While we're at it... Part 11

The immigration debate and the subsequent deaths of two of our fellow Americans (regardless of what one thinks of their political views) during anti ICE protests raised quite a few questions, especially the killing of Alex Pretti. Rather than have me, your humble scribe, take you down that rabbit hole, I happen to have the ability to draw on the expertise of a former CBP agent who was more than gracious enough to fill us in on some of his musings. So, without further ado.....

Alex Pretti was unarmed when he was shot and killed by CBP agents. Was he carrying a gun to a protest? Yes. Did he put his gun on and knowingly go to this rally to protest? Who knows. He certainly can’t speak for himself now.  As someone who has legally carried a concealed firearm for 40 years, and who has assisted in training at concealed carry courses, I have always preached that if you are carrying a firearm, you should be LESS likely to get involved in a situation that has the potential to escalate into a use of force incident. The fact that he put on his gun that day should have made him avoid going to any protest, let alone getting into a confrontation with law enforcement.  Additionally, a vital point of any concealed weapons training that we have taught (should be in every course) is that when you are carrying a concealed weapon, you should disclose that to law enforcement and comply with all of their commands so that officers do not mistakenly perceive you as a threat and take appropriate action.

As far as the officers go, having conducted use of force training in both law enforcement as well as military environments, there are elements that must be present to use force. (While I am retired and these continue to evolve, the terms may change but the elements are generally the same.)

1. Ability: Does the suspect possess the ability to kill you or a third party or to cause you or a third party great bodily harm?

2. Opportunity: Does the suspect have the opportunity to kill you or a third party, or cause you or a third party great bodily harm?

3. Imminent Jeopardy: Has the suspect placed you or a third party in imminent jeopardy?

4. Preclusion: Have you reasonably exhausted all other avenues of retreat at that time and at that place? Was there the feasibility or availability of alternative actions?

Secretary Kristy Noem stated that Pretti was armed with a 9mm handgun. While this is factually true, it is misleading because his handgun was concealed. Sadly, in the midst of the confrontation with law enforcement, it became the element that caused agents to use deadly force against him.  One thing I must point out, any individual who carries a firearm, whether legal or not, has turned every encounter they may have into an armed encounter. I believe this situation would not have occurred had he chosen not to bring his firearm to any protest.

Now let’s consider the officers’ actions. As a police officer, you are judged on the standard known as “Objective Reasonableness”. This became the standard for evaluation of use of force incidents based on the Graham v. Connor Supreme Court case. The court ruled that the “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. There are three key elements to the Graham v. Connor decision:

1.           The totality of the circumstances. Judges and juries must consider only what the officer knew at the moment that force was used.

2.           Split-Second judgement: The law recognizes that police officers are often forced to make rapid decisions in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.

3.           Objective Standard: The officer’s underlying intent or motivation (whether good or bad) is irrelevant; what matters is whether a “reasonable” officer would have acted similarly under the same conditions.

To simplify this, I am thinking of an example we created regularly in our use of force training such as mistaking a cell phone for a firearm. In many training situations officers in high stress situations often used force only to find out after the fact that the individual was carrying a phone. If you look at the 4 elements required to use force, clearly a cell phone doesn’t give an individual an opportunity. But coupled with other factors such as what occurred leading up to the encounter, was the individual being non-compliant with commands, was the individual actively resisting arrest or being combative? The sudden and unexpected presentation of something in a suspect’s hands may lead to using force and Graham v. Connor ensures the use of force is evaluated solely by those facts. Hindsight that the individual produced a phone becomes irrelevant if a “reasonable” officer would make the same decision under the same circumstances.

Alex Pretti was engaged in active confrontation with agents acting within the scope of their authority. (While some question their authority, enforcement of immigration law is legal under Federal law, and I believe ICE and other federal agents are empowered to carry out those duties.) So, my question is, was Alex Pretti engaging in “peaceful” protesting or was he actually engaged in obstructing and delaying officers attempting to perform their duties?  There are many differing opinions, but it appears to me that he was attempting to prevent officers from doing their jobs. I also must consider what has been occurring at these “peaceful” protests. Agents have been assaulted; one recently had a portion of his finger bitten off. People have driven cars at them; people have thrown bricks/rocks/projectiles at them… The “peaceful” protests carried out under the guise of freedom of speech are certainly not “peaceful”. Some things to consider… Has the escalation of these “peaceful” protests created a heightened sense of awareness or threat to Agents? Is there a right to obstruct and delay officers in the lawful performance of their duty? Is there a right to assault officers? 

In trying to look at this situation from the vantage point of the officers on the scene, they are attempting to carry out immigration enforcement operations in a community and are met with active obstructing. People are blowing whistles, blocking roads, keeping them from performing their legally authorized duty. Pretti appears to be standing in the roadway. For whatever reason, Pretti and an officer get into a confrontation and Pretti is pepper sprayed. Officers then attempt to subdue him on the ground. At some point Pretti’s firearm becomes visible (not sure at what point it was seen, but someone starts yelling “Gun”. The gun appears to have been removed by a plain clothes agent. Clearly not all of the officers see where the gun is. The agent with the gun appears to run off and Pretti continues to fight with officers and engages in active resistance. Simultaneously, hearing an agent repeatedly yelling “Gun” and seeing the fighting and active resistance, one of the officers shoots Pretti, perceiving that he is actively resisting officers and has a gun. Other officers hear the gunshot, back off and see Pretti continuing to make furtive movements and perceive the threat has still not stopped. This entire situation has escalated into something that resulted in Pretti losing his life. While it is certainly sad when anyone loses their life at the hands of law enforcement, my opinion is that the Agents’ actions when looked at under the “reasonableness” standard do not warrant criminal charges.

In trying to determine a root cause, I then ask why these protests are taking place. Protests against ICE emerge from a deep tension between law enforcement and humanitarian concern. To critics of ICE, the agency represents a system that too often prioritizes enforcement over due-process, family unity, and proportionality. Public protest is seen as a necessary tool to expose harm, pressure institutions, and stand in solidarity with communities that feel targeted or silenced.

From a pro-enforcement perspective, however, ICE is carrying out laws enacted through democratic processes and protesting enforcement rather than reforming the law risks weakening the rule of law itself. The argument here is that inconsistent enforcement erodes deterrence, shifts risks into communities, and ultimately benefits criminal networks and exploitative employers more than migrants themselves.

Both sides point to the same underlying failures: outdated statutes, overwhelmed courts, and political paralysis in Congress. Where they diverge is on tactics—whether moral urgency justifies resistance to enforcement, or whether effective reform depends on maintaining enforcement credibility while laws are changed. The conflict persists not because one side values justice and the other does not, but because each defines justice through a different balance of compassion, accountability, and institutional trust.

Now I have to consider who stands to benefit from these protests.  Actively resisting ICE most consistently benefits political actors and advocacy organizations by mobilizing supporters, attracting funding (think Black Lives Matter and the millions that were raised and used for personal gain), and shifting public debate toward emotionally charged enforcement issues rather than difficult legislative or oversight reforms. Some undocumented individuals may gain short-term uneven protection from reduced enforcement, while—indirectly—labor exploiters, fraud networks, and transnational criminal groups can benefit from weaker oversight, regardless of the intent of resistance. It appears that ICE protests have become well-coordinated, and I believe politicians in blue cities and states are using it to divert attention from fraud or political scandals. (Who is talking about the billions spent on Somali day care centers in Minnesota?) Additionally, media and political incentives favor visible, moralized conflicts over complex accountability failures, allowing immigration debates to crowd out sustained scrutiny of government oversight breakdowns. High-profile fraud cases tied to specific organizations or individuals are therefore not treated as institutional failures but rather community traits. There is a failure to reinforce the core issues of governance and enforcement capacity, in favor of ethnicity or immigration status.

The locations these protests are taking place in are primarily “blue” cities/states that have sanctuary policies. There are countless examples of criminal illegal aliens being arrested by local law enforcement only to be released back into the community to offend again. Sanctuary policies often make immigration enforcement more dangerous and less effective by blocking cooperation between ICE and local law enforcement, forcing arrests out of secure settings like jails and courts and into neighborhoods and workplaces. When ICE cannot take custody of individuals already lawfully detained and identified, enforcement shifts into the community, increasing risks to officers, families, and bystanders while eroding deterrence and clogging an already backlogged system. This fragmented approach can unintentionally benefit labor exploiters and criminal networks, while creating fear through unpredictable, visible enforcement. Allowing ICE to work in coordination with local agencies enables quiet, controlled transfers of custody, improves public safety, preserves due process, and produces a more orderly system that is ultimately more humane and accountable.

Taking this another step back to look at root cause, why are there so many illegal aliens in this country? As the “great melting pot”, America accepts people from around the world. We are also some of the most generous people in the world. While this is a great attribute, it has also created a system that favors the illegal immigrant over the American Citizen. Americans spend billions of dollars each year to provide services for illegal immigrants. Many countries across the globe ensure that immigrants have a sponsor or have the means to fully support themselves without government reliance. Those who support open borders are hypocritical if they are not opening up their homes and personally financing support efforts for those they are inviting into America.

So, why would we choose to open our borders? During the Biden administration, America was flooded with immigrants. In many cases, immigrants were selectively placed in historically red states and areas. In order to determine why this would happen, we must consider the current power struggle on the national political scene. The balance of power between Republicans and Democrats is controlled by a narrow margin. The allocation of seats in the US House of Representatives as well as votes in the electoral college is based on the population count of the US Census. The more people are relocated across the country, the more representatives and electoral college votes that can come from those areas. As we continue to look at root cause, we must consider the current push for and against voter ID.

With countless illegal immigrants pushed into predominantly red states, there have been multiple proposals that would permanently alter the voting demographic of these states. Why would there be such resistance to Voter ID if there wasn’t an active plan to alter the outcome of elections? Why would there be a push for amnesty for illegal immigrants? Why do some states already allow non-citizens to vote in local elections? How are non-citizen voters separated from citizen voters in elections with both National and Local offices on the ballot?  Ultimately, I believe it is all about power and control at the National level.

In conclusion: At its core, this tragedy is not just about one man’s choices or an officer’s split-second decision under duress. It is the downstream consequence of a much larger struggle over power, governance, and control of the nation’s future. Failed immigration laws, sanctuary policies, politicized protests, and selective enforcement have pushed lawful duties into chaotic public confrontations where risk is magnified for everyone involved. These confrontations are then leveraged by political actors and advocacy groups to mobilize support, deflect accountability, and reshape public opinion—often without addressing the underlying legislative paralysis that created the problem in the first place. When viewed in totality, the conflict surrounding ICE, immigration enforcement, and protests like this one ultimately reflects a broader battle over demographic influence, electoral power, and who will shape the direction of the United States. The loss of life is tragic, but the root cause lies in a political system that has allowed power and control to take precedence over clear laws, coordinated enforcement, and genuine reform. I believe America should be governed by American Citizens. There are legal means to immigrate to America, and those who choose to come, should do so legally and assimilate into this melting pot, and become Patriotic Americans who support this great country.

While we're at it... Part 10

 For discussion purposes, the periodical I’m referencing is called the Georgia Record. As you can see, from the list of articles in the first link, Georgia has had some issues in terms of election integrity, when it comes to the Metro Atlanta area. Fulton County (containing the City of Atlanta) has received the most attention due to what most likely occurred during the 2020 election cycle.

Rather than rehash a bunch of stuff in this explanation, it’s just best to let the articles do the talking for themselves, with a little side commentary thrown in for good measure.

Georgia 2020 election issues.

https://www.georgiarecord.com/topic/election-integrity-series/page/2/

There has been much made in the press about the presence of DNI Tulsi Gabbard during that FBI raid earlier in the week. One of the articles alludes to foreign malign influence in the 2020 election. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the national security apparatus would be keen on finding out what really happened.

Rudy sued by election workers.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trial-over-rudy-giulianis-florida-home-is-delayed-due-to-the-former-nyc-mayors-unexplained-absence

Ruby Freeman, and her daughter Wandrea “Shaye” Moss, sued Giuliani for defamation based on the claim that they had been directed to commit ballot fraud on election night.

The real story.

https://www.georgiarecord.com/elections/2022/12/25/ruby-freeman-body-cam-admissions-revealed-in-the-georgia-ballot-scanning-scandal/

The video and audio files embedded in this article tell a completely different story from the “official” narrative that was put out by the State of Georgia. In fact, the Record goes as far as stacking up its trove of recordings against anything to show that there had been high level interference in the reporting of the police encounter with Ms. Freeman. So much so, that what was initially reported by the responding officer(s) looked nothing like what was finally released by the higher-ups.

The only conclusion that can be gleaned from all of the above, is that someone got to Ms. Freeman and her daughter. That someone had an awful lot to be protective of, and even went as far as framing Giuliani. Given that the feds were also involved in this case at some level, it wouldn’t be a stretch to make the argument that they were still pissed at his obtaining a copy of Hunter’s hard drive and releasing it to the NY Post, so they may have joined in the fun, as well. This would be some serious Deep State petty vindictiveness on display, if that is the case. The same sort of stuff that the left likes to claim Trump is guilty of doing.

If this turns out the way I suspect that it will, the SAVE America Act has a really good chance of passing before the midterms, and old Rudy has a chance at getting both his rep and his money back, plus possibly civil damages for what they put him through. These legal proceedings took place in federal court, so there’s the added bonus of not having to share info with the state in terms of appeals or any sort of judicial reversal. This also puts Ms. Freeman and her daughter in potentially serious legal jeopardy.

Things are about to get sporty.

While we're at it... Part 9

 I'm a big fan of Jeff Childers' sometimes hilarious Substack feed, Coffee & Covid (C&C). Well, during a couple of posts last week, he decided to dip his toes into the turbulent waters of the Epstein files. He proposed 4 possible explanations about what had happened and gave a read in terms of the plausibility of each one. 

1. No list was ever created. This had the lowest score, and as attorney Alan  Dershowitz has already stated, he has seen the list, but is under a confidentiality agreement not to divulge what he has seen. More on that later. 

2. The deep state has such a grip on power over our federal institutions that none dare oppose or expose them, and that doing so risks life, limb, property, and livelihood. This too had a somewhat low score, so I'm inclined to think that this would be an outlier as well. 

3. The president is sitting on this list because he has a grander vision as to how these folks can be used in his chess game to make America great again. More on this as well. 

4. A lot of what we currently  know is based on speculation and conjecture, so it's best to just sit back and wait to see what happens next.  This dovetails in nicely with item 3.

The mere fact that Mr. Dershowitz has publicly stated that there is a list and he has laid eyes on it, is something that needs to be explored. The Congress, in fulfilling its Article 1 oversight duties under the Constitution, does have the authority to call Mr. Dershowitz before the relevant committees and interview him about the list's contents. Now of course, there will be those who claim that since he is under a confidentiality agreement,  he cannot do so, but the courts have upheld that congressional authority supersedes any agreement. Dr. Kevin O'Connor, the Biden MD,  is in a somewhat similar predicament. Even though he exercised his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, there are workarounds, such as DOJ granting "king for a day" immunity, if he's done anything illegal. I would suspect that the House Judiciary Committee, under Chairman Jordan, may well be interested in deposing Mr. Dershowitz in a closed door setting to avoid any sort of public spectacle. 

TAW. That stands for Trump always wins. It's become routine to see that tagline in C&C posts. Item 3 suggested that the president may be sitting on things.  Not for his own selfish purposes,  but as part of a grander strategy to return this country to greatness using the very individuals and organizations that either caused and/or contributed to her decline. This would be a series of events that has the potential to shift tectonic plates, not just in DC, but along both coasts, as well. If Mr. Dershowitz can name names, and the potential downfall of those involved is capable of causing tsunamis in the world of politics, business, media, and entertainment, it would stand to reason that those who risk potential exposure would be more than amenable to cooperation, or at the very least, stepping out of Trump’s way as he accomplishes his objectives. Welcome students, to arm twisting 101. Professor Trump will be starting class shortly. 

If, as item number 4 clearly states, that we have no clue as to what's really going on, then I, your humble scribe, will go out on a limb and propose another scenario. We heard a lot of talk during the Israel-Iran conflict about our potential involvement in possibly destroying the three nuclear weapons development sites (Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz). Not a lot was happening, except for more speculation, rumors, and conjecture. It wasn't until we started watching support aircraft being flown into the European theater and B-2 bombers being forward positioned in the Western Pacific that folks started to think the military may be readying assets for some potential operation. President Trump even stated that he would give things a couple of weeks to see what shook out between Israel and Iran.  Then, in the blink of an eye, we were informed that we had attacked the three facilities and all assets involved were on their way home or to back their staging areas. We had just witnessed one of the greatest sleights of hand since illusionists took up residency on the Vegas strip. It's worth considering that Trump does like distracting the opposition from what he really has going on. They get to focus on the shiny object while he works his magic in plain sight. It's not that anything is being hidden, it's just that no one is paying close attention. I wouldn't be surprised if something similar was going on with the Epstein situation. 

Regardless of what the real answers turn out to be, it's time to make sure that our restraints are secure and that we keep our hands inside the ride at all times, because it's pretty doggone obvious we ain't seen nuthin' yet!

While we're at it... Part 8

 If old Joe wasn't really in charge of things, then who was minding the store while America's favorite septuagenarian was catching up on his naps in between helpings of strained peas and the obligatory ice cream cone? Well, the usual suspects come to mind in terms of operating things behind the scenes, namely Camp Obama and Camp Clinton.

This shouldn't surprise anyone, unless, of course, you've been living under the rock in that Geico commercial. The list of senior staffers, cabinet, and agency heads reads like an invite to old home week at the White House. There's Ron Klain, Tony Blinken, Gina McCarthy, John Kerry, John Podesta, Jake Sullivan, Susan Rice, and Dennis McDonough, for starters. If we fold in a few friends of Congress, we get Cedric Richmond and Javier Becerra, courtesy of San Fran Nan. So, why would we need a commander in chief to be in charge of the affairs of state when there are so many folks (including a Democrat sympathetic deep state) running the goings on in our federal government as it is?  So, just sit back, relax, and put things on cruise control. The adults are in charge.

Don't worry about how we're going to extricate ourselves from that brouhaha in Afghanistan. The peeps at State have it covered. That ugly mess brewing in Eastern Europe where the Russians are threatening to invade? Not to worry, it's just sabre rattling. Even if they do, a minor incursion isn’t that big of a deal. That balloon with a reconnaissance payload the size of an electric school bus traversing the country and hoovering up as much Intel as it can possibly handle? No problem. We can always shoot it down once it heads for the open waters of the Atlantic. All that stuff going on with Israel and the Middle East? That's why there needs to be a two state solution. Those Palestinian fellas just want some elbow room and the ability to run the show on their own.

The whole Transgender surgery thing with the kids? It's kinda like that Lola song from the Kinks we liked to sing along to back in the day. L-O-L-A Lola, just like Pepsi Cola. And not letting trans girls play in girls sports? If they say they're girls, then that's good enough. So, what's the problem here? Haters gonna hate!

All those folks flooding across our borders from around the world? C'mon man! They're here for the opportunity, and you want to ask about their papers? Are you some kind of Fascist or Nazi? All that Fentanyl and other drugs coming across our southern border? Hey, this is the Capitalist model at work here! The supply needs to meet demand and keep all those customers happy. Besides that Mayorkas fella and the Border Czar said that they've got a handle on things. So, why so glum chum?

And what's all this about lawfare against Big Orange and the rest of his MAGA ilk? This isn't lawfare, this is warfare. This is about the battle for the soul of the nation! They tried to overthrow the government with that insurrection of theirs. These people are dangerous!  They're even scarier than Dark Brandon, and that's one scary dude! That's why they can't ever run things again. Besides, all the other world leaders didn't like him and complained that he was waaay too pushy, especially our NATO friends.

Wait, what’s that? Oh Hell! You people went and voted for him again, didn't you? Well then, whatever happens from here on out is on your heads. See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya! 

While we're at it... Part 7

 

Good day. This piece has been collecting dust since it was first written approximately six years ago as part of a FB discussion. Given the current state of the world (and the various controversies that dovetail nicely with the screed below), I felt that the time was finally right to dust it off, make a few edits, and post it. Enjoy.

 

There are certain truths which, when taken at face value, seem like contradictory statements, but are in fact part of the same broad tapestry. Specifically, the idea that there is a God, evolution and intelligent design are at odds with each other, and that there is intelligent life on other worlds.

I do believe that there is a supreme being who created the universe. That same being in its infinite wisdom strove to create a universe that would be self-regulating (barring divine intervention, miracles, etc), ergo the laws of physics, chemistry, mathematics, and so on. That same being also chose to create life amongst the various worlds throughout the universe that had the capability of supporting it.

If the universe is between 12 to 14 billion years old and the Earth is about 4 and one half billion years old, it would only stand to reason that life originated on other worlds thousands, millions, possibly even billions of years before it ever showed up on ours. That fact, in and of itself, would give rise to civilizations whose technology would be as far beyond ours as ours would be compared to a bunch of cavemen. In their quest to learn more about their surroundings and a desire to explore what’s out there, they would no doubt have developed spaceflight capability and set out to discover the great unknown (much like we’re doing now).

As to how life came into being, the only one who really knows all of the intricacies involved in the process would be our creator. What doesn’t seem like such a mystery though is how we could be what we are and not some creature swinging from a vine. Let’s go back to that mechanism regulating the workings of the universe. That same mechanism would also have the ability to identify those life forms that had the potential to be more than they were and work on ways to exploit that potential over the course of eons. It would be able to weed out unsuccessful approaches from the more successful ones and push the most viable ones forward. It would basically be a combination of intelligent design and evolution.

Both folks on the left and right believe, in one fashion or another, that we are all there is in the universe, as if a god who believed in life in all of its glory would have only created one sentient species to inhabit the limitless cosmos. As for evolution, it could also be considered arrogance to believe that we are at the pinnacle of creation. If the mechanism that has been working to bring about humanity as a species is still doing its thing, then it stands to reason that we are not a finished product (if the Lord made us in his spiritual image, then we have an awfully long way to go).

 If we as a people (I’m talking about humanity here, folks), can come to grips with this, then we would be more willing to accept our differences, not just as relatively minor, but as infinitesimally insignificant and inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. The key to our survival hinges on our ability to look beyond the trivial and focus on what really matters. If we can do this, then our ability as a species to not only survive, but thrive, will be assured.

 Lastly, anyone who somehow thinks that these views are incompatible with each other may be lacking in vision as well as wisdom in my humble opinion. It would be the height of sheer arrogance, on second hand, make that hubris, to think that we know everything that there is to know and that we are all there is. Remember: pride goeth before the fall.