February 18, 2016

Court schmourt: Men with guns enforcing deportation of immigrants (Operation Wetback)

The initial hysteria about replacing Scalia on the Supreme Court seems to have already subsided. Still, let's remember who really enforces policy -- not the courts but the executive branch. One of the major cases lined up for the highest court in the land has to do with Obama's executive orders for the Border Patrol to more or less stand down and let the whole third world flood over our borders.

First, notice where the weakness is coming from -- the executive branch, whose chief officer is not only refusing to enforce our borders, but is actively ordering them to step aside. It's not as though we had a resolute executive and legislative branch struggling to defend our borders against invaders, but that dang unelected court just insists on usurping Presidential and Congressional authority. Already we see how irrelevant the judiciary has been in getting us to where we are.

More than that, though, is how things will change back toward strong borders -- a determined President Trump will send out teams of men with guns to round up whoever has to go, and will escort them over the border. Other men with guns will be stationed along the border to make sure no one comes back in. Along with the soaring Trump Wall that will also be built through executive action, not through judicial opinion.

In the earlier post on the impotence / irrelevance of the judiciary's opinions, we learned about Governors of several Southern states sending in their state militia (National Guard) in order to block the desegregation of their public schools, which the Supreme Court had already found to be unconstitutional in 1954. We saw pictures of how that was countered -- by the President sending in the Army. There were no protracted court battles: the federal men with guns had more power than the state-level men with guns, so the federal level got its way, and desegregation went through in the South.

In that vein, here are some pictures of the deportation of Mexican immigrants during the 1950s. These immigrants were not responding to a judicial decision, but to men with guns who rounded them up, put them on trains, and pointed guns on them if they tried to flee or sneak back across the border. This was part of Operation Wetback, which was ordered by the head of the INS and carried out by armed officers of the Border Patrol. Both the INS and Border Patrol belonged to a federal executive department (Justice) -- no role for the legislature or the courts.





This gives us hope even in the worst-case scenario for the Supreme Court's decision about immigration. Just suppose that Obama nominates a hardcore open-borders Justice, who is then confirmed by the Senate, and the new Court delivers an open-borders opinion. We will still win against them if we elect Trump as President. He will control the men with guns who actually enforce the borders -- both at the border, and rounding up illegals already within our borders. Let the Justices opine all they want: when it comes to enforcing the laws, it is still, as always, the President who holds ultimate authority.

25 comments:

  1. Andrew Jackson to Chief Justice John Marshall, re: the Trail of Tears (Marshall was against it): "Mr. Marshall has made his ruling. Now let us see him enforce it."

    ReplyDelete
  2. A.B. Prosper2/18/16, 12:47 PM

    This isn't the 1950's the culture is very different though I'll acknowledge that parts of the US especially out East and in parts of the Midwest haven't changed much.

    Its actually quite amazing to see. I was looking at some pictures of the N/E where my family is originally from and it looks demographically, fashion wise and so one like it was 1985 at the latest. Heck the raw numbers in that area have grown like 3% from 1950.

    Its possible that enough spine remains or that people fear Trump enough to follow orders.

    However this kind of presumes no President Clinton, Sanders, Cruz or Rubio?

    Why do you assume that it won't be one of them. by a nose?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I said we can still win on immigration "if we elect Trump as President". Obviously none of the sell-outs would do it.

    "Its possible that enough spine remains or that people fear Trump enough to follow orders."

    100% guaranteed.

    Do you think that soldiers who followed Obama's orders in Iraq and Afghanistan will not follow Trump's orders to secure our national border and expel the invaders?

    Remember, the Army isn't (yet) a group of suicidal emo redditors.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good ol' Andy Jackson. It's reassuring to know that at one point the Democrats had some spine.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Also enticing to ponder what a Trump DOJ and FBI will look like. Could be an excellent opportunity to cut troublemakers down to size, if and when they run their obstruction campaigns. Given the intensity of popular support for Trump, I would bet his supporters will stay motivated enough through his election and inauguration to voluntarily counter the agitation actions anti-Trump forces will gin up ... (ie, if Soros funds a pro-illegal street-clogging demonstration, the Trump Army will voluntarily come in and smash it) ... it will then come in handy to have the executive security organs in (mostly) friendly hands.

