We now have a hashtag. You have to admit it is a catchy slogan.

It goes without saying that a hashtag on its own does not protect people from being raided. Even printing it out on a T-shirt or a sign and then wearing the T-shirt or bringing the sign to a protest, recording a video of yourself protesting and then posting the video on Facebook and then getting lots of thumbs up for it, does not protect people from being raided. The only thing that will protect people from being raided is to actually follow the advice of the hashtag.

When the Fourth Amendment is being ignored by government (as is currently the case, since a valid warrant must specify a particular individual to be arrested in relation to a particular incident of crime, so when ICE raids private property and treats any and all people of ”non-white” appearance found inside as guilty until proven innocent, they are acting without valid warrant):


the Second Amendment comes into play:


Otherwise, more of this will happen:

Daniel Ramirez Medina, a 23-year-old with no criminal record who was brought to the US from Mexico when he was seven years old, was taken into custody last Friday in Seattle.

“this is the blueprint for mass deportation. Their enforcement priorities are so broad they include everybody.”

Coupled with the recent Ice raids, “It adds up to a new policy that we’re going to remove anybody we can get our hands on,” said Leopold, former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

Ice agents asked Ramirez: “Are you legally here?” and when he explained that he had a work permit, officers took him in, according to his lawsuit. At a processing center, when Ramirez again told agents about his Daca status, an officer allegedly replied: “It doesn’t matter, because you weren’t born in this country.”


This entry was posted in Aryan Sanctuary. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to #FightICEwithfire

  1. Hypnotix says:

    The slogan is awesome, kudos to the one who thought of it!

    I think the banner’s design would benefit from a minor change, though: the ‘f’ in ‘fire’ would look better if it was capitalised; the ‘w’ in ‘with’ too, perhaps. Otherwise, I love the way it looks. :)

  2. Board owner says:

    Sick burn, bro. Figurative #shotsfired, just needs to translate into actual shots fired. ICE melts easily, even better if someone can use a flammenwerfer. Napalm should do the job nicely too.

  3. Atmajyoti says:

    I’m not going to lie, the thought of booby-trapping my house and front yard has crossed my mind on several occasions. Also, digging a tunnel from under my house to an adjacent storm drain has been a fantasy also. I used to dig a lot when I was younger; for a while I did want to be an archeologist. When I was living in England my friend actually found a Roman coin in his backyard. We used to find bits of pottery all the time.

  4. Atmajyoti says:

    With a little mechanical ingenuity a person could technically setup an array of firearms that could be aimed and fired via a camera and a laptop. That would certainly be a force multiplier!

  5. Atmajyoti says:

    I’ve actually had fantasies about doing that with a .50 cal machine gun, not going to lie…

  6. AS says:

    This just keeps getting worse:


    As the two men and others crossed the street toward a shopping center on Feb. 8, about a dozen ICE agents ordered them up against the wall of a grocery store, questioning them about their immigration status. According to Ramirez and Brewster, the ICE agents then indiscriminately arrested seven of the homeless men — all of them Hispanic — and packed them into a van full of other detainees.

    In Chicago, a student called her high school teacher to tell him that ICE had raided her home the night before, arresting her father, an undocumented immigrant whose criminal record included only traffic violations, the teacher said. In Centreville, Va., a woman told officials at London Towne Elementary School that a student’s father had been arrested after dropping their son off at school that morning. And in the Baltimore parking lot of a Walgreens, ICE agents arrested a barber and a local business owner who advocates said also had no criminal records.

    ICE officials acknowledged that at least 186 of those apprehended in recent days had no criminal history.

    See? They don’t even bother to deny it! THEY DON’T CARE ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK. But I suspect they still care about not being shot. So what is the local government waiting for?

    “It was hard to not leave that meeting and believe that the Trump administration is going to target as many immigrants as possible,” said Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Tex.), who attended the meeting.

