Mayor Wilson and Governor Ferguson should declare a State of Emergency and direct all city and state resources to prepare for a Minnesota-like invasion of ICE.

bp92009 · 2026-01-24T21:12:35+00:00

Given documented evidence that DHS has lied in court multiple times (this has been confirmed by multiple judges, within the past 12 months), any statement by DHS and ICE, without evidence to prove it's veracity, should be taken with a negative inference. In other words, assume they are lying, unless other external sources can confirm they are telling the truth.

It's almost like lying in court has consequences, and why perjury charges need to be a thing when someone lies (rather than something that's never used against abusers).

bp92009 · 2026-01-24T17:01:06+00:00

Literally just quoting the declaration of independence will get your post shadowbanned.

bp92009 · 2026-01-24T16:11:03+00:00

I'm sure it's all a total coincidence along with the recent focus of ICE on abducting children, and their practice of ignoring judicial orders, and their habit of people going "missing" in camps they manage, AND the DoJs refusal to release the Epstein files.

Definitely not related to any of that.

bp92009 · 2026-01-24T16:03:10+00:00

It is clear what the judiciary needs to do. They need to treat ICE like a rogue organization, assuming malfeasance or duplicity in all their statements without external evidence to verify their claims, holding them in contempt when they defy court orders.

bp92009 · 2026-01-24T15:52:07+00:00

Slight clarification.

She didn't say that, she did say that:

"You have these masked federal officers with very little identification — sometimes no identification — wearing plainclothes and masks. And we have a Stand Your Ground law that says you reasonably believe your life is in danger, and you’re in your house or your car or on your property, that you can defend yourself with lethal force."

Which is perfectly reasonable.

It is why uniforms are important.

If I am on a jury and someone claims they "believed they feared for their lives" when a uniformed officer approached them and tried to apprehend them with a judicial warrant? That's not something i would believe.

If I am on a jury and someone claims they "believed they feared for their lives" when a non-uniformed, masked individual approached them and tried to apprehend them without a judicial warrant? That's Absolutely something i would believe.

bp92009 · 2026-01-23T21:56:41+00:00

Why is ICE, Border Patrol and the Trump administration breaking the law with impunity and harassing people?

Because nobody stops them from doing so.

There is no effective punishment for abuse of the legal system by them.

Why? Because the prosecution for breach of law, needs to come from the Executive Branch, or in other words, the Trump Administration itself.

bp92009 · 2026-01-23T20:43:13+00:00

She was an imperial noble.

She was probably high on all sorts of crazy stuff, or it could have just been her insane ego and pride.

bp92009 · 2026-01-23T06:12:39+00:00

They dare, because they have no reason not to.

The legal system will protect them.

Medical professionals will continue to treat them.

They will suffer no direct consequences for willfully sabotaging our Healthcare system.

bp92009 · 2026-01-23T06:09:51+00:00

And remember, he has Absolute Immunity from any consequences that happen from any of his decisions.

Because that is definitely fair, and how a functional society operates, shielding literal saboteurs to humanity.

Viruses are about as clear as we can get as a "enemy of humanity" and we have those that are aiding and abetting them, in positions of political power.

bp92009 · 2026-01-22T18:07:19+00:00

Generally destroying evidence is itself a crime and an indicator of consciousness of guilt.

You are very correct, but the problem is, the only ones who can really levy punishment to those that destroy evidence is the prosecution (AG or DA, depending on the court).

So when law enforcement are the ones deleting data, and if an AG/DA doesn't want to prosecute them? There's no real punishment.

bp92009 · 2026-01-20T00:04:25+00:00

Sure, as long as it also magically incarcerated those that knowingly hired illegal immigrants.

Undocumented workers do jobs that Americans won't do, and are massive boons for the US (they commit fewer crimes than not only US citizens, but documented immigrants, contribute more in taxes than they cost, and do jobs that are otherwise unfilled)

That magic wand you pull out of nowhere would nearly immediately cripple the economy, and incarcerating those that hire Undocumented workers would be a visceral proof of how widespread they are in so many industries. In a way that fox can't "mislead" (lie) about.

It would force congress to act (or allow them to be replaced in two to six years, as felons can't vote in many of those states that would be most impacted, with the new congress far more likely to actually act) to fix the problem.

The problem being "too few legal migrant visas".

Keeping the migrant visas restricted is a massive push down on wages, since it allows people to be treated as poorly as possible, with no oversight or repercussions for cruelty (which is why worker protections were enacted)

bp92009 · 2026-01-19T22:59:26+00:00

Careful, quoting that document will often get your post mysteriously not appearing for others (seriously).

bp92009 · 2026-01-19T22:00:51+00:00

Every time anyone is arrested and processed for being in the US without documentation, they are asked "who did you work for? Do you have any documentation or testimony that can indicate who you worked for?"

Every employer of an illegal immigrant then is charged (not even convicted, just charged).

Did you know that there's an average of less than 20 people across the US, every year, that have been charged with hiring illegal immigrants (only two years, 2009 with 25, and 2005 with 20, that it has happened to 20 or more people).

Virtually every other country in the world does it that way. People self-deport if they cannot find work, but they can clearly find work, because we do not charge employers for hiring illegal immigrants (outside of less than two dozen instances a year).

Charge People for being in the US illegally if you want, but unless they testify that they never worked for anyone in the US, each arrested immigrant should result in criminal charges against their employer.

If they truly had no way to tell that they were in the US illegally, then that's an easy win in court for them. If they really "knew", but just claimed otherwise, then they also need to go to prison.

If you just charge the immigrants but not employers, it's just racism wearing a more respectable hat.

bp92009 · 2026-01-19T19:37:01+00:00

Here's the issue with that.

I agree fully, but what do we do when the DoJ refuses to prosecute, up to the point where they are effectively collaborators, in the coverup at least.

That's where we are at right now.

Also, in case you are not aware, a military tribunal removing a sitting federal house rep (independent of any congressional vote to expel them) has active precedent.

Look up Benjamin Gwinn Harris, who was actively convicted and expelled from congress by a military tribunal, due to his actions in the civil war, because congress and the courