America loves to debate socialism. We argue about universal healthcare, guaranteed income, student loan forgiveness, and government dependency. We pride ourselves on our rugged independence and belief in free markets. We warn that socialism destroys innovation, freedom, and personal responsibility. But here’s the uncomfortable truth most Americans never stop to consider: the most centrally planned, government-dependent, subsidy-driven system in the United States isn’t medicine, housing, or energy—it’s food.

Our food system is not a free market. It is not capitalism in any recognizable form. It is a government-engineered economy propped up by taxpayer dollars at every stage, directed by regulation, shaped by corporate interests, and leaving both consumers and farmers dependent, unhealthy, and without real alternatives.

Each year, more than $40 billion of taxpayer money is used to subsidize commodity crops like corn, soy, wheat, and cotton. Crop insurance—also paid for largely by the public—is essentially another subsidy, and without it, most large commodity farms wouldn’t survive. But the subsidies don’t stop at growing. Once harvested, those subsidized crops become corn syrup, seed oils, stabilizers, livestock feed, artificial ingredients, ultraprocessed food additives, and ethanol—fuel grown on prime farmland and heavily subsidized again under the banner of environmental benefit.

Then the same Farm Bill that subsidizes growing and processing also subsidizes purchasing those foods through SNAP benefits. And when the predictable metabolic outcomes emerge—obesity, diabetes, fatty liver disease, autoimmune disorders—the government subsidizes the healthcare required to manage the consequences. So the loop looks like this: we subsidize growing the ingredients. We subsidize the industry turning those ingredients into processed food. We subsidize the public buying those products. And then we subsidize the medical care required to treat the disease that food causes. That isn’t a food economy. It is a taxpayer-funded dependency system.

People like to imagine that subsidies make farming cushy. Nothing could be further from reality. Even with subsidies, 85 percent of US farmers work a second job just to stay on their land and feed their families. They are subsidizing the food system with unpaid labor simply to keep feeding the country. I once watched a dairy farmer who had just won the lottery. When asked what he planned to do with the money, he shrugged and said, “I’ll keep farming until it runs out.”

He wasn’t joking—he was describing reality. Ask a farmer where they see themselves in five years and many go silent. Some get emotional. Some laugh because it’s safer than crying. I know that feeling: the pit in your stomach, the exhaustion, the prayer for a path forward.

What we have is not capitalism. It is a hybrid of state control and corporate power—uncomfortably close to agricultural indentured servitude for the very people who feed the country.

And the regulations farmers face are not about safety—they are about control. To legally sell raw milk in Texas, I need a raw milk permit, a government-approved facility, a mop sink, a floor sink, a dishwashing sink, a handwashing sink, an employee restroom, specific ceiling materials, and multiple pages of compliance requirements. In Idaho, to legally sell raw milk, you need a business license. Same country. Same product. Same cows. In California, raw milk regulations are so extreme that only one company in the entire state can meet them.

When I lived in Ventura County and asked about applying for a dairy permit—not even raw milk, just a legal dairy—the official told me, “There isn’t a single dairy left in this county. The regulations are too much. We don’t recommend you apply.” The department responsible for food production was actively discouraging food production.

Some people say, “Regulations should protect health, not eliminate competition.” But the government’s job was never to protect our health, and it certainly isn’t protecting it now. If health were the priority, soda wouldn’t be cheaper than water. Ingredients banned in other countries wouldn’t appear in US baby food. Seed oils wouldn’t be unavoidable. And products engineered for addiction wouldn’t be placed directly into school cafeterias and federally funded food programs. This has never been about safety—it has always been about protecting industrial systems and the corporate interests behind them.

Meanwhile, the public is not thriving. We are overfed and undernourished, surrounded by food yet biologically starving for nutrients. We solved hunger by creating a new kind of starvation—one hidden inside colorful packaging and subsidized pricing. And while we celebrate cheap food as if it’s proof the system works, we’ve lost 170,000 farms in just eight years.

