An interaction with a local county sheriff

I was working on my flag pole in the front yard a week or so ago (it’s one of those telescoping, 20 ft poles) collapsing it so I could bring the top down to get to the US flag and replace it with a new flag. I had my "Army Veteran" hat on.

A man and his son are riding their bikes past my house... They stop. He asks, "Are you a veteran?"

I look at them and say to him, "Yes, Sir, I am."

He gets off his bike, walks over to me and introduces himself, saying, "I'm such and so, and I'm a _______ County Sheriff Deputy. If you drive this street to get to the freeway, you'll see the car sometimes at my house."

I'd seen in many times.

I shook his hand and told him I appreciate what he's doing, that there is no way *I* would get in that car, day after day, and put up with a public that all too often hates him because of his badge.

He told me that in a short time, he was leaving to join the Coast Guard. And without saying why, I totally got it.

He is driven to serve. And in 2026, the cost to his family and himself was far too high, day in and day out, so he was making a major career change so that he could continue to serve, but also continue having a family that would not be faced with the stress of wondering, day after day: "Will my husband/father come home tonight?"

I didn't ask him what job he was enlisting for. He was, perhaps, 30 or so. He's an adult who charts his own course. And jobs in the Coast Guard can be extremely hazardous (A Coastie was just killed just off Astoria, Oregon a few days ago) but his job as a deputy requires him to face danger which, IMHO, is geometrically more... for geometrically less... than any job he's signing up for.

We chatted for a few minutes... I thanked him and his son for stopping by. Wished him luck in his new career. Told him I appreciated what he has done and will be doing.

He thanked me for my service... which lacked anything close to the dangers he experienced on a routine basis... and I left him with this:

"You and your family were worth it."

As were you all.

God Bless the men and women in Blue.

The insanity of leftist state and local governments trying to obstruct ICE enforcement.

I don't get state and local political scum attempting to control federal law enforcement. Are they brain damaged? Are they on drugs? Is it all kabuki theater as they attempt to convince their fellow fringe-left nutjobs that they're actually doing something? Racist Boston Mayor Michele Wu, among others, have signed utterly laughable and completely, legally, indefensible orders that they want to believe will somehow hinder ICE, et al, from performing their assigned mission, the mission that was a major factor in the president's successful election. Why do they even bother?

Look, we get that the left operates on hatred. Obama deported many more, for example... separated families by the thousands... built those cages leftist scum tried to blame Trump for... all without riot one.

We get that to be a leftist requires one to be both a hypocrite AND a racist.

But even the furthest fringe of the left knows there's nothing state or local governments can do. Obama proved it when he successfully stopped Arizona from enforcing state immigration laws.

"In Arizona v. United States (2012), the Supreme Court issued a mixed ruling on the Obama administration’s challenge to Arizona's SB 1070, generally upholding federal authority over immigration. The Court struck down key provisions that allowed state police to arrest immigrants for federal registration violations, but upheld the controversial "show me your papers" provision requiring status checks during stops."

While leftist scum operated states act all tough towards the fed, whether it's immigration law or election law, talking shit all the time, they know they have no power or leverage.

So, they instead encourage rent-a-riots (many of the rioting scum are getting paid to be there) to engage in obstruction and violence... all, of course, while they keep THEIR skirts clean.

Boston's mayor is no different, and these same leftists making a show of "fighting" the federal government as they support illegals pissing on federal immigration laws damn well know it.

Minneapolis ICE shooting: a good shoot. (With pictures)(Updated with overhead view pre-shooting)

Whenever police officers use armed force when they believe there's a threat to themselves or others, that's referred to as a "good shoot."

By any stretch of even hate-filled imagination, this qualifies as a "good shoot."

I'm assured by someone who disagrees of the following:

He was firing before he stepped in front of her car. I’ve seen it in slow motion over 20 times. He could have moved she wanted to leave he blocked her. He shot her 3 X!!!!! It was completely unnecessary and to call her a domestic terrorist is disgusting.

Well, the person telling me this is wrong.

While in college, I completed the degree requirements for an Administration of Justice AA degree, meaning I had completed training not unlike that of a police officer. I have training in threat assessment and the use of deadly force.

In this instance, I've seen a great many videos from a great many POV's of this incident.

This video, which is part of a presentation by "The Officer Tatum," a former police officer himself, makes it clear that the quoted statement above is in error.

I include the link so the viewer can see what I am talking about.

At this point, ICE officers are rolling up to an illegally parked car which has attempted to block the use of ICE vehicles. The officer involved in the shooting is already on the ground to the passenger-side of the darker vehicle (SUV) in front of the truck

ICE leaves the truck, approached the SUV, tells the driver to get out of the car: (Note the driver's side window is down so the driver clearly heard the command to get out of the car.)

At this point, one of the ICE officers attempted to open the driver side door. Note the car is in reverse and backing up as shown by the backup (white) taillights coming on.

Here, the driver has shifted the car out of reverse. Note the lack of brake lights as the driver shifts the car into drive.

At this point, the ICE officer who fired at the driver has moved to the front of the vehicle (Mostly blocked by the ICE Agent next to the driver side door. Note that he is NOT firing his weapon and, at this point, has yet to draw his weapon.

Looking closely at the lower picture with the arrow makes it even clearer that the Agent had not drawn his gun at this point as the butt of his sidearm is clearly visible still in his holster.

The ICE officer did not draw his weapon UNTIL the vehicle started moving forward. Contrary to the assertion above, he was NOT firing his weapon "before he stepped in front of the car." As this video has shown, he had not drawn his weapon TO fire it as he is clearly in front of the car... and did not do so until the car began to move forward, essentially directly at him.

