from Google AI:
The city's population is roughly 57%–60% Black, 27%–32% White, 4%–6% Hispanic, and 2.5% Asian.
If You Could Save Just One Innocent Undocumented Worker from Deportation Back to their Nation of Origin, Would You Join Them? Welcome to the Plur1bus ACT-ivist Community.
"Just Act! Don't Think!"
"No Individuals, No Morality"
"If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
---“There is no such thing as collective guilt or collective innocence; guilt and innocence make sense only if applied to individuals."
- Hannah Arendt, "Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship"
Fanatical Fundamentalism vs. Ironic Distance
"The Suicide Bomber's Dilemma*"
sponsored by the Moral Cordyceps
(aka - White Guilt-Pride/ Wokeness)
Natural Selection is the Universe's "Biological Imperative". Morality, on the other hand, is more a Form from Platonic Space intended to Subjectively represent this Imperative, but can only yield the "Appearance" of it (to Mind). This "Appearance/ Semblance" is therefore Falsifiable.
...and Morality Requires Informed Choice. If Compelled, Coerced, or Otherwise Virally Induced from the Outside (ie - an extended phenotype from a cordycep), it's not Moral. Morality is a freely selected and informed choice. That's what make's its' possessor "Good" or "Bad" and it's choices "Right" or "Wrong". To Reiterate the theme one last time:
"No Individuals, No Morality"
Groups have "Laws and Ethics", NOT "Morals" (and they may not always be congruent)
35 comments:
There’s a special kind of Audacity, and Smugness required to torch a legacy and then stroll back onto the stage, insisting you must be the last grown-up in the room. That’s the energy that Smug Don Lemon is serving as he attempts to reboot himself as a fearless independent journalist. Not humbled. Not reflective. Just aggressively convinced that the problem was everyone else.
The rebrand is familiar: with louder opinions, grander claims of persecution, and that unmistakable smirk that suggests history will vindicate him any minute now. Lemon doesn’t appear interested in rebuilding trust or credibility. He wants applause for endurance alone, as if his persistence were the same thing as professionalism.
Independent podcaster, Don Lemon, fired from CNN in 2023, was arrested in Los Angeles in connection with an anti-immigration protest that disrupted a service at a Minnesota church.
There’s nothing wrong with journalists having opinions. But there is something very wrong with pretending those opinions don’t drive the coverage. Lemon’s recent attempts to blur the line between observer and participant are sold as bravery, but they read more like desperation, confrontations, and making himself the center of the story, framing legal jeopardy as proof of righteousness these aren’t acts of reporting, this is more like
schmoozing with the event’s organizer before the event. Lemon claimed he has no affiliation with the organization he accompanied inside the church and that he was there as a journalist chronicling protesters, a story that is far from the truth!.
The First Amendment protects publication, but not unlawful newsgathering. The courts have been clearon the subject, Reporters Cannot Trespass, Break In, or Ignore Lawful Orders Simply Because They’re Reporting, “I’m Press” Is Not a Legal Shield Against Trespass, disorderly conduct, or aiding unlawful activity. These aren’t acts of reporting! They’re acts of LYING! . The story isn’t what happened; it’s that Don Lemon was there, camera on, chin up, daring the world to appreciate him.
That is not journalism.
The irony is thick, this is someone who spent years embedded in one of the most powerful media machines on earth. Now he speaks as though he’s been banished to the wilderness for heresy, rather than dismissed after a long run of controversy, tone-deaf commentary.
Lemon keeps insisting he’s “covering the news,” but coverage implies distance, discipline, and restraint. What he’s offering instead is proximity and provocation — a model that rewards heat over light. It’s not journalism so much as content production fueled by resentment.
That might build an audience. It won’t rebuild credibility.
Smugness may carry you through a short segment. But it’s not going to carry you for too long.. And no amount of anything can turn self-importance into substance.
Don Lemon doesn’t seem very interested in learning from his fall. He wants to argue with it. His attempted comeback wasn’t done with humility, or renewed respect for the craft, and It won’t rebuild credibility.
