Being inclined to shoot off one’s mouth like the President does not a qualified and responsible Cabinet member make.
Handling the necessarily ugly process of removing the illegal immigrants deliberately inflicted on the U.S. by Joe Biden (or whoever was pulling his strings) and the incompetent Sec. Mayorkas requires skill, courage, and media savvy. Well, one out of…wait, one out three is terrible. Kristy Noem is a detriment to the policy and the President.
Noem told the world that Alex Pretti committed an “act of domestic terrorism” against immigration agents. That wasn’t true, and even the videos most damning of Pretti didn’t indicate anything of the sort. But her outburst undermined the credibility of Homeland Security and I.C.E., giving the open borders, nullification extremists on the Left just what they wanted.
Noem isn’t clever enough to talk her way out of this, either. She told Fox News last week, Oopsie!… the situation immediately following the killing was “very chaotic,” see, and she was just “being relayed information from on the ground from CBP agents and officers that were there.” “We were using the best information we had at the time,” Kristi blathered. Right: the best she had at the time was bad information, uncorroborated, and only an irresponsible ass would announce it to reporters as fact.
Ethics Alarms 
I agree.
The president’s propensity to fact-challenged and hyperbolic stream-of-consciousness statements only works for him. Aping that simply makes her look incompetent and sycophantic.
Sadly, more than one of his cabinet members go down this road, but none as often as Noem. The administration would be better off without her.
Can people be too good looking and too dolled up to be taken seriously? Noem and Newsome seem to make that case.
From her wiki page (an unbiased source Hah!):
Noem has since become one of the most prominent examples of so-called “Mar-a-Lago face”, a cosmetic surgery trend among conservative women, and what has been called Republican makeup.
What would you call people working for a highly coordinated, well funded, nationwide plot to obstruct federal law enforcement, detaining private citizens no less (see videos by Cam Higby, and I believes James O’Keefe – whatever you think of them, and no matter how you belive the videos may be edited, they were blocked by members of anti ice groups)?
It’s a hell of a lot more than a “protest”
And I’ll have a really hard time believing the “community organizers” weren’t hoping they’d get somebody killed.
Let me know what we should call that.
I have zero problems calling the useful idiots who died domestic terrorists.
What would you call people working for a highly coordinated, well funded, nationwide plot to obstruct federal law enforcement…
The first comment I would make, is that the statement you are making is a ‘wild accusation’ that may or may not be true, or it may be true to a far more limited degree. However the statement does have a *purpose* and it is the incite suspicion and even perhaps paranoia. My objective is to *see clearly* what is happening, and why it is happening, therefore I always try to remain aware of the temptation of being impelled to see things in specific ways, which limits my ability to assess accurately. I hope that you recognize that I am not denying the possibility of collusion and even the interference of ‘agencies’. It would be foolish not to consider all options.
However I think one thing is certain: We are subjects to campaigns to influence us and how we see things at every turn. We are the subjects of manipulation. The question is: How can we avoid being subjects and how can we keep hold on our ability to ‘see clearly’. Is it even possible?
It’s a hell of a lot more than a “protest”.
It is definitely political activism which includes harnessing ‘protest’ for political objectives. I have some friends who detest Trump and everything he is doing and who have gone to No King protests. To the degree that we can converse (it is always strained) I am aware that their opposition is not ‘contrived’. They genuinely believe that the country should go in other direction. Their protest is genuine.
And I’ll have a really hard time believing the “community organizers” weren’t hoping they’d get somebody killed.
Which is to say, in fact, that they had it planned? Then it stands to reason that the Radical Right (and even some strongly Conservatives) would also be *hoping* that the radical left commit something outrageous so they can ‘double-down’ on all their beliefs and assumptions (?)
Let me know what we should call that.
Political manoeuvres that begins to evolve into extremes of political conflicts?
I have zero problems calling the useful idiots who died domestic terrorists.
Likewise ‘they’ have zero problems calling you, or us, all types of different things which may or may not be actually true.
My position is that it is hard to be able to characterize ‘what is going on’ with accuracy because it is all occurring in a “forth and fifth generation information warfare” environment. It is not only civil conflict (in America) but global conflict with many ‘interested parties’.
I am interested to hear your view of what I have said here.
“The first comment I would make, is that the statement you are making is a ‘wild accusation’ that may or may not be true, or it may be true to a far more limited degree.”
Except see the stories on “signal chat” and the aforementioned stopping/blocking vehicles when they are not a governmental entity. Laws? What laws? And how do they pay for all this activity?
“It is definitely political activism which includes harnessing ‘protest’ for political objectives.”
So obstruction of justice is just political activism, then? If so, can you point to anything in our body of jurisprudence that allows interfering with law enforcement as part of our first amendment right to peacably assemble?
“Which is to say, in fact, that they had it planned? Then it stands to reason that the Radical Right (and even some strongly Conservatives) would also be hoping that the radical left commit something outrageous so they can ‘double-down’ on all their beliefs and assumptions”
Can you name one mainstream conservative, or a number of conservative politicians that advocate or support mayhem (as countless democrats have – at a minimum the governor of a state – and countless other elected officials, mayor of Philadelphia among them…)? Is there a study that shows half of conservatives think political violence or assassination of their opponents is ok? Were there a slew of conservative people on social media cheering about the attempted or actual assassination of liberal democrats? Oh, wait that’s never happened, my bad.
“Political manoeuvres that begins to evolve into extremes of political conflicts?”
Or, insurrectionists, perhaps defined as terrorist… they are using violence against the government and don’t care who they hurt. For them, the deaths of Good and Pretti are features, not bugs; they’d otherwise have called for a halt to reassess so no one else got killed. They didn’t, they called for more of the same.
For the love of Pete, let’s begin to call them what they are.
Which, at a MINIMUM is insurrectionists.
My comments were not intended to deny that strange things are going on, but rather to see if it is possible to keep them in perspective. I will share a few thoughts:
I did some research (years ago now when I first participate in this form) about the revolutionary times in the US in the 1960s. There were people and organizations calling for, and organizing for, revolution. So what happened, or is said to have happened, is that paramilitary and extrajudicial operatives (political police?) did all sort of clandestine *ops* to disrupt these organizations, and even of course to assassinate people, to jail them, etc. It has been said that it is possible (or is it now a ‘known fact’?) that JFK was assassinated by paramilitaries? So too RFK. And I read an article by a lawyer who claimed that MLK was certainly killed by FBI operatives. He described in detail how it was all set up. It sounded very plausible I must say.
Now it stands to reason, as my thinking goes, that if in a nation there are groups that begin to advocate for *revolution* that it is normal and natural that they will be opposed by absolute forms of violence. How could any sane person think differently. It seemed to me stupid that the activists of the 1960s were so open about what they intended. They stated that their objective was to create a guerrilla war in the US, to overthrown it, and to align themself with other guerrilla armies operating in the colonial territories in the global south.
So then, the activism of MLK which was, if I understand correctly, communistic or socialistic (?) was opposed by paramilitary power carried on by covert operations about which the public did not know. I am saying that if all this did happen, then in one sense at least it all ‘made sense’.
So if what you are saying is true, and if it is really REALLY true that the so-called “democratic” (or is the right word “demagogic”?) forces that are organizing with such power, and if they are in essence ‘counter-democratic’, then there is legal justification to wage against them. But if the anti-democratic powers are part-and-parcel of the governing system itself — well what then?
My only interest here is just personal clarity. I have no activist interest (I say this truthfully).
The 60s radicals committed murder and bombed, and the idiots today set fire to and try to destroy federal buildings, did try to assassinate Trump, did assassinate Kirk, and they’re trying to turn the illegal invasion and now deportation in to the cause celebret that was Vietnam.
It’s the same playbook, it never changes, and in granting them charity in looking to call it something other than what it is is a huge disservice to the public discourse and the proper solution.
The two differences between then and now is they can’t say young Americans are dying for nothing (while they spit on them as they returned home), and half of self identified democrats didn’t think political murder was justified to end the war.
Clarity is staring you in the face, but it’s ugly and uncomfortable to realize this is where we’re at.
Jack writes about the absurd evil the democrats perpetrate every day, and has since 2016 – it may have presented as not evil or less evil at the start, but it does now.
Yes, he’s called out Noem and Walz, but one said something “innacurate” about somebody obstructing justice, the other has threatened to call out the Minnesota guard to fight the Feds and is responsible for allowing hundreds of millions of dollars of fraud (and strains credulity to say he wasn’t directly involved) that went to Somali terrorists and warlords.
It’s absurd.
Where do you suppose things end up in a few years if we don’t start calling it what it is now?
Maybe when she quits or gets fired she can become an Only Fans star? It’s the latest thing for women, isn’t it? The latest world-fad. She could have a really higher end clientele, and because Trump and family are raking in the billions pursuing business opportunities, why cannot the underlings?
The frightening thing about Noem (and Bondi, and Rep. Boebert) is that your suggestion isn’t that far from plausibility.
As they say, read the whole thing.
And if they don’t fit a description of domestic terrorists, what term should Noem have used?
https://legalinsurrection.com/2026/02/anti-ice-agitators-latest-method-of-resistance-checkpoints/