At this point, she has started to move forward towards the officer in front of the car and it's only THEN that he fires his weapon while also being struck by the vehicle.

Clearly, as the officer fired, the vehicle is moving forward towards him.

He fires again as the vehicle continues to move forward 

At this point, it's likely the driver had been shot in the head and the vehicle continues to move forward, picking up speed until the SUV rammed what appears to be a parked car roughly 60 yards down the road.

He fired 3 times, apparently, and I do not know for a certainty that he hit her 3 times.

But when it comes to training, the training is to stop the threat. Ultimately, that's what happened.

And typically, when police fire their weapon, it's rare that they only fire once when they feel their lives or the lives of others ARE endangered.

From this angle, it appears to be clear that the ICE officer was struck by the vehicle. The blur in front of the vehicle is from the vehicle hitting the officer. (This is also part of the Tatum video)

You can hear the first shot only AFTER the vehicle hit the officer, again disproving the allegation that he was firing "...before he stepped in front of the car."

For many, their strong feelings in the entire deportation issue cloud their judgement. They frequently believe what they're told, even in the face of actual evidence. I, on the other hand, am "cursed" by actual training and knowledge of when to use deadly force.

This is one of those times. Those ICE officers were there with actual, specific, arrest warrants. And these people have been so thoroughly programmed that they didn't care.

The left is upset that ICE is arresting people WITHOUT warrants... and they obstructed THESE officers who HAD warrants.

Clearly, the issue of warrants is merely an excuse. And comments by the Minneapolis City Council, who voted overwhelmingly to disbanding their police department is the kind of thing that has resulted in a massive increase in assaults against ICE officers and other violence the left has perpetrated.

In the end, this was a "good shoot."

It's tragic in its own way, but the reality is that all too often, stupid games result in stupid prizes.

This is one of those times.

I'm sure lawsuits will be filed. After all who has deeper pockets than the Fed?

But realistically, there's no grounds to sue anyone but local police who clearly failed to do their jobs, for whatever the reason, to protect ICE Officers as they were doing THEIR jobs.

Trump, Newsom and Bass: all in.

With the deployment of Marines and additional National Guard, the leftists running California and L.A. HAVE to keep the riots going.

They have no choice now.

If Trump succeeds, it will be ANOTHER political disaster for both Newsom AND Bass, who proved their political incompetence in the recent fires that rocked LA.

If Trump's deployment of troops is successful, then he will get the credit and Gov. Incompetence along with Mayor Moron will look like complete idiots that Trump had to come in and bail out in SPITE of them, their opposition notwithstanding.

Trump, for his part, now MUST end these riots by whatever means he can for the same reason.

The ripple effects of this will likely determine the mid-terms and play a major role in '28, either way.

Both sides are all in. Now, we've got to see what The River will deal.

The harbinger of the end of electric vehicles? A tough 6 months for EV's.

For years, the warning signs have been on the wall, ignored by the leftists supporting the radical doctrine of leftist control masquerading as "environmentalism."

In so many things, we've been ordered to "believe the science."  And, frequently, the "sciences" has been deliberately manipulated to achieve the desired outcome.

Thus, we have the fringe-leftist's dogged determination to ram electric vehicles down our collective throats for purely "environmental" reasons.

States such as the Washington Soviet contest with unconstitutional edicts concerning, for example, limiting automotive purchases to the sale of only electric vehicles only, on the thoroughly disproven concept that these vehicles are environmentally cleaner since their power source is electricity over gasoline... without discussing the reality that most power is provided by coal-fired power plants as well as using horrifically polluting lithium batteries which cost a fortune to replace ($20,000 is a realistic figure).

Not to mention that pollution resulting from the stunning short life span of the tires on these vehicles.

Costs for the vehicles themselves are astronomical. (Typically, $14,000 more than conventional gasoline-powered vehicles) Keeping them recharged is a nightmare with costs equally stratospheric and climbing, not to mention the overwhelming lack of supportive infrastructure that makes availability of actually functioning chargers (which frequently won't work in cold weather) and, of course, the time wasted to recharge these things and the horrific losses in range and practicality in cold weather.

The costs for home chargers are also a consideration: the charger and installation can run between one to two thousand dollars.

Additionally, some EV companies have been confronted with numerous recalls, allegations of poor quality, and the insanity of limited/controlled repair options. A reputation for going up like match sticks, both in the event of an accident and spontaneously, play a role.

The result? Consumers have been paying attention. And the more attention they pay, the more the obvious shortcomings have come into play

The Wall Street Journal brings it altogether in their article: The Six Months That Short-Circuited the Electric-Vehicle Revolution

The Six Months That Short-Circuited the Electric-Vehicle Revolution

Automakers went all in on battery power, but buyers have proven more hesitant

One example from the story:

Lyndsey Grover, a Dallas-based pediatric anesthesiologist, said her husband was pushing her last year to replace her hybrid Volvo with an all-electric version, for environmental reasons. 

She looked at a Tesla Model Y and an electric Mercedes, but ended up with another Volvo—a plug-in hybrid that could travel some distance on battery power before switching to traditional hybrid mode. 

Her husband already had a Tesla Model S. She said it often requires a full night of charging at home, and even then, its range on a single charge often fell below estimates displayed by the vehicle. She felt the family needed at least one gas-powered vehicle.

I will likely never own an electric vehicle. And, as reality sets in and the monumentally inane demanded time lines are shown to be anywhere close to possible to meet, the fringe-left demands concerning EV's will fade as well.