If I could save an innocent person from being deported by joining them in not being deported, I'd just have to say "yes". Everything (for me) would stay exactly the same either way. You would say "no" and not save them. I don't know what the point of your question is.
Tim Walz is protecting Foreign Fugitives with Federal warrants.
And Mayor Jacob Frey is in DEEP trouble and he could be charged with a federal crime. And All Hell is about to break loose in this country.
If these people these people who are Pickitint, and Protesting are Paid foreign nationals in the Minnesota jails are fugitives, then they should remember that. They’re fugitives.
So what Walz is doing, because the jails are the subject of his office, the sheriff’s and all, is he’s protecting fugitives. It’s outrageous!
And all he has to do is tell Ellison—Ellison’s a lackey, a far-left lackey—just let ICE and take these people because they have federal warrant out.
And on a federal warrant plateau, Frey has to appear Tuesday at 09:00am in U.S. Federal court in Minneapolis to answer a subpoena.
He has to testify in front of a grand jury.
And I hope that the Justice Department, a lot of people disagree with me on this, will charge him with some kind of federal crime.
And he’s in trouble, Frey is also in Big trouble.
And if the one you saved were a murderer? Would you save him?
The point is... they're also saving "guilty" immigrants. Unlike ICE, they're exercising no discretion.
This is not to diminish what is going on in this country or to belittle how horrible and abusive this mass deportation initiative has gotten. It is awful and it sickening. Yet, there is a huge difference between unfairly facing deportation vs being declared a non citizen bc of your Jewish ethnicity and then hiding from the systematic genocide that killed 6 millions Jews. It’s not the same. Not all tragedies are parallels.
This is not to say that people shouldn’t stand up for the injustice happening right now. You should . You should use your voice. You should call it out and you should fight it. You should hold elected officials accountable. You should be able to do all of that without appropriating and using our generational trauma for political ammo. You don’t need to use our pain to legitimize your concerns, as your concerns can stand on its own.
Not to mention, this hands the opponents easy ammunition to dismiss legitimate concerns as hysterical. It literally hurts the fight. The only thing it has been successful in doing is upsetting holocaust survivors and their descendants who for the most part as a collective are asking for everyone to stop the trivializing, And I think that the people/or the person who has a Grand Old Time quoting, and calling our American President "Hitler should not only be ashamed of himself, but WE should be ashamed to call h an American, as I am.,
Why don't you Dave Dubya READ and attempt to DIGEST at least a sampling of the numerous positive articles posted about all the various Positive things that President Trump has accomplished before expressing one of your ignorant opinions.
And by the way it has been reported that many Progressive Democrats have been seen jumping off of the Roof Tops in New York City, and in California rather than admitting that they were wrong about President Trump, as they were wrong about electing Joe Biden and his Vice President Kamala Harris.
You stipulated that they are innocent, not guilty of murder. And ICE is NOT exercising the discretion that donald trump said he would excercise when he ran. He said "the worst of the worst" would be deported. Who did Liam Ramos murder?
Did you know that Chucky Schumer’s approval rate is the lowest among all of our politicians at 28%.! He hates America, and American’s hate him.
And did you know that Schumer has never done one positive thing as a Senator! No, Nothing!
And infact even the Democrats hate him.
So you have no responsibility to exercise discretion, only ICE does? How convenient for you...
These professional politicians have enriched themselves at our expense. I feel that Our Founders made a BIG mistake when they didn't include term limits in our Constitution!
ps - Sanctuary Cities aren't exercising discretion. It's not even prosecutorial discretion. It's a blanket insurrection against and an Un-Constitutional denial of Federal law.
The Supremacy Clause::
Article VI Supreme Law - Clause 2 Supremacy Clause
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Minus: So you have no responsibility to exercise discretion, only ICE does? How convenient for you...
I have no idea how you reached that conclusion. Or why giving up my right to exercise my own discretion would be "convenient" for me. I think it would be inconvenient. But ICE officials aren't supposed to be exercising their own discretion. They are supposed to be following the rules, which they aren't.
