Yeah, I’m trolling. So sue me.
A mob of Minnesota pro-open borders, anti-Rule of Law, insurrection-minded, Jacob Frey toadies and crazies invade a church service and harass parishioners on the pretense that the minister supports immigration enforcement, and the framing of the event by the nation’s alleged “newspaper of record” is to call the trespass and mass assault a “protest” and to focus on I.C.E. tactics when the issue is anti-I.C.E. tactics. The immigration control agency was not involved in this criminal act in any way, yet it is in the headline.
Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias!
For readers new to Ethics Alarms, “A Friend” is an unfriendly, denial-soaked ex-commenter here who banned himself from the comments, an act that is addressed specifically in the blog Comment Policies. Unlike even the most disrespectful and defiant bannees of the past, who typically issue a one or two finals shots and then sink into the obscurity they so richly deserve, this jerk has adamantly refused to comply with the site’s owner and moderator, me. Thus for years he has repeatedly blog-bombed posts with comments that I have to delete while also sending me emails that also go directly to spam, because he is somehow convinced that he’s smarter than everyone else. You know,
He’s already tried three (or is it four?) illicit comments in 2026. “A Friend’s” main delusion is that the New York Times isn’t an Axis of Unethical Conduct stalwart and makes up for its persistent fake news and manipulated partisan commentary with the occasional wan criticism of a member of its favorite party (guess which) or the fact that some Times readers call out the Grey Lady’s most egregious ethical breaches, though one typically has to wade through a flood of “Right on!” replies to find them.
Of course, if “A Friend” does take up my challenge, you won’t know about it, or it won’t be around for long, because he still doesn’t have commenting privileges.
Tell everybody my reaction to that, Nelson!
Now, to be fair, it isn’t only the New York Times that is embracing the now familiar unethical Axis media technique of deflecting proper public attention to progressive or Democratic Party misdeeds by focusing on the conservative, Republican, or responsible negative reaction to it. Here is Fox News’ headline on the story:
That, as even Fox News haters should be able to concede, is fair, balanced and accurate.
Here is a screenshot I took of Google just now…
Notice anything?
Ethics Alarms 
If she’d just gotten out of the car as directed by the federal officer, she’d be alive today.
There are conflicting reports that she was ordered to get out of the car or to get out of here. Possibly both. Possibly enough noise that the directions were not heard clearly.
I can understand why anyone, a woman especially, having seen ICE tactics, would be afraid to get out of the car in that situation. I cannot understand why an experienced agent would stand in front of a running automobile, apparently using a cell phone to take pictures or video.
I suspect we never will know the truth since the FBI already has been given the results of whatever investigation they do and Minnesota law enforcement has been shut out of what normally would be a combined investigation.
To be fair, someone pointed out to me that there was a non-zero chance that if she got out of the car, she might have been deported to an Ecuadorian maximum security prison.
This point caught me wildly off guard and I am still not sure how to respond….
A mob of Minnesota pro-open borders, anti-Rule of Law,
How can anyone take you seriously when you start an analysis with that sentence? It reeks of bias.
Consider it provocative words to start a deeper discussion on the matter. If you’ve really been reading Jack for some time, you’ll know he does write at times in a way to challenge people to disagree with him. Do you disagree that the protestors are pro-open border? Provide some arguments why you think that. Do you disagree that they are anti-rule-of-law? Then make your case. Maybe you can start with “anti-rule-of-law is poisoning the well because it is hyperbolic, in that these people disagree with a small handful of immigration laws, but respect rule-of-law in general (followed by examples)” and then proceed from there?
Otherwise, calling the protestors who are defending illegal immigration carte blanche certainly seem pro-open-border to me, and protesting against enforcement of laws and actively harassing people who might be in favor of enforcing the laws, seems pretty anti-rule-of-law to me. It certainly strikes me of an attitude of, “I feel bad, so I can do whatever I want, and I should suffer no consequences for it.”
Absolutely untrue. 1. It was a mob. 2. They were in Minnesota and presumably Minnesotans. 3. They were anti-ICE, and ICE enforces the immigration laws. Without I.C.E., we have open borders. 4. They are opposing lawful law enforcement, and the laws that make illegals illegals.
If you have fact-based, logical argument to contradict any of those description, make them. You can’t. They are straight statements of fact, blunt, but accurate.
Several of the sources on this that I have seen stated that many in the mob traveled to Minnesota to protest and were not, in fact, from the state. The bigger question is whether or not taxpayer money was funding their protests.
This attack seems to be an obvious FACE Act violation (intentionally injuring, intimidating, or interfering with, or attempting to injure, intimidate, or interfere, any person by force, threat of force, or physical obstruction exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship;) that has a 6 months in prison, $10,000 fine penalty each. Since this was obviously a conspiracy to interfere with their religious worship through an act of intimidation, this also can be prosecuted under the KKK Act. A fine of up to $5000 (antiquated) and up to 10 years in prison is the penalty for the KKK Act.
How would you rather they were described, Marisa?
why are undocumented illegal aliens and those who harbor them in violation of the CFR are above the law?
It has been stated on this site more than once that the previous administration threw open the border and invited million of migrants to come on in.
To the extent that is true, and from the perspective of the migrants, they believed:
a. They were welcome, wanted, and legal, or
b. The President was a doddering old fool, but he still spoke for the country, so entry was okay, or
c. We may be entering or staying illegally, but, what the hell difference will it make.
Of course, many citizens would choose none of the above, but, the migrants?