So what is the path forward? It’s not bigger government, not more regulation, and not another layer of bureaucracy. The solution is choice, access, and freedom. We need regional processing, on-farm legal processing, reduced permitting, consumer willingness to support real farms, and knowledge passed farmer to farmer—not mandated, standardized, or enforced from a federal desk. Agriculture was never meant to be uniform. Different soils, climates, cultures, and regions require different approaches. We need fewer barriers, not more. And we need systems built for resilience and nourishment, not efficiency and control.

We can call this system whatever we want—capitalism, socialism, or something in between—but if a nation cannot freely feed itself, it isn’t free.

Epoch Times

A giant reservoir of “secret” fresh water off the East Coast that could potentially supply a city the size of New York City for 800 years may have formed during the last ice age, when the region was covered in glaciers, researchers say.

Preliminary analyses suggest the reservoir, which sits beneath the seafloor and appears to stretch from offshore New Jersey as far north as Maine, was locked in place under frigid conditions around 20,000 years ago, hinting that it formed in the last glacial period due, partly, to thick ice sheets.

Sascha Pare, MSN

Dear friends and family,

Once again, we are sitting on the edge of our seats. Will Trump attack Iran or won’t he? I want to try to share the feelings here in Israel.

On the one hand, most Israelis want a military operation—either by America alone or jointly with Israel—that would result in regime change in Iran. Iran is the proverbial head of the snake. If the Ayatollahs could be replaced with a “normal” regime, it would completely change the face of the Middle East. It would dry up much of the funding, supply lines, and support to Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. It would contribute greatly to bringing peace to the region and would prevent Iran from eventually becoming a threat to Europe, which it will, if it goes nuclear.

Iran is rebuilding its ballistic missile program, which Israel severely damaged in our 12‑Day War with it last year. It has already replenished its stockpile, and it’s estimated that they now have over a thousand missiles. Next year they may have 2,000, and the year after that 3,000. They are also trying to rebuild their nuclear weapons program. The lesson of October 7 for us is that we cannot ignore and allow the military buildup of our neighbors to become too dangerous to us. In Gaza, we let Hamas become a major threat by not paying enough attention to their activities and not reacting in time. So, regarding Iran, it seems better to attack their nuclear program, their missiles, and overthrow the regime now, rather than wait a few years when they may have a nuclear weapon and thousands of missiles that can overcome our air defenses.

On the other hand, we know that if America attacks Iran, Iran will retaliate against us, as they have done in the past. Even though in the 12 Day War our anti‑missile defense intercepted 90% of the incoming missiles, the ones that got through caused a lot of damage. Their missiles were accurate and very destructive. Soroka Hospital in Beersheva took a direct hit, and we have not been able to repair the damage to this very day. The same goes for the Weizmann Institute in Rehovot, an academic center of research and learning. Not to mention the many apartment buildings that took direct hits, causing massive damage to entire neighborhoods and the loss of civilian life. We know the price of a confrontation with Iran, and most Israelis are very worried—and frankly, scared. But again, many feel that the best thing to do would be to take down the regime now and pay the price, rather than confront a stronger and more dangerous Iran in a few years in order to defend ourselves against nuclear attack. The tension here is great.

We are also approaching dangerous crossroads in Gaza and Lebanon. I’ll start with Lebanon. In the war, we pushed Hezbollah back from our border about 20 kilometers. We agreed to a ceasefire on the condition that the Lebanese government would take control of the border area, prevent Hezbollah from returning, and disarm them. The ceasefire was backed and guaranteed by France and the U.S., whose role was to help strengthen the Lebanese government and army. But agreements are one thing and reality is another—especially in the Middle East. Hezbollah is stronger than the Lebanese army, is refusing to disarm, and is trying to return to areas adjacent to the Israeli border. As with Iran, Israel cannot allow Hezbollah to regain the strength and threat level it had on October 6. Things may lead to a military confrontation in the not‑too‑distant future if the Lebanese government and the West cannot get control of the situation.

Gaza is also complicated. Israel and Hamas agreed to a ceasefire—sort of. It was more like Trump announcing that Israel and Hamas had agreed to a ceasefire, and then the parties had no choice but to go along with it rather than upset Trump. The ceasefire was to take place in two stages. In the first stage, Israel was to withdraw its troops and occupy only about 50% of the Gaza Strip (down from over 70%). Hamas was to return all the hostages, living and dead, within 72 hours. Once this happened, the ceasefire would move to the second stage.

In the second stage, Israel would withdraw completely except for a one‑kilometer‑wide buffer zone along its border. Hamas would give up power and turn the Gaza Strip over to a new governing body. They would surrender their weapons. An International Stabilization Force would take military control of Gaza. Israel would open and relinquish control of the Rafah crossing between Egypt and Gaza. Everything that enters Gaza—cars, food, building materials, medicines—goes through the Rafah crossing. But not only those things. It has also been the route for weapons, tunnel‑building supplies, money to fund Hamas, and the movement of terrorists traveling to Iran for training and returning afterward. So control of the Rafah crossing is a big deal for Israel. We do not want to relinquish control if Hamas is still a force in Gaza.

We kept our obligations of stage one. We ended our attack and did our partial withdrawal. But Hamas hasn’t fulfilled their side completely. Hamas is still holding one hostage—the body of Ron Gvilli. They claim they don’t know where his body is. Israeli intelligence believes they do know and are withholding him as a bargaining chip for future concessions. As far as Israel is concerned, Hamas has not met its obligations under stage one of the ceasefire—the return of all our hostages—and therefore we object to moving on to stage two. If we don’t insist Hamas meet its obligation now, we may never get Ron Gvilli back.

The U.S. apparently wants to move on to the second stage of the ceasefire even though Ron Gvilli has not been returned. Trump set up the Board of Peace and other committees to govern Gaza. The problem we have with the committee Trump set up is that representatives of Turkey and Qatar sit on it, and they are supporters and sponsors of Hamas. Turkey, in particular, makes no secret of its hostility toward Israel. Having them on the committee is like having Hamas on the committee.

But most importantly, an International Stabilization Force has not been established. There are not many countries willing to send troops to Gaza to confront Hamas, disarm them, and take control of the territory. As in Lebanon, where the Lebanese government is no match for Hezbollah, Israel doubts that there will be an international force strong enough—or willing enough—to take on Hamas.

Despite Trump’s pressure, Israel does not want to relinquish control of the Rafah crossing and will not agree to withdraw to its border until Hamas is eliminated politically and militarily. Today, it seems doubtful that will happen. In the meantime, Trump wants to move forward and may read us the riot act, forcing us to keep our end of the agreement while Hamas does not keep theirs. In the end, everything may go back to the way it was before October 6. Hamas will still be in power. They will rebuild their military strength. They will begin launching attacks against Israel. (They have already replenished their ranks to 20–30,000 fighters, which is what they had before October 7.) Israel does not want to move onto stage two while Hamas is not committed to fulfilling their obligations – return of Ron Gvilli, disarmament, and relinquishing control of Gaza.

As I wrote above, for Israelis the lesson of October 7 is not to let our enemies gain strength to the point that they threaten not only our security but the very existence of our country. We feel we are moving in the direction where we will have to act and “mow the lawn” before the terrorist armies around us become too strong again.

What I am trying to say is that even after the ceasefires that were signed, it is beginning to look like not much has changed. Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran are becoming the threats they were before October 7, and the international community is not effective, so far, in stopping this. It will leave Israel with no choice but to act. We came very close to annihilation on October 7. Our enemies did not take full advantage of their strengths and they made a few mistakes. That is what saved us—their mistakes. We cannot return to that situation again.

That is why we think regime change in Iran is crucial to preventing the Middle East from being continuously at war. As long as Iran keeps funding, arming, and training Hamas and Hezbollah, the hostilities will continue. Their terrorist armies are simply too strong, even for the Western world. Do I think Trump will take down the regime in Iran? Personally, I don’t think so. That would probably mean a protracted war in the Middle East that Americans—and Trump—have no motivation for. I think the worst outcome for us would be an American attack on Iran that falls short of regime change and results in a rain of missiles falling on Israel without any decisive outcome. That would accomplish little except endless rounds of retaliation that lead nowhere except continued hostilities.