    ReplyDelete
  6. That and the fact that when you look at the crowd of a Trump rally, half or more of them are not afraid to go to jail, especially for a good cause.

    ReplyDelete
  7. With the thoughts you'd be thinkin2/18/16, 11:36 PM

    I'm not sure if a modern day Operation Wetback would be nearly as effective. Most of the illegals back then were migrant laborers, who worked and traveled back and forth across the border seasonally constraining how far they could travel, many of the illegals nowadays send remitances home so they aren't as limited where they can go. Further many more of the illegals are women who then have children in the US who become citzens due to birthright citizenship. Also illegals while still concentrated in the South-West are more dispersed throughout the US. I think that one fact that is worth noting is that Operation Wetback had large scale co-operation with Mexico due to Mexico needing the workers and the Branchero program providing a replacement to both the illegals and their employers. Mexico nowadays feels it needs the remitances and the pressure release for its society and many illegals are not even from Mexico. Finally I think the media is stronger nowadays and more able and inclined to make mischief. I believe that there will be rise in deportation and enforcement, a wall, perhaps a re-examination of birthright citizenship and other such things. However the problem is of a different scale and a different nature, so the deportation will not be as total as expected, the wall may be completed in a way that is compatible with treaty obligations so in many places miles north of the border, birthright citizenship could be revoked but it wouldn't be retroactive. Basically the smart thing to do would have been to continue such policies but they weren't, so much of the damage is unlikely to be repaired by a deportation of immigrants.


    ReplyDelete
  8. As our future President might say, "Do me a favor, and don't worry so much, OK?"

    Obviously we have a taller order before us than the Eisenhower administration did. But don't let yourself get freaked out, and just keep your eye on the ball.

    Geographic spread doesn't matter -- we have men with guns stationed all over the country, and we aren't rounding up the Mexican Navy SEALs here, just bloated waddling beaners.

    Mexico won't work with us as much -- fine, we use an extra little muscle. Build the wall first, then deport, and they can't get back in. Or, threaten them with tariffs if they put up resistance to deportations -- they make a fortune off of us in trade. They want that money more than the handful of remittances that are sent back by illegals.

    The media cannot stand in the way of the men with guns. They wouldn't want to in the first place, because they're bloodsuckers not martyrs. Secondly, they know they'd get knocked right over if they did. If they tried to lie in order to stoke public anger, all Trump does is continue to make them his bitch as he has been doing for nearly a year now -- this time not just on Twitter, but by interrupting primetime TV to set the record straight about the lies being spread by lightweight reporters at failing news channels.

    Birthright citizenship is gone. Probably make it retroactive too. First Trump goes through Congress, getting them around a table, cajoling and schmoozing them. Whatever remains to be done, he does through executive order.

    And buh-lieve me, those executive orders will be very hard to un-do by the next President. The deported anchor babies and their families who were brought here under false pretenses (that the anchor baby was a citizen), will have re-integrated back in Mexico, China, India, or wherever. They're not going to come all the way back, knowing that the next-next President could round them all up again -- back and forth over national borders every decade. They'll stay put.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Lightweight Reporter at Failing News Channel" -- in case any lurkers are looking for a username.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The fourth estate spent the Obama years wasting its ammunition on kkk ghosts, running apologias for neocon-lite foreign adventures, and singing hosannas for The Poofter Rebellion. Now when they really need it, when a bonafide, unapologetic force of nature like Trump has arrived on scene and is threatening to destroy all their little satanic sandcastles, in one fell swoop, they're tapped out. They're out of ammo, and their gun barrels are melted.

    As Trump accumulates even more power, they'll become more desperate and weak. Trump has succeeded where previous reformers have failed: he has established a direct line of communication to the public, and unmasked the gatekeepers for the shallow whores and false dmitris they are. And the Adelson-class behind the gatekeepers are now almost openly loathed.

    All it takes is an energetic minority of patriots to overwhelm the energetic minority of saboteurs (who have lost their edge, and are now on their heels), and take control of the critical functions of the state. The broad middle will go along with whoever wins.

