rhetoric, especially the extemporaneous, iconic sections, and the practice of borrowing/evolving phrases was common in oratory. Scholarship, primarily by the Martin Luther King, Jr. Papers Project at Stanford University, has confirmed that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. committed plagiarism in his academic work, including his doctoral dissertation at Boston University. The 1991 investigation found significant portions of his dissertation were taken from other sources without proper citation, though the university did not revoke his degree. President Joe Biden has a documented history of plagiarism, most notably in his 1987 presidential campaign when he used passages from British politician Neil Kinnock's speeches and admitted to lifting text from a law review article in law school, which led to him dropping out of the race. He has also faced accusations of lifting lines from Robert F. Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey and using phrasing similar to Donald Trump's slogans later in his career, but the earlier incidents are the most significant historical examples. 

Want to put on tin-foil? Read Katherine Watt's "Weaponization of Language and Law: US Government Bioterrorism Program to Covid from 1969". Play Connect the Dots. The Pharmaceutical Industry has been using the social movements to create "useful idiots" and massage "mass hysteria" for profits and control. Right around the same era as the radical social movements.

Marxist; Marxism advocates for worker control of production and abolition of private property, while both parties operate within capitalism, though Democrats favor more social programs (sometimes labeled "socialist" by Republicans) and Republicans lean towards free markets, with both fundamentally supporting democratic capitalism, despite rhetoric often confusing these terms. While outright Marxist identification within mainstream US political parties (Republican/Democrat) is rare, elements of Marxist thought (class struggle, critiques of capitalism) can appear in fringe elements or policy debates within both parties, though Democrats lean more toward "democratic socialist" ideas (like Bernie Sanders), while Republicans strongly reject socialism, making it highly unlikely, but the core principles can resonate with some in different contexts, particularly among younger progressives. The idea that the "uniparty" in the U.S. is Marxist is a political claim, often made by far-right or populist figures, suggesting Democrats and Republicans collaborate like a single party, suppressing outsiders and serving elite interests, Marx never advocated for a one party state. A prominent pattern in history is for states identifying with Marxism-Leninism to evolve into one-party states. This phenomenon is a defining characteristic of the majority of historical and contemporary "communist states," such as the People's Republic of China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam. An example to follow by Democrat and Republican alike in the US.

Rep. Ilhan Omar has a history of advocating for significant police reform, including supporting the movement to "defund the police," arguing for dismantling the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) due to systemic issues, and calling for reallocation of funds to community services, while also facing backlash and supporting specific legislation for accountability like the National Police Misuse of Force Investigation Board Act. Her stance emphasizes replacing broken systems with community-based solutions, not just cutting budgets, and she's promoted federal accountability measures for police misconduct. Axios in "Ilhan Omar defends idea of dismantling Minneapolis Police Department" reports:

"Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday that the Minneapolis City Council's decision to dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department as it currently exists does not mean that nothing will take its place to ensure the community is kept safe and crimes are investigated.

Why it matters: Critics of the idea of defunding or abolishing police departments, including President Trump, have characterized the move as radical and dangerous. Omar argues that coverage of Minneapolis' decision has been misleading, and that the city's policing infrastructure must be reinvented "because you can't really reform a department that is rotten to the root."

We know the thoughts and actions of the Radical Left but the real question is: Are Republicans Caving on: Immigration?

Yes, Republicans are showing signs of caving on their immigration stance in response to public backlash against recent aggressive enforcement tactics. This shift is particularly influenced by recent violent incidents involving federal agents, which have spurred criticism even from within the party.

Recent Developments

• Public Outcry:
• Following two deadly shootings involving federal immigration officers in Minneapolis, there has been a significant public outcry. This has caused unrest and criticism from various quarters, including some conservative ranks.
• Internal Party Dynamics:
• Prominent Republicans, like Senator Thom Tillis, have begun to openly criticize the administration's handling of enforcement, suggesting leadership changes within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The images and stories coming out of Minneapolis have deeply unsettled both Republicans and the wider public.
• Polling Data:
• Recent polls indicate that a majority of Americans—61%—believe that ICE's tactics have gone too far. While 84% of Republican voters continue to support Trump's immigration policies, a significant minority is beginning to express discomfort with the aggressive tactics.
• Shifting Strategies:
• In response to growing discomfort, the Republican strategy is evolving. There are discussions within the party about focusing on deporting "the worst of the worst" rather than broad enforcement operations. This is a tactical shift to retain support from moderate Republicans and independent voters.

MAGA DID ELECT TRUMP BY DIVIDING ILLEGAL ALIENS INTO HARD CORE ILLEGALS AND SOFT CORE ILLEGALS. THEY ALL MUST GO HOME, NOW! No wavering! No nuance! No sanctuary city or state must live! Arrest them all and send them home. Some day, repeal Dr. King and get rid of that Chinese Communist Party in Washington. Lei Yixin is not a widely recognized figure in global discussions about the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) or any political movement. However, it's possible that he might be an emerging individual or a lesser-known figure in specific contexts related to the CCP.