Minus: Sanctuary Cities aren't exercising discretion. It's not even prosecutorial discretion. It's a blanket insurrection against and an Un-Constitutional denial of Federal law.
"Sanctuary cities" only acknowledge the fact that immigration is the providence of the federal government. That's not "insurrection" or unconstitutional. It is an acknowledgement of federal law, not a denial of it.
Anyone that wasted their Vote on Hillary Clinton for the Presidency ought to be HORSEWHIPPED,
Tarred, Feathered, and Ridden Out of Our Lives on a Rail!
Just My Opinion = Moron.
65.85 million people voted for Hillary Clinton. I think many would fight back and resist being horsewhipped and the rest. You are free to cut these smart people out of your life if that is your desire. I don't know why they would want a moron like you in their lives anyway.
It's a repudiation that violates the Supremacy Clause, which are being subverted by the State's.
If federal soldiers are under no obligation to follow Unconstitutional orders from their Officers, why are State Police and Officials following clearly Un-Constitutional orders from the Mayors/ Governors?
It's a 2-way street.
Impeach Tim Walz!
Minus: why are State Police and Officials following clearly Un-Constitutional orders from the Mayors/ Governors?
They aren't.
🥸Is Tim Walz, in not offering full cooperation with ICE operations in his state, acting in an unconstitutional manner, which is an offence he could be impeached for? A blog comment makes this claim, citing the supremacy clause.
🤖No — based on what is known about federalism, immigration law, and the Supremacy Clause, Governor Tim Walz is not acting unconstitutionally by limiting state cooperation with ICE, and this is not an impeachable offense. The claim you saw in a blog comment reflects a common misunderstanding of how federal and state powers interact.
🧭 1. States are not required to help enforce federal immigration law
Federal courts — including the Supreme Court — have repeatedly held that:
The federal government cannot force states or local governments to use their personnel or resources to enforce federal law.
This principle is called anti‑commandeering, and it comes from cases like: Printz v. United States (1997) and Murphy v. NCAA (2018).
Under these rulings: States may cooperate with federal agencies like ICE. But they cannot be compelled to do so. This applies even when the federal government strongly prefers cooperation.
🧭 2. The Supremacy Clause does not require states to assist ICE. The Supremacy Clause says that federal law overrides conflicting state law.
But here’s the key distinction: The Supremacy Clause prevents states from blocking federal agents. It does not require states to assist federal agents
So: Minnesota cannot pass a law saying "ICE may not operate here". But Minnesota can decline to use state/local police, jails, or resources to help ICE. This is why “sanctuary cities” and “sanctuary states” have been upheld in court.🛑
Minnesota LEOs are refusing to uphold non-immigration law, as well but only as it affects ICE officers and exposes them to rock throwing/ assaulting crowds. Such inaction is obstruction of justice and impeachable.
Minus: Minnesota LEOs are refusing to uphold non-immigration law, as well but only as it affects ICE officers and exposes them to rock throwing/ assaulting crowds. Such inaction is obstruction of justice and impeachable.
You have no evidence that any of your claims are accurate. NONE.
So where are the LEOs protecting ICE facilities. AWOL. Do they respond when building attacks occur, or must ICE defend it's own? QED.
Minus: So where are the LEOs protecting ICE facilities. AWOL. Do they respond when building attacks occur, or must ICE defend it's own? QED.
The federal government cannot force states or local governments to use their personnel or resources to enforce federal law. This principle is called anti‑commandeering, and it comes from cases like: Printz v. United States (1997) and Murphy v. NCAA (2018).
Given this, they local police are definitely under no obligation to assist in the event of an imaginary building attack.
The local police are busy with local police matters. It would create a bad situation if ICE could pull officers off their regular duties to make them do the bidding of ICE instead of policing the community. What you propose isn't required as per the Supreme Court and would create dangerous situations if implemented. Your insistence that it is required is completely absurd.
The FILMED imaginary attacks? Federal law? What about local/ municipal law?
What's Minneapolis PD's response time. At ICE facilities, it's "infinite".