    As far as deportation goes, the host here is right: first, terminate birthright citizenship (even retroactive), build the wall, implement e-verify with very harsh penalties for violation (really demonize the employers as modern-day slave traders, etc.), immediately round-up and deport anyone with even a misdemeanor (let alone a felony), make a show of thumping the gangbangers, send in federal agents to walk all over obstructing sanctuary city bureaucrats, and then kindly invite all the rest of the illegals to show up at the departure terminal for their trip back home. To sweeten the deal, I'd say that illegals who have otherwise behaved themselves will get to keep whatever money they have, and the fedgov will cash-out any of their real or personal property at or above market rates (and then make back most of it on a govt. auction). I bet many would comply, and for those who wouldn't, you've got the men with guns.

    The limp-wrists will scream and howl on TWTR, but won't actually do shit. Somewhere in hell, Lenin and Trotsky are shaking their heads at the state of today's Bolshevik. Meanwhile, Trump has reclaimed America, the red white and blue, and deployed it for what's good and necessary. To be anti-Trump is to be anti-American.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Interesting post & appreciate the historical view. The problem I see with a strong populist movement or revolution — the respective politics of Trump or Sanders aside — is that when the movement succeeds, then historical forces are tilted so sharply toward a certain direction that, after the goals of the initial leadership are achieved, those forces continue to shift even past the stopping point the initial leadership had intended. In the cases of certain people's revolutions, the movement can take chaotic turns determined as much by mob rule as by the prudence & intent of the initial leadership. I'm not wholly opposed to Trump's presumed stopping point, but rather would be concerned about the gnarlier and significantly more radical second-wave movement, where the adherents invent new shibboleths specifically intended to force early adopters of the original movement either to alter their views to fit the new framework, or to be reclassed as opposition by the new party core. Trump (and his early supporters) could find themselves cast on the outside of the movement they created. I'm not sure what the second-wave movement might look like here, but the main danger to my mind would be a weakening of constitutional protections for individual citizens (as could occur under a castrated judiciary). On the other hand, Trump may surf nimbly along on the second-wave, determine (perhaps accurately) that there is nobody qualified to carry on his great work after two terms, and begin to explore ways of violating current term limits. I'm not sure if a 12- or 15-year presidential term is intrinsically a bad thing, but Trump's successor could wreak havoc under such a system — especially being handed this new precedent about armed groups who "are not afraid to go to jail" being permitted to go out & enforce the whims of the executive office.

    Hopefully, this is just my own paranoia, but imagine President Sanders — not Bernie, but the 17-year-old lovechild of Bernie Sanders and Malia Obama, who is of legal presidential age on account of changes made during the Donald J. Trump Constitutional Convention of 2022 — mobilizing the Chicago gangs to go & carry out orders backed by the "will" of the "people" on behalf of the New-New Left.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Look again at history -- when McKinley and the Progressive Republicans began the long process of stabilizing the anarchy of the 1830-1890 period, did we get a Communist dictatorship not long after?

    No, we got the New Deal.

    That may sound like an ironic punchline to libertarians, but normal people like the 1930-1970 period, and don't see it as the initial Progressive Era ratcheting out of control.

    The real danger is that after awhile, people have been raised only during the Wonder Years and take stability for granted. "Yeah, I guess taking others into account is a good thing, but why not focus entirely on myself?" They don't get that if one person begins status-striving, others probably are as well, and pretty soon it's a war of all against all -- right up to the brink of state breakdown.

    "armed groups who "are not afraid to go to jail" being permitted to go out & enforce the whims of the executive office"

    Not whims, doing what's right. You really think people are going to risk jail on a whim -- let alone someone else's whims, rather than their own?

    ReplyDelete
  13. "That may sound like an ironic punchline to libertarians, but normal people like the 1930-1970 period, and don't see it as the initial Progressive Era ratcheting out of control."

    Right now, the liberloons are having a cow about Trumpites running roughshod over "liberties". But what has extreme individualism done for us over the last 30-40 years? No matter your"rights", if you've been aiding and abetting treason against real Americans, you should be (and probably will be)stripped of your assets, thrown out, imprisoned, or executed.