Whatever happens will happen—or not happen—in the next 7–10 days. Like most Israelis, I’m not really sure what I’m hoping for.

As always, feel free to share this letter with whomever you want. Comments and questions are of course welcome.

Also, important for me to say, that despite the ominous tone of this mail, we are all fine and doing well. We trust our military and our defenses and have confidence that everything will be fine at the end of the day. We can handle anything that happens.

Glen

President Donald Trump said Tuesday he continues to have confidence in Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and does not plan to ask her to step down despite mounting scrutiny following a fatal shooting by federal agents in Minneapolis and a subsequent reshuffling of immigration enforcement leadership in Minnesota.

“I think she’s done a very good job,” Trump said as he departed the White House. “The border is totally secure.”

Asked directly by a reporter whether Noem would resign or be forced out of her Cabinet post, Trump replied, “No.”

Noem has faced increasing criticism following the Saturday shooting death of 37-year-old Alex Pretti during a federal law enforcement operation in Minneapolis.

In response to the controversy, Trump on Monday assigned White House border czar Tom Homan to take over leadership of immigration law enforcement operations in Minnesota. Those efforts had previously been overseen by Noem and Gregory Bovino, the administration’s Border Patrol commander.

The White House has since moved into damage control mode as details surrounding the Minneapolis operation and Pretti’s death continue to emerge.

According to The New York Times, Trump and Noem met privately for about two hours on Monday amid growing political backlash.

Several Democrat members of Congress have publicly called for Noem’s impeachment, citing concerns over the use of force by federal agents and the administration’s immigration enforcement tactics.

Pretti’s death marked the second fatal shooting involving federal immigration authorities in Minneapolis in less than three weeks. Earlier this month, Renee Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, was shot and killed by ICE agent Jonathan Ross while inside her vehicle, which authorities said she was using to block an ICE operation.

Trump said the circumstances surrounding Pretti’s death remain under investigation and declined to offer a judgment on whether the shooting was justified.

“We’re doing a big investigation. I want to see the investigation,” Trump said.

“I’m going to be watching over it. I want a very honorable and honest investigation.”

However, Trump also suggested that Pretti’s possession of a firearm was a key factor in the confrontation.

“You can’t have guns. You can’t walk in with guns,” he said.

“You can’t do that,” added Trump. “It’s just a very unfortunate thing.”

Federal officials have not yet released full details of the investigation, and DHS has said it is cooperating with ongoing reviews of both incidents.

Brian Freeman ✉

Brian Freeman, a Newsmax writer based in Israel, has more than three decades writing and editing about culture and politics for newspapers, online and

Things in America are getting pretty dicey these days. So dicey, in fact, that people in blue states are starting to wonder if it’s time to evacuate to the safety of more politically conservative places. Knowing when to get out of Dodge is vital.

The Babylon Bee has compiled the following list of clear signs that it’s time to move to a red state:

1. The neighbors ate your pets: Your dog and your cat.

2. There are tampons in the men’s restrooms: Something doesn’t seem right.

3. There are no plans to build a Buc-ee’s in your state: A clear sign there’s no hope where you are.

4. The same crackhead on the bus stabbed you for the 6th time this month: Even though you specifically asked him to stop after the 5th time.

5. The 12th “Learing Center” in town just opened up down the street: Doesn’t feel like there’s enough demand for that many.

6. You’re facing felony charges for possessing a gas-powered lawnmower: They’re really serious about climate change.

7. Your grocery store only sells bananas and rice: It’s not like that’s all anyone around you eats, it just all anyone around you eats.

8. State taxes are 103% of your income: Seems a bit high.

9. You need subtitles to understand your elected officials’ speeches: What language is that, anyway?

10. You are not L, G, B, T, nor Q: You don’t belong here.

11. Your breakfast is ruined by the Islamic call to prayer every morning: It’s hard to enjoy a bowl of Lucky Charms with all that racket.

12. You’re an American: Obviously in the minority.

If you’ve noticed any of the things listed above happening where you live, it’s time to head for greener (redder?) pastures. What are some other signs someone needs to move to a red state? Add your ideas in the comments.

The Babylon Bee

Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.

But what is leftism?  During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism.  Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist.

 When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, “politically correct” types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like.

 But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist.

 What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types.  Thus, what we mean by “leftism” will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)

Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn’t seem to be any remedy for this.  All we are trying to do is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism.

We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology.  Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only.  We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th century.

The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call “feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization.”

 Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.

FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY

By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strictest sense but a whole spectrum of related traits: low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.

When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem.

 This tendency is pronounced among minority rights advocates, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend.  They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities.  The terms “negro,” “oriental,” “handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation.

 “Broad” and “chick” were merely the feminine equivalents of “guy,” “dude” or “fellow.”  The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves.  Some animal rights advocates have gone so far as to reject the word “pet” and insist on its replacement by “animal companion.”

Leftist anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative.  They want to replace the word “primitive” by “nonliterate.”  They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own.

 (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours.  We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftist anthropologists.)

Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from privileged strata of society.

 Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual, white males from middle-class families.

Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise inferior.

 The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior.  They would never admit it to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems.  (We do not suggest that women, Indians, etc., ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology).

Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong as capable as men.  Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.

Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful.  They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality.  The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives.

 They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization.

 Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West.  He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.

Words like “self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “initiative”, “enterprise,” “optimism,” etc. play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary.  The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist.  He wants society to solve everyone’s needs for them, take care of them.  He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his own ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs.

 The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

Art forms that appeal to modern leftist intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.

Modern leftist philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative.  It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined

But it is obvious that modern leftist philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge.  They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality.  They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs.

 For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power.  More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e. failed, inferior).

 The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior.  This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests.

 Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others.  Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it.  Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.

The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor.  This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself.  He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior.

But the leftist is too far gone for that.  His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable.  Hence the collectivism of the leftist.  He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.

Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics.  Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc.  These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics.  Self-hatred is a leftist trait.

Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principle, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type.  But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism.

 Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power.  Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help.  For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms?

 Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them.  But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs.  Helping black people is not their real goal.

 Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power.  In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.

If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.

We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist.  It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.

T. Kaczinski, UC Davis

Fifty-five years ago, Democrat activist and community organizer Saul Alinsky published Rules for Radicals. Its stated purpose was not reform, persuasion, or compromise, but disruption — manufacturing chaos, provoking conflict, and inciting revolution as a means of political change. 

Alinsky was explicit: power is seized, not earned, and the ends always justify the means. More than half a century later, the book has not faded into obscurity. It remains the Left’s operating manual — its tactical guide and its justification for tearing down institutions in the name of “progress.” 

Alinsky prescribed a deliberate three-step process for political change — one rooted not in persuasion, but in pressure. We are watching Alinsky’s guerrilla warfare techniques play out in real time in Minneapolis right now.

The first step is to create a crisis.

Alinsky argued that in a complex society, people do not act until they are forced to. The organizer’s job is to trigger a crisis by “rubbing raw the sores of discontent.” The crisis must be intensified to generate motivation.

Over the past year, Democrats nationwide have relentlessly vilified ICE agents for doing their lawful job — enforcing federal immigration law. Agents tasked with apprehending illegal aliens are portrayed not as law enforcement, but as villains, fascists, and moral monsters. This rhetoric has not merely poisoned public discourse; it has actively encouraged confrontation between federal agents and radical protesters.

Even as this Democrat-designed and Democrat-sustained conflict has resulted in real-world tragedy, Minnesota’s leadership continues to escalate rather than de-escalate. Tim Walz has repeatedly attempted to delegitimize ICE itself, asserting that its agents are “not law enforcement” — a claim that is both false and dangerously inflammatory.

