Reporting the events at the PHC picnic, Saturday, in Taylorsville, the pithy article in the SL Trib is (almost) entirely accurate:
Immigration supporters crash conservative group’s picnic
Protest ยป About 30 urge amnesty at caucus gathering.
By Sheena McFarland, The Salt Lake Tribune
http://www.sltrib.com/D=g/ci_15231387
The lengthier article title and story in the Deseret News was not quite accurate both as news and because it failed to be listed as an editorial of the authors emotions on the subject of illegal immigration. However, there were within it some pearls of fact not included in the Trib.
Caucus meeting becomes site of demonstration on immigration reform
Gina Barker, Deseret News
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700037917/Caucus-meeting-becomes-site-of-demonstration-on-immigration-reform.html
I think the two articles were reflective of the event itself. With one significant exception, the PHC people were over thirty years of age and well schooled in the founding documents creating the republic, the biographies of the founders and Patrick Henry, in particular, and the details of the Arizona law that was being protested. The protesting picnic crashers were overwhelmingly less than thirty years old, students at UVU, and well-versed in Progressive-tainted public school distortions of American history, the founders, the legislative intent of the U.S. Constitution and the details, reasons for, and the intent, of the Arizona law they were protesting. Not one in the protest group understood that to oppose the law is to champion rape trees and forced narcotics transport.
The Brown Beret, (I only saw one) and the RSU, UVU division, (is there another?) combined were less than twenty in number. The newspapers cited thirty protesters. Not all of the thirty people standing around the reporters were protesters. I was standing there, for example, I should not have been counted, nor the two others that walked over there with me. Also, not protesting were, at least two news reporters and a TV crew.
Half the battle in advancing one’s point of view is to show up. Tim Bridgewater, Daniel Thatcher, and Carl Wimmer, each a candidate for public office and Cherilyn Eagar, candidate for nomination for Senator, all engaged one on one various members of the protesting group. To their credit, the useful dupes, driven to protest by emotions trumping facts, when presented with facts, stopped chanting and went home. Just a few, maintained a don’t-confuse-me-with-facts-when-I’ve-already-made-up-my-mind posture of trying to shout down with slogans the disturbing rebuttals seeking lodging in their minds.
Two of the RSU persons were exceptional. Zach Olpin, drew me aside so that we could discuss the details of the Arizona law without one of his companions screaming in our ears. The other person, the person de facto, if not in actuality, the leader of the RSU, Gregory Lucero, is a very intelligent, literature based, arm-chair revolutionary. Academia, and myself, likes to entertain the delusion that if the “other” is presented with a few, or a lot of, facts and documents, they will be persuaded to our side of the discussion. Together, Gregory and I, prove the fallacy of that point of view. We seem to have a similar foundation of literature. He, as I, seems to have studied Latin. Mutually, we can claim to have read, Rousseau, Hobbes, Marx, The Federalist Papers, the Constitution, and the Arizona law 1070. Gregory, hold on to your knickers, Conservatives, carries with him a pocket edition of the Constitution! I bet you thought that an act reserved to right-wing nut cases.
As for conclusions drawn from the reading of those documents, we are diametrically opposed. We did unequivocally agree that the U.S. Constitution specifically was opposed to direct democracy. Nevertheless, the discourse was civil and academic to the point of causing an “eyes glazing over moment” for those listening to us debate. ; ^)
Civility, at this point, aside, Gregory, hopefully because he lacks the crucible of history insight and/or the first-hand eye-witness experience, that I have in being at the historical occurrence of minor bloody insurrections in New York City, Chicago ’68, Columbia University’s Days of Rage, and a few others, is a romantic revolutionary of the most dangerous type. He has a disdain for Thomas Paine because Paine rejected Robespierre’s literal heads rolling in the streets form of government. He advocates a day when his opponents will stand before firing squads.(It’s posted on his facebook page.)
I can only hope he gains insight into the genocidal conclusions of his failed, in the crucible of history, political agenda, before he has to experience, and subject the rest of us to, its folly.