    "I don't want the gov spying on my data!" Big deal, we're going to be getting a lot more than mere surveillance. In the 1950's, people essentially opted towards conformity with wholesome norms as it was self-evident that certain things were just not cool. Like gay bars. The authorities had a fairly light hand since people were cooperative.

    Alas, by now, we've descended into such hedonistic stupor that people are going to have to be grabbed by the collars and perhaps worked over quite a bit to send the message that needs to be sent: We're all in this together, cut the crap about your right to do what I whatever I feel like. We've got a greater responsibility then indulging our base desires.

    Neil Howe has been saying for years that late Gen X-ers and Millennials are much more receptive to the state (the dreaded STATE!) growing, and he's cautioned Boomers and early Gen X-ers that they are going to need get over late 20th century cynicism and individualism. Fortunately, we've still got some Boomers (but not enough, judging from Hillary's polls) who are tired of hearing the same old song that's been played since the mid 70's. "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you" as Reagan derided (to the ecstasy of the Me Gen). How's this instead: I'm under the command of Pres. Trump, and I'm here to MAKE you get with the program!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Most libertarians don't seem particularly hostile to Trump's campaign from what I've seen. Even Lew Rockwell seems supportive.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Part of any realistic restoration of normality and security is going to involve some kind of force and revocation of (or defiance of) local and individual rights. Which is inherently offensive to libertarians, who go on and on about what is right or wrong in the context of government affairs. A Rockwell type is grateful for Trump at the moment because Trump seems less airheaded than the others (Rubot, mama's boy Jeb, holy roller Cruz, malevolent Clinton, free college Bernie, etc.). But libertarians are more or less autistic; they don't understand why the big bad gov has business managing anyone's affairs; C'mon, we can't have our fun get spoiled. The reality of human nature is that people are often so selfish, so shallow, so greedy, that we ought to NOT be left to our own devices. How did the AIDS epidemic happen? Boomer gays felt no obligation to the common good, while public health authorities "stood down", issuing polite recommendations for safe sex when they should've (and could've) been arresting and quarantining infected people.

    Even a nominally conservative libertarian type like Rockwell would demure from going that far. He may find gays to be distasteful, but he'd play the slippery slope card if you asked him about the government (local or federal) literally arresting people on account of dangerous sexual behavior that occurred between "consenting adults". As though every adult, regardless of their character and value, is entitled to do as they wish. Everything has consequences. Everything. If people are to glib to understand this, or too nihilistic to care, then we need to start shoving the truth through their thick skulls. And if they won't listen, then we'll cave 'em in.

    ReplyDelete

  16. Turns out that what played in Peoria in the pre-Pc 1980's (when child molestation, teen runaways, and serial murder had gotten so of control that people could no longer stomach the idea of Adam and Steve) was used to smear Ron Paul during his '08 pres. run.

    Per wiki: n January 2008, during Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign, James Kirchick of the New Republic uncovered a collection of Ron Paul newsletters and alleged that they "reveal decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays."[17][18] For instance, one issue of a newsletter described African-Americans as "animals",[17] another asserted that 95% of them were criminals,[19] and another approved of the slogan "Sodomy = Death" and said homosexuals suffering from HIV/AIDS "enjoy the pity and attention that comes with being sick".[17]

    These infamous newsletters were written in the 80's and no author was credited at the time of publication. Any kind of association with non PC views was the kiss of death from 1992-2014. To the point that anonymously written newsletters featuring derision towards minorities that was socially acceptable in the Reagan era were blown up in the face of a man (Ron Paul) with 30 times more integrity than the other clowns running at the time.

    By the way, however exaggerated the newsletters were, they made essentially true points. Blacks are more likely to be criminals. Gays in fact are more pathologically screwed up than heteros.

    The liberal response to "stereotypes" is always, "that's not true for each and every one of them". Sure, it isn't. But on average, stereotypes are indeed relevant. Just because someone defies a stereotype, that doesn't negate the fact that others fit it. You might have a helpful and pleasant gay neighbor who you'd trust to help you out. But that doesn't mean you should assume that a typical gay has any business taking your son on a camping trip.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Who is James Kirchik? A fag near Millennial (born in 1983). Sporting a bloated physique and thinning hair (is he already on meds to deal with HIV/AIDS?).