I asked Copilot if there have been filmed "building attacks" on ICE facilities in MN. Below is the response...
🤖Short answer: There is *no evidence* in the reporting that “building attacks” on ICE facilities in MN. Videos are of a fatal ICE–civilian encounter, not videos of people attacking ICE buildings.
What the available reporting actually shows...
✅There are videos involving ICE in Minnesota — but they are of a shooting, not building attacks. Multiple news outlets have published or referenced:
Cell‑phone video filmed by an ICE agent showing a fatal shooting of a Minnesota woman during an encounter with ICE personnel.
Additional videos showing the same shooting from different angles, released as public anger grew.
These videos depict: an ICE officer approaching a vehicle. The fatal shooting. Public protests afterward.
None of these videos show attacks on ICE buildings or facilities.
❌No reporting indicates filmed attacks on ICE buildings in Minnesota. In the search results: No article describes attacks on ICE facilities. No article mentions videos of buildings being attacked. No article suggests local police failed to respond to attacks on ICE property.🛑
You can link to a video of a MN "building attack"? I don't see how. Copilot has given me inaccurate information in the past, but I don't think that is what is happening here. This sounds like another of your many delusions.
Of course the response time for an imaginary "building attack" was infinite. Because there were no attacks, there was nothing to respond to.
Me: If there were "building attacks" the local police in MN would respond and offer assistance? I assume the answer is yes.
Copilot: In a situation like the one you’re describing, the answer is straightforward and doesn’t depend on politics or interpretation: Yes — local police in Minnesota would respond to an attack on an ICE facility. ICE facilities are federal property, but they are still within local police jurisdiction.
“Not cooperating with ICE” only refers to immigration enforcement. When cities or counties say they “don’t cooperate with ICE,” they mean: they don’t hold people in jail for ICE detainers, they don’t assist with civil immigration arrests, and they don’t share certain data for immigration purposes. This has nothing to do with responding to crimes. If someone attacks a building, that’s a criminal matter, not an immigration matter.🛑
No evidence, Really? The charge were manufactured? Where were the Local LEOs?
Yes, really. The page you linked to doesn't detail a "building attack". The local police force isn't obligated to act as a security force for ICE.
Via Copilot...
📌 What actually happened at the Minneapolis hotels. Multiple news outlets reported the same core events:
1. Protesters did enter or attempt to enter hotels. Crowds gathered at hotels where they believed ICE agents were staying. Some protesters: tried to force their way inside, damaged property, shouted at or confronted federal agents.
This part is real and documented.
2. Minneapolis police responded. Across several nights, police: detained and cited at least 30 protesters, declared an unlawful assembly when crowds tried to force entry into the Canopy Hotel, responded with force in Maple Grove when protesters targeted another hotel, were present on scene during clashes outside hotels near the University of Minnesota.
There is no reporting showing police refusing to respond.
3. In some cases, federal agents acted independently. One report noted that federal agents deployed chemical irritants without notifying Minneapolis police, which caused confusion.
That is a coordination issue — not a refusal by local police. 🛑
Re, "Where were the Local LEOs?"... the answer is that they showed up and arrested people.
Hotels aren't buildings? Who knew?
You implied ICE facilities. A hotel isn't an ICE facility. But the police absolutely did show up and arrest people at that hotel. You falsely claimed the police are AWOL.
Where were they during the break in? Why didn't they intercede until hours later?
...and more importantly, when will those who organized the attacks go to jail?
What is your proof? You've seen the published communications from Tim Walz that say the police need to go slow when responding to "building attacks" that involve ICE terrorists? You can link me to where these communications have been published? Tim Walz isn't going to be impeached for something he never did. You're living in la-la land if you think an impeachment of Tim Walz is even a remote possibility.
Minus: ...and more importantly, when will those who organized the attacks go to jail?
And, in your delusions, the organizers are Tim Walz and/or Democrats? You'll need evidence first. Sending people directly to jail based on delusions isn't a reality in this country... not yet.
Post a Comment