Alright dudes/dudettes.
Saturday, driving through the Hollywood/movie corner of greater LA, I saw a lady with a long skirt, and three little girls in tow, all with long skirts. Then I saw a bunch of other folks, all walking. Then I saw their church. Some kind of Jewish church I'd guess. I drove on up the street about a mile and came to a big white cathedral with a red ribbon and a rainbow flag, and a sign that said "all are welcome". I'd guess the reason those conservative folks walking in the heat to avoid breaking the Sabbath would have to change some opinions to be "welcome" under the Disney flag, really.
"Toleration" is misconstrued in today's social justice rhetoric. "Toleration" isn't even the issue. The issue is liberty. . . . some call it " freedom". If you have to accept other people, at the point of a sword, and profess to "believe" in what they demand, you're no longer "free" to have your own idea, at least on the public square.
If you can't create a border, and define your interests, you are no longer a "nation". And of course, that is exactly what international corporate interests want. They want the power, through UN governance under their specific control, through their media news/opinion retailers we call "mainstream", through their "elected" legislators, governors, even Presidents, and a littany of other public players on their public stage, to manage things. The idea of globalism has as it's ultimate objective the streamlining of governance from the top down, and the perfection of human management from the top down.
To achieve that result, they need "social justice" rhetoric that eliminates every individual opinion option. So little people with straying opinions can be booed off the town square, so public opinion can be massaged into whatever form "management" prefers, and steered in whatever new direction may seem useful in the future.
So by the time we can't say "illegal" anything is wrong, we mean to say laws themselves should not matter. Which is to say, we believe in absolute government power and no human rights at all. The laws are all for us po' folk, not for government officials. We should give them absolute discretionary powers, which is to say absolute arbitrary power.
If we won't "arrest" or "impeach" a President who every day makes arbitrary decisions on which "laws" should be enforced, it is an absolute end of representative republic principles, and absolute end of Constitutional "rule of law". What Nixon did is a drop in the bucket to all Obama is doing, and our so-call "Press" is in the sack for it all.
Pearl is perhaps only person, so far in this thread, who actually still has a functioning sort of self-awareness/functioning cognition, to even see the problem with "illegal" immigrants. It's not skin color, or even culture. It's actually "human rights".
Mexicans never had very much of those "human rights". Any time in the past six hundred years they've had a government that could just round them up and shoot them whenever they got in anyone's way. . . . let's say in any "significant person's" way. And if we sit idle and do nothing to turn this situation around, it's likely that for rthe next six hundred years we will all live under absolutely corrupt and arbitrary power in the hands of a government that can't be held to account for any of it's actions.