    His "career" seems to consist of hissy fits about "horrific" homophobia. Well, the way that homo zealots are going to be treated is going to be horrific, alright. They think it's bad now?

    By the way, I goofed. I guess those Newsletters did have Paul's name (who wrote them exactly is disputed) , so I guess he should've known better. But it was the 80's, after all. Who knew who dumb things would get later on?

    ReplyDelete
  18. If Trump is elected, he'll have just as much trouble enacting his campaign promises as Sanders would. President isn't King. And most Republicans, let alone the population as a whole, don't like him. He's certainly gone farther than anyone thought he would, but I think he's on his last legs. As soon as Kasich drops out and the Republican establishment officially gets behind Rubio and puts all of its resources towards his campaign, Trump is done. It will have to happen quickly though, and I'm not sure that it will. But I still predict it will be Clinton and Rubio.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Chill out, man. The Pres has a lot of power. Obama himself has been jerking around with our immigration enforcement left and right; he's defied any moral or legal obligation to better defend the borders.

    From the last big dust-up surrounding the issue in 2014:

    "Congress has done its job–they passed laws against illegal immigration years ago, and have refused, in the face of citizen pressure, to repeal them. Obama’s job is to enforce those laws, and he is seriously not doing his his job–on purpose–as revealed by this RealClearPolitics/AP report:

    Deportations Down 20 Percent, Fewest Since 2007, By Alicia Caldwell, , September 12, 2014

    "WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama has quietly slowed deportations by nearly 20 percent while delaying plans to act on his own potentially to shield millions of immigrants from expulsion."

    "The Homeland Security Department is on pace to remove the fewest number of immigrants since 2007, according to an analysis of its data by The Associated Press."

    "Obama announced plans earlier this year to act on his own to slow deportations but now has postponed any changes until after November’s elections. The delay is an effort to shield vulnerable Democrats from potential voter ire at his unilateral actions."

    " -The Obama administration decided as early as summer 2011 to focus its deportation efforts on criminal immigrants or those who posed a threat to national security or public safety. Many others who crossed into the United States illegally or overstayed their visas and could be subject to deportation are stuck in a federal immigration court system. Last month the backlog in that system exceeded 400,000 cases for the first time, according to court data analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University. For each case, it now takes several years for a judge to issue a final order to leave the U.S."

    Ahem, you get the idea. The president sets the tone, regardless of what anyone else thinks, says, or does. Pre-Trump, we haven't had enough of either public rage or elite noblesse oblige to hold the bad guys accountable and restore normality and good will. The rise of Trump indicates that we're tired of the BS and ready to leave the libertarian greed freaks, the fatalists, and the culture war twits behind. The identity and elitist posturing of 1970-mid 2010's is being prepped for burial. It's going to mean something again to just be a regular American looking out for everyone. Enough with cloaking weirdness, grievances/paranoia, and careerism with a veneer of nobility.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Keep in mind also that the two biggest factors governing human behavior at any moment (at least in America) are:

    First, whether we're in an outgoing period (1900-1929), (1960-1989), or not (1930-1959), 1990-1929). As you can tell, they tend to go through 30 year cycles. It seems like people have more confidence, creativity, and fun in an outgoing period, regardless of whatever else is going on (high crime rates, suicides, etc.).

    Second, high or low levels of inequality. It's more difficult to narrow down specific time periods; rather, it seems like there's a class related lag effect. For example, there was minimal efforts by anyone to get rich and live large from about 1940-1970. But if you ignore last ditch striving by a desperate few in the 1930's, and if you ignore elite early-adopter striving in the 1970's, you could say that 1930-1980 was a quite egalitarian period in which most played fair. So equality cycles last about 50 years, but due to stragglers and early adopters, the exact borders between eras are quite amorphous.

    It is obvious that 1990-the early 2010's represent the nadir of the last cycle of widespread striving. When you take into account that it also coincides with cocooning, it's no wonder people are so selfish, sour, cynical, and decadent. Fortunately, the 2020's will see a revival of common man culture while people also start to get out more often.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "President isn't King."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers_of_the_President_of_the_United_States

    Appointing / firing heads of all federal agencies in the great big bureaucracy, appointing his cabinet, veto-ing legislation, executive orders, issuing pardons, commanding the men with guns, adjourning and convening Congress, foreign policy, and so on and so forth.

    You're from out West and have fallen for the conspiracy theory mania. There is no secret cabal that Trump must kiss the ring of. He's going to re-make America, not just by himself but through all of those hirings and firings at the SEC, the FBI, the this, the that -- every agency.

    "And most Republicans, let alone the population as a whole, don't like him."

    Like him or don't like him as a person, he's going to re-make the country for the greater good.

    "but I think he's on his last legs."

    Right, picking up the same number of delegates in Iowa, a plurality of delegates in New Hampshire, and then 100% of the delegates in South Carolina -- he's done for.

    Earth to cultists: chanting an incantation about "peak Trump" will not make it rain on our parade.

    "As soon as Kasich drops out and the Republican establishment officially gets behind Rubio and puts all of its resources towards his campaign, Trump is done."

    Again you've fallen for the anti-government conspiracy theories where the Republican Establishment controls the whole thing, and only lets voters give Trump so many delegates as a distraction.

    Nobody is fooled by Rubio, or Cruz, or Kasich. The main reason Trump is thumping the Establishment is because he's turning out millions, even tens of millions, more voters than usual, and they are overwhelmingly voting for him.

    Surveys show that Trump voters have made up their minds for months, and will not change their minds. So the Establishment can get behind whoever it wants, it'll do nothing to derail the Trump train.

    You're hoping that all the non-Trump voters at this stage are hardcore Establishment cocksuckers -- but a large share of them are just conformist airheads who are going along with Rubio (probably flipping a coin the day of the primary) because they've been told Trump can't win, and Rubio is the sure thing.

    Once Trump keeps racking up such a large percentage of the delegates, the conformist voters -- a large share of all primary voters -- will sense which way the wind is blowing, and vote Trump.

    If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I'm going to write a post just about the kinds of things Trump could do under standard Presidential authority -- the kinds of things no one has bothered to do up until now because they're bought and paid for by the elite interests.

    Then we'll see about "President isn't King". The President has so much power, it'll make your head spin.

    Just as a teaser -- Trump could say, I encourage Governors of border states to send in their National Guard to secure the border, and also to round up and deport illegal immigrants within their state. If Obama or the courts should happen to sue, fine, or arrest the Governor or the members of the National Guard, I PROMISE YOU, you will be pardoned on day one of my administration, and perhaps given a bonus for sticking your neck out.

    That would begin the deportation process before he's even elected.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "You're from out West and have fallen for the conspiracy theory mania. There is no secret cabal that Trump must kiss the ring of. He's going to re-make America, not just by himself but through all of those hirings and firings at the SEC, the FBI, the this, the that -- every agency."

    No secret cabal, just Congress. And I'm the farthest thing from a conspiracy theorist. I'm sure you're aware that Presidential candidates make all kinds of promises during a campaign that end up getting stymied or watered down once they're in office, not because of a lack of will, but because of how our government is set up, with checks and balances and whatnot. Plus, public opinion does matter.

    I would be interested in reading a post on what you think a President has the legal authority to do and maybe would try to do in a Trump administration. I probably wouldn't disagree on most of it from a legal standpoint, but it's whether a President WOULD do it that I think we have a difference on.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Again you've fallen for the anti-government conspiracy theories where the Republican Establishment controls the whole thing, and only lets voters give Trump so many delegates as a distraction."

    I've fallen for nothing, I'm just aware of a number of scenarios where I think Trump will fail. One is where the Republican establishment, along with Kasich and Bush supporters, coalesce behind one candidate giving that person a lead over Trump. Another is a simple brokered convention, which I don't rule out at all. As I stated, most Republicans, let alone the general population, don't support Trump. A brokered convention would anger Trump supporters, but not much of anyone else.

    I do agree that if any other candidate had the numbers that Trump does, we wouldn't be talking about these alternatives. It's just that Trump is, to most people, odious.

    ReplyDelete

You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."