Never mind that illegal presence in the United States is itself a violation of federal law, or that many individuals apprehended by ICE are repeat offenders charged with serious crimes including rape, assault, and homicide. By erasing these facts, Democratic leaders shift blame away from criminal behavior and onto those tasked with enforcing the law.

Crucially, this crisis is not universal. In states where local authorities cooperate with ICE, deportation numbers are significantly higher and enforcement proceeds with low to nonexistent public disorder.

In Minnesota, Democratic leadership has chosen confrontation over cooperation. By encouraging hostility toward ICE and refusing meaningful coordination with federal authorities, they have manufactured a volatile environment — one where enforcement becomes dangerous, chaos becomes predictable, and outrage becomes the objective.

This is not accidental. It is textbook Alinsky: provoke, polarize, and escalate until crisis itself becomes the lever of power.

The second step is to blame the target and personalize it.

Alinsky famously instructed organizers to “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Institutions are abstract. By isolating a single person or group and turning them into the embodiment of evil, the organizer simplifies the conflict and focuses public rage where it can do the most damage. 

In Minnesota, that target has been ICE — and by extension, the individual agents tasked with enforcing the law. Rather than supporting the rule of law, Democrat leaders have inverted reality — demonizing the American agents carrying out federal statutes. These men and women are portrayed as Nazis rather than public servants — an accusation so obscene it would once have ended a serious political career. 

At the same time, the individuals ICE is charged with apprehending are recast as victims, saints, or symbols of moral righteousness — no matter their criminal histories. Violent offenders are defended. Illegal status is ignored. Responsibility is shifted entirely away from lawbreakers and onto those enforcing the law. 

This is not accidental rhetoric. It is deliberate personalization. By turning ICE agents into the face of evil, Democratic leaders focus public anger on a human target rather than a policy debate. Moral clarity is replaced with emotional manipulation, and law enforcement becomes the enemy.

The third step is the ultimate objective — to force the “solution.” Once the crisis has paralyzed the target and public pressure has peaked, the organizer presents the solution. This solution, however, is framed not as one option among many, but as the only path forward: accept it or face escalating chaos.

This is the Left’s only solution: President Donald Trump must remove ICE from Minneapolis and effectively cease deportation operations nationwide.

Those enforcing the law are blamed, those breaking it are excused, and the public is told that the only way to stop the disorder is to surrender authority.

This is not accidental disorder. It is intentional political warfare, designed to use instability as leverage until the Democrats get what they want — illegal voters imported under the Biden regime to give them political power.

Drew Allen is an author, columnist and host of ‘the Drew Allen Show’ podcast. His latest book is For Christ and Country: the Martyrdom of Charlie Kirk.

On January 14, 2026, Governor Tim Walz delivered a formal public address calling on Minnesota authorities to resist cooperation with federal immigration operations and urging the public to “peacefully resist” the presence of ICE agents.

His statements and actions during this period include:

• Refusal to Cooperate: On January 14, 2026, Walz explicitly demanded that the Trump administration end its “occupation” of the state and stated that Minnesota would not facilitate federal immigration surges.
• Call for Public Resistance: During the same address, he encouraged Minnesotans to record videos of immigration agents to document their activities.

• Criticism of Federal Tactics: On January 24, 2026, following a second fatal shooting involving federal agents, Walz referred to ICE agents as “not law enforcement” and accused them of creating “chaos”.
• DOJ Investigation: On January 16, 2026, it was reported that the Department of Justice (DOJ) launched an investigation into both Governor Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey for allegedly obstructing federal law enforcement. 

This escalated tension followed the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good by an ICE officer in Minneapolis on January 7, 2026, which Walz condemned while demanding that state authorities be allowed to conduct their own investigation.

A Fed had a finger bitten off. Another was injured when Walz’s storm troopers surged a hotel.

Absolutely all of this was unnecessary. All of it. All of these protests are being directed by a left-wing Signal network which appears to be led by some very high up in the state government. It’s being incited by Lt. Governor Flanagan telling people to “put your bodies on the line.”

Here’s all that had to happen:

Trump: Governor Walz, we want DHS to go into Minneapolis and remove criminal illegal aliens.

Walz: Do you have outstanding warrants and/or deportation orders for them?

Trump: Yes we do. We’d like your local law enforcement to help us identify them so there won’t be any confusion or mistakes.

Walz: Yes, Mr. President, we’d like to see this go smoothly, safely and quickly.

Trump: Great and thank you.

That’s pretty much it. Rene Good and Alex Pretti would still be alive. One Fed would still have all his fingers. A lot of damage and a lot of pain could and should have been avoided. Illegal alien criminals would be on their way to the appropriate venues.

Instead, at Walz’s provocations and Flanagan’s antics these protests were orchestrated and coordinated, to cause as much pain, interference and obstruction as possible.

On top of it all, Walz had the audacity to make a galactically stupid comparison:

Governor Tim Walz called me with the request to work together with respect to Minnesota. It was a very good call, and we, actually, seemed to be on a similar wavelength. I told Governor Walz that I would have Tom Homan call him, and that what we are looking for are any and all Criminals that they have in their possession. The Governor, very respectfully, understood that, and I will be speaking to him in the near future. He was happy that Tom Homan was going to Minnesota, and so am I! We have had such tremendous SUCCESS in Washington, D.C., Memphis, Tennessee, and New Orleans, Louisiana, and virtually every other place that we have “touched” and, even in Minnesota, Crime is way down, but both Governor Walz and I want to make it better! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

I’d like to believe this and I think Trump would like to believe this but even if sincere it’s way late.Trump is bringing in Tom Homan to clean up the mess and that’s a good thing. Homan knows what he’s doing. I am hopeful that things will change. But Walz has to take to the airwaves and instruct the residents of Minneapolis to stand down, do not harass, obstruct, interfere or block or box in the cars of the Feds. If he does that things will calm down.

And he’s going to have to turn on Flanagan.

I think it will be an uphill battle as there are unquestionably paid anarchists present who want anything but peace but let’s see how this goes.

If the dust does settle, Walz will take credit, but it will prove something else- that Walz is a stupid incompetent fool who should have done this immediately.

Author: DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 40 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 45 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter who is in the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

Financial writer and precious metals expert Bill Holter (aka Mr. Gold) has been predicting record high gold and silver prices. We are nowhere finished with record prices for the metals happening every week and sometimes every day. Mr. Gold now has a new prediction about paper exchanges not being able to deliver physical metal. Holter says, “We exploded through $100 per ounce silver, and we went through $5,000 per ounce on gold, but that’s not the story.

The story is there are already over 40 million ounces standing for delivery in January. January is a non-delivery month. If you go back in past years, you might see delivery in January that might be a million ounces, two million ounces or a small amount. We are already at 40 million ounces of silver in January with only a few days left in the month. March is a delivery month. That’s the month where I am going to be really interested to see what the number is for how much is standing for delivery at the beginning of the month. If you get 70 million or 80 million ounces of silver standing for delivery at the beginning of the month . . . that would be enough to knock out the inventory in March, which is a primary delivery month for COMEX..”

Holter goes on to say, “They reportedly have 110 million ounces to 120 million ounces registered for delivery. Is any of that incumbered? We just don’t know. If we get a failure to deliver that completely negates any and all value of a COMEX contract. . .. If the contract cannot perform, it is worth zero. A failure to deliver wipes out any credibility of COMEX pricing. . .. A failure to deliver in silver will immediately spill over into gold. A failure to deliver in gold will immediately spill over to the credit markets because gold is truly the anti-dollar or the anti-US Treasury.”

Holter says some of the big metal dealers and banks shorting the monetary metals are in financial trouble. Holter says, “This is all caused by rising metals prices, mainly rising silver prices. . .. Some people may think the rally is over, and it’s not. We are still early in this price rise. Any price you hear is going to be laughably too low, and I am going to include that $600 figure for silver that came out several years ago. I think any number you put out there for gold or silver will end up being laughably low.”

Holter contends if you look at all the commitment and debt, there is $200 trillion for the US. Holter says, “If you take just the $38 trillion in debt for the federal government and you want to back the debt with the 8,000 tons of US gold, you are talking around $200,000 per ounce for gold.”