    “There are cases of mistaken identity, cases of people who were passengers in cars that were pulled over, cases of people who are married to U.S. citizens and who have children who are born and live in this country,” said Gutiérrez, who has spoken with many of those detained in Austin.

    A government social worker for Durham County, N.C., said that the number of Hispanic residents seeking assistance had dropped off rapidly in recent days amid swirling rumors about an ICE checkpoint at a Durham intersection and ICE agents making arrests in a supermarket parking lot.

    “Today, I haven’t gotten one Hispanic client in the entire check-in today,” said the social worker, a longtime government employee who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. “That never happens … They think that when they come here for assistance, that they’re going to be on some sort of invisible list.”

    This is what I feared (and no doubt part of the intention behind the raids). Unless local people view local government as committed opposition to the Feds, the actions of the Feds will cause local people to lose trust even in local government. And the only way for local government to convince local people to view them as opposed to the Feds is to order local police to open fire on the Feds. There is no other way. Mere talk will not regain local people’s trust; only action will.

    Also, a perceptive comment here:


    You can’t get welfare if you’re here illegally, not even in uber liberal San Francisco, where I am now. So, obviously, when the article says “Hispanics” not applying for assistance -and NOT illegal or undocumented or aliens…. just “Hispanics”, and yet all the republicans comment about how good it is that “illegals” aren’t getting welfare. It shows that, for republicans, the difference between “Hispanic” and “Illegal” is nonexistent.

    Nowadays, it seems that people here legally, with Visas, can be dismissed with the stroke of a pen and it’s for the good of the country. Then you’ve got people with perminant resident cards that took years to get…. boom, deport them, they have no rights.

    how long before naturalized citizens are on that list?

    This is what I was saying. So it’s good to see more people getting it. But do they get that firearms are required to fight this?

    And why are the receiving countries so placidly accepting these deportations? Why aren’t they requiring the US to incontrovertibly prove for each and every case that the particular individual they want to deport is from the particular country they want to deport the individual to? Why has apparently the whole world forgotten about burden of proof? We saw this explicitly in the Colohoax and now we are seeing it implicitly here (to say nothing of Trump’s delusions about voter fraud…..).


    “I’ve actually had fantasies about doing that with a .50 cal machine gun, not going to lie…”

    Why fantasize when you could make history?

  7. John Johnson says:

    “Nowadays, it seems that people here legally, with Visas, can be dismissed with the stroke of a pen and it’s for the good of the country. Then you’ve got people with perminant resident cards that took years to get…. boom, deport them, they have no rights.

    how long before naturalized citizens are on that list?

    Trump praised FDR for putting American citizens of Japanese heritage into concentration camps… So it’s probably not long before naturalized citizens are tyrannized just the same.

    In fact, if complex and detailed databases of Hispanics and Muslims don’t already exist, the government (with help from their private-sector front groups) can whip them up effortlessly:


    Of course, the government already has a list of naturalized citizens (how else would they keep track of who they have issued citizenship to?)


    As a bonus, here is one of the grievances against George III listed in the Declaration of Independence:

    “He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.”

    This grievance is listed 7th out of over two dozen.

  8. John Johnson says:

    Americans on both the left and right like to appeal to the founders of the US in order to lend support to their beliefs. What would they have said on this issue?

    If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts.” -Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

    [Here he is saying that state-level governments have a duty to resist and overthrow the national-level government should Trump a tyrant who betrays the people take power. By extension, this means local-level governments should resist the state-level government, should it be tyrannical, etc., because it becomes increasing difficult for citizens to stop the tyranny as you move down each organizational level of government, since each level is less powerful than the last.]

    “The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny. But in a confederacy the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress.

    It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority. Projects of usurpation cannot be masked under pretenses so likely to escape the penetration of select bodies of men, as of the people at large. The legislatures will have better means of information. They can discover the danger at a distance; and possessing all the organs of civil power, and the confidence of the people, they can at once adopt a regular plan of opposition, in which they can combine all the resources of the community. They can readily communicate with each other in the different States, and unite their common forces for the protection of their common liberty.” -Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

    [If federal, state, and local-level government officials are not doing their duty (bolded text), then they are betraying the people.]

    “When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations? The apprehension may be considered as a disease, for which there can be found no cure in the resources of argument and reasoning.” -Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

    Interestingly, the wording of some early state constitutions make gun ownership sound more like a duty than a passive “right”:

    NEW YORK CONVENTION (July 7, 1788):

    That the militia should always be kept well organized, armed and disciplined, and include, according to past usages of the states, all the men capable of bearing arms, and that no regulations tending to render the general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, of distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments to the community, ought to be made.

    NEW YORK CONVENTION (July 26, 1788):

    That the people have the right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.


    XVII. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.


    “Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” -Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

    “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” -Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

    “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.” -Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

    “By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.” -Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 29

    “The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally … enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” -Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833

    Bonus quote from a Democrat:

    “Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.” -Hubert Humphrey, c. 1960

  9. 100101 says:


    “Agents are, in fact, predominantly male and have often served in the military, with a police department or both. New agents take a five-week Spanish language program as well as firearms training; they also learn driving maneuvers and have to pass seven written examinations and a physical-fitness test that includes an obstacle course.”

    Food for thought!

  10. Atmajyoti says:

    It was all just rhetoric from Trump though, many people will still say…

  11. AS says:


    The purchase of this home is part of a network formed by Los Angeles religious leaders across faiths in the wake of Donald Trump’s election. The intent is to shelter hundreds, possibly thousands of undocumented people in safe houses across Southern California.

    The goal is to offer another sanctuary beyond religious buildings or schools, ones that require federal authorities to obtain warrants before entering the homes.

    Hoover, 37, wasn’t an active member during the Sanctuary Movement of the 1980s when US congregations across faiths resisted federal law and provided shelter for Central Americans fleeing violence in their home countries. Many congregations offered direct sanctuary, housing the undocumented immigrants, while others offered food and legal assistance.

    The Rapid Response Team mirrors that structure, but goes one step further by also incorporating private homes, which offer a higher level of constitutional protection than houses of worship and an ability to make it harder for federal agents to find undocumented immigrants.

    In the hours after Trump’s initial executive order on immigration, calls between religious organizers picked up, and the network rapidly grew. Hoover estimates the underground network could hide 100 undocumented people today. Soon, he believes, they could hide thousands.

    Hoover points out that’s a tiny fraction of the estimated one million undocumented immigrants in Los Angeles county.


    the vestry of Saint Mark’s Episcopal Cathedral devoted most of a retreat to considering whether to become a “sanctuary hub,” said the Very Rev. Steven Thomason, the church’s dean and rector. The vote among the church’s 18 leaders was unanimously in favor, reinforcing the vestry’s December statement pledging to “block, interfere, and obstruct the mass deportations of immigrants.”

    She showed him examples of a valid and invalid warrant. Only the former would allow an agent to enter a home.

    And she gave him a red card he could hand to any agent, indicating he was declining permission to enter. It reads, in part: “I choose to exercise my constitutional rights.”

    Well, at least our side is picking up on the point about warrants. But our more important point remains: what do you do next if the agents – and I promise they will – refuse to acknowledge the need for a valid warrant? Choosing to exercise your constitutional “rights” does not mean showing the agent a red card. A red card is just a red card, similar to how a protest sign is just a protest sign. If the agent refuses to acknowledge your red card, what then? Choosing to exercise your constitutional “rights” means OPENING FIRE ON THE AGENT. The agent can refuse to acknowledge your bullets, but your bullets will still hit him. That’s the difference between bullets and red cards. I repeat, as long as our side is unwilling to take this step, it should not expect to win.

  12. Good new slogan and accompanying hashtag. I made one for the safety pin hashtag that was announced months ago:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>