The videos, the videos. People see them and they come away with this conclusion or that one, but seldom with any minds changed. Contrary to popular wisdom, the videos don’t educate us that much about the people shot and killed by ICE or Border Patrol agents, or whether the shootings were justified, or not. They teach us about our own human nature.
There’s something special about Minnesota, and Minneapolis. The mainstream press wants to put out the story that the Trump administration is picking on the locale, ostensibly because people didn’t vote for them in 2024 or 2020, and/or 2016 or something. But this doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. If you’re washing a car and you see a particularly filthy spot on the car, you scrub. If the grease spot defies your efforts, you scrub harder until it’s gone. It doesn’t have anything to do with whether that particular fender voted against you or is angry with you.
But if it is capable of anger, and that anger can somehow be tied in with this resistance to your efforts, of course you’ll intensify your efforts. It’s part of the job. So yes, there are more enforcement agents in Minnesota.
Leftists enjoy the luxury of not only telling us what’s going on there, but what we should think about it both before and after we see the videos. But with the latter, all they can really do is try. They forgot that we can form whatever conclusions we wish. It’s not up to them to dictate.
I’ve decided, from this, that I don’t want leftists/liberals running anything. Of course I didn’t want that before, but all this just confirms my sensible conclusion that they shouldn’t run anything. I recognize they don’t want me making any decisions about anything either. But I happen to be right. I’m not trying to wreck everything, and they are. But from watching them go at it on social media, how they pick up these talking points and run with them, and taking into account all the chaos and destruction I see in these other large cities they’re running, I come to realize
1. If there is violence, The Left consistently comes out ahead. It doesn’t matter if they’re the ones committing the violence — in which case, they get what they want because people are intimidated. There’s a name for that. Terrorism. Or, if they’re the ones feeling threatened by the violence, claiming victim status from the violence, or the possibility of the violence, making a show of being scared. Either way, they get what they want. Someone somewhere is taking notes about this. Wherever their desire to win is most keen, that’s where things start to become unstable. And for that, of course, they want us to blame others, but who stands to benefit? Liberals who want to win, foment violence. It’s clear they see that as a winning strategy. 
In this case they’re trying to put together the narrative that the law enforcement authorities are dangerous, trigger-happy, chomping at the bit for any excuse to start gunning down civilians. Why then are they organizing more protests? If you take their concerns seriously, it doesn’t make any sense. But if you take note that liberals consistently win from violence, everything falls into place.
2. The right to swing your fists around ends where someone else’s nose is. If you listen to a liberal waxing lyrically of his rights or of a fellow liberal’s rights, it’s all fists and no noses. They don’t even acknowledge the other noses are there. For years I’ve been warning about people who make decisions based on feelings rather than thought. We think of emotions and feelings as a sort of first step to being kind and considerate to others. But the truth is, people who value feelings over thought, value THEIR feelings. Theirs. Not yours. And they don’t care about your nose. They just want their rights, as they interpret them. There’s no spirit of negotiation, no trading of half-a-loaf, no concession of anything. Over the years I’ve come to see this in everything they’re willing to discuss, every little issue in which they want to extol the virtues of their “civil rights” or what have you. I see it in the abortion issue, which the country as a whole recognizes as a conflict of interests between mother and child, but to the emotionally entrenched liberal, it’s distastefully distilled down into the simplicity of “her right to choose.” I see it in all the controversy washing over what they call “the January 6 insurrection”; the rest of us should enjoy an implied right to justified confidence that an election was conducted securely, fairly and with integrity, but the liberals don’t think so. And I see it in these physical confrontations between protesters and law enforcement agents, the latter of whom have the right to defend themselves but again, the liberals think rights are things that only exist on one side. I see this over and over again. Feeling over thought, and people who decide these weighty matters with feelings don’t care about anyone else’s.
3. They think in terms of simplistic narratives. When they’re in conflict with others, which is often, their vision of the kind of “win” they want to score looks like a daisy-chain of prizes, one after the other. Example: ICE is to be found guilty of homicide and/or a variety of procedural transgressions. As I’ve pointed out before, that’s different from yanking ICE out of Minnesota. And that in turn would be different from opening our borders and granting amnesty to all the illegal aliens who have entered and started living here without authorization. To the passionate emotion-driven liberal, though, it’s all one win. Or rather a chain reaction, like firecrackers with their fuses braided together. One is to follow the other. This is a distortion of the issues, and an effective one; the nominally curious but not too meticulous observer will start to conflate these two issues. In this way it’s “decided,” albeit passively, that we may be a nation of laws, but our laws about the border shouldn’t count for anything because “we” will not stand to see those actually enforced. For the nation at large, that’s just an error in judgment, one that’s reinforced across time by precedent. 
But for the strategically minded liberal, and the unscrupulous businesses that depend on this illegal labor, it’s a battle plan. Unfortunately, when carried to its natural conclusion, it leaves the rest of us wallowing around in a kaleidoscopic mishmash of “laws” that don’t really mean anything, short leashes staked to the ground used to tether in place only those who are willing to abide by them, while the rest run around wild and free. And I think everyone realizes deep down that our society can’t function that way.
I listen to these liberals expressing their feelings, pretending to have discussions with concerned people like me, but really just showing off for each other. I can see their feelings of what’s right and what’s wrong should take precedence over the plain meaning of written law; but when you compare the law to someone else’s understanding of right and wrong, it’s different. The other person’s perception of right and wrong don’t even enter into it. And then how someone else might interpret the written law, that doesn’t seem to enter into it either.
I don’t want liberals running anything. They’re not ready to accept the responsibility anyway. If they were capable of accepting responsibility for something not coming out right, they wouldn’t be liberals in the first place.
That should really be the Republican position this year, and most every presidential or midterm election year. But especially this midterm election year: “We don’t want democrats running anything.” And these are the reasons.
Of course, the rejoinder will come back thick and fast: You’re alienating the noble centrists, the ones who consider themselves above it all.
And then the Republican strategists will start assuaging and mollifying: Oh no, we didn’t mean it. We’re okay with whoever running whatever. Just put us in Congress though, because, uh, er, ah, you know, reasons.
When what they should say is: Ya know what? If you sensible centrists can’t see the logic in it, we don’t want you running anything either.
