WHY are leftist politicians so adamant about killing the SAVE ACT

Prepare to be shocked... SHOCKED, I tell ya!

Leftists opposed to the SAVE Act are once again literally on the wrong end of yet another 80/20 issue.

As far back as October 2024, 83% of American voters support the core tenet of that legislation. The few democrats voting for that act have been savaged by their hard-core, fringe-left base, treating that obvious requirement (that voting be limited to American citizens and requiring proof of citizenship to register) like the rioting scum in Portland treat the ICE facility.

Democrat supporters of this legislation, which, to be bluntly honest, DOES include our congresswoman, are verbally beaten to a pulp by the fringe-left of their own party.

They remind silent in the face of the massive, bipartisan support for this legislation across the voting spectrum of this country.

In the face of fringe opposition, one must ponder... why?

WHY do they oppose this obviously needed legislation? In fact, that opposition lends itself to outright justification to PASS it.

This situation is reminiscent of the 2020 election debacle. Georgia has recently been in the spotlight for their electoral incompetence in that election... which begs the issue: why were leftists so terrified of investigations?

They did everything they could, everywhere they could, to stop any investigation of any kind. Lawsuits, TV whining, demands to end it.... but why?

Imagine the political difference the world would face today had they agreed to the total transparency demanded by the GOP?

There were only two possible outcomes: had the democrats agreed, participated fully, encouraged the states and people involved to be totally forthcoming and the investigation revealed...

Nothing.

Or, the second outcome: that the so-called "election deniers" had been absolutely right, that their assertions of voter fraud and ballot manipulation had been correct?

Kinda like that revealed in Georgia a few days ago? You know... like that neither democrat US Senator would have been elected? Like Biden would have lost as a result of corruption replication across the several states that all mysteriously shut down their ballot counting at roughly the same time?

Folks, if my 30+ years in politics taught me anything, the most lasting lesson is that there are no coincidences in politics.

There's a reason the left attacked those with concerns about the 2020 electoral outcomes with a viciousness reserved for the mafia.

And, of course, let us not forget the DEMOCRAT election deniers who were never crucified by the press for their sour grapes. For example, 41% of Harris voters polled claimed the results were illegitimate. At least one suit filed in New York challenged the outcome.

Other democrat election deniers include Maxine Waters, Jaime Raskin, Pramila Jayapal, Barbara Lee, Raul Grijalva, Stacy Abrams, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, Hakeem Jeffries, Shiela Jackson Lee, Barbara Boxer and many others are ALSO election deniers... but because they're leftists?

No one cares.

One wonders: Why does the left have their OWN election deniers, while continuing to oppose steps to strengthen the very election security so many of them have complained about?

When THEY lose.

The reality is clear: had they wanted honest elections, they would have joined in the 2020 calls for investigation instead of fighting it tooth and nail.

After all, what's the worst that could have happened? That confidence in election outcomes would have skyrocketed based on the outcomes? So, why did the left fight it so hard?

And why now, when even CNN has pointed out MASSIVE support for these efforts to ensure that only legal voters are allowed to vote?

You can draw your own conclusions.

What, exactly, did those in power know, and when did they know it?

These midterm campaign commercials frequently write themselves. This is one of those times.

Thoughts on ICE and the latest George Floyd style leftist idolatry of Pretti and Good.

First, legally speaking, there is no doubt that both shootings are going to be held as justifiable.

Second, had both of these people done what they were told, they'd still both be alive.

Third, bringing artillery with you as you confront ICE will rarely end well for the carrier.

Fourth, neither shooting would have taken place had Minneapolis Police been allowed to do their job, i.e., provide security for ICE operations.

Fifth, the Second Amendment goes out the window the moment you engage in criminal conduct, which Pretti arguably did do.

Sixth, leftist politicians, who are using these people as tools, don't care how many protestors are hurt or killed as long as it's on video so they can do their virtue signaling sound bites.

Leftists lied repeatedly over the circumstances concerning the Good shooting.

It is well known from massive video evidence that Rachel Good did, in fact, hit the Agent before he fired.

The lesson in that action is clear: if you're driving a vehicle and you don't want to become a target?

Then don't turn federal personnel into targets.

As for Pretti...

The 2nd Amendment does not entitle you to engage in criminal conduct. He was first, engaging in obstruction and second, resisting arrest. He was also like in violation of a federal law or two, but hey, so what?

I appreciate the expertise of those so concerned about the Bill of Rights. But nowhere in that document is the word "protest," present, for example... kinda like the words "abortion" or "privacy."

Everyone does, however, have the right to "peaceably assemble." This was not that.

Their ilk has caused millions of dollars of damage and have absolutely zero problem destroying private property whenever you feel like it.

Not does it give anyone the right to vandalize, block traffic, violate any laws/ordinances, assault, use their vehicles as a weapon, block traffic, intimidate those who disagree with your views, loot, burn or murder, or vandalize vehicles like Pretti did several days earlier.

I understand that hatred is what motivates their ilk. I understand they don't care about federal immigration law. I understand that when millions were forcibly deported under, say, Obama, none of them cared. I understand that even though they tried to hang the "cages" and the "separating families scam" on Trump, that happened for 8 years under their hero and none of them cared.

But while this guy at least TWICE brought a weapon with him as he was confronting federal law enforcement DOING THEIR JOB, I also understand that his right to carry ended with his criminal behavior.

Did he have the right to engage in such stupidity? Up until the moment he interfered. Then he lost that right.

And at the end of the day, there's one undeniable fact:

OK.... Trump's failure to follow through on Iran is getting to me.

He pledged to respond militarily to the Iranian terrorist government if they began to kill protestors.

Like he pledged to respond militarily to the CHAZ insurrection in Seattle.

In Iran, 10's of thousands have been killed since he made that pledge, making the mistake of, once again, believing the US government's promises.

Many of those protesting continued to do so because that light at the end of the tunnel was promised by Trump.

Turns out his failure to keep his word unleashed an OCEAN of blood... as they seem to have been run over by that same truck.

Mr. President, didn't CHAZ teach you anything?

If you make a pledge to act, you MUST FOLLOW THROUGH.

Directly or indirectly, people are dead now because they believe you... and believed in you.

For what?

In the Army, the first rule of leadership I was taught: "Never promise nothing you can't (or won't) deliver to your troops."

Right or wrong, you made a commitment. The entire world, including this country, DEPENDS on you keeping your word.

People died based on your pledge. Now it all seems to have been in vain, given that once again?

The United States has failed to keep a solemn commitment.

There will NEVER be a better opportunity to rid this planet of these terrorists than there is right now. THIS is the Schwerpunkt.

There will likely never be another.

And that seems to be on you, Mr. President. Donald J. Trump Pete Hegseth U.S. Department of War

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.

Thoughts from others on the Maduro hit/arrest.