In closing, Holter predicts, “There will be failure to deliver silver in the first part of March 2026. The currencies will zero out. It is a collapse of the entire financial system. . .. The real economy runs on credit. Everything you touch, everything you do . . . credit has been involved in its creation. If credit becomes unattainable, the real economy completely shuts down, and that is where your Mad Max comes in.”

There is much more in the 39-minute interview.

Greg Hunter, USAWatchdog

Victor David Hanson:

And they call it the MAGA revolution? It’s not a revolution. It is a counterrevolution. There’s a big difference. This is a restoration. Let’s use the word ‘Trump Restoration.’

We don’t know really, we don’t really appreciate what we’ve been through with 8 years of the Obama Revolution, and the 4-year, more radical, 3rd term of using or employing the waxen effigy of Joe Biden.

A revolution that we’ve experienced was a cultural, economic, political, social revolution.
It was very similar to the French Revolution under the Robespierre brothers. Remember what they tried to do? They changed the days of the week. They renamed things. They tore down statues. They went after the churches. Does this sound familiar?

This revolution that we’ve experienced – everything was up for sale. Everything was negotiable.

We invented a third gender and rammed it down people’s throats.

We tore down statues.

We said 1776 was no longer the foundational date; it was 1619.

We changed the very mechanism that we vote. We went from 70% of the electorate voting on election day, to 70% of the electorate not doing that, either through mail-in or early voting. That was a radical change that had no discussion. It was done by fiat. It was incredible.

We looked at girls sports and we destroyed it. We said that transgendered biological males that were now transgendered females could compete. They won over 600 medals they took away from hardworking female athletes.

We had drag shows among young children.

It was an effort to change the entire constitution. We forget that. They were trying to bring in Puerto Rico as a state and Washington D.C. to get 4 instant Senators. They were proud

They said that they were going to pack the Supreme Court; it hadn’t been done- hadn’t been tried since 1937, and it was an object of disgrace ever since, but they were proud to try it again.

They talked about making states, the Senate, look like the House. They wanted, and a lot of them are advocating that it was not fair that one Senator in Wyoming, take one example, is worth 250,000 votes but a Senator in California represented 20 million. They wanted to change the makeup of the Senate. They wanted to get rid of the Senate filibuster. Remember that.

They wanted to bring back neo Confederate nullification. Six hundred jurisdictions, in the manor of South Carolina in 1832, are on the edge of the Civil War in 1860 when neo Confederate Southern states said that, ‘Federal Government’s law does not apply to us.’ ‘Tariffs? Yankee tariffs? No, no! We’re going to override them.’ Andrew Jackson almost invaded the Carolinas over that, South Carolina. And so these jurisdictions said that, ‘Federal law doesn’t apply here. We’re exempt. We have our own laws. Federal immigration law does not apply here. It applies everywhere else, to you, you, you…but not to us.’

So this was a Revolutionary movement. Movies were different; sports were different, ‘take a knee’ and Donald Trump came in and it was not sufficient to say, ‘We’re going to stop the madness of 37 billion dollars; we’re going to stop the madness being short 40 or 50 thousand military recruits because of this DEI coupled with the humiliation in Kabul; we’re going to stop the appeasement of China.’

But that wasn’t all, he said, ‘The government is broke. We’re going to go through all of these agencies.’ And finally, for the first time in the history of this country, when somebody says they are going to cut spending and drain the swamp or cut the administrative…..we’re going to do it.

And there’s going to be no changing names except to go back to traditional names. And we’re not going to topple statues. And if you break the law, and you’re on campus, and you’re on your student visa, you’re going to go back home.

So we’re in the midst of a counterrevolution. It’s not revolution. You know what it is? It’s a return to normalcy. It’s a return to common sense. It only looks revolutionary to revolutionaries, but to the rest of the people, it is a counter-revolution to restore normalcy, and bring the country from the far left fringes back home again.

~~~TRANSCRIPT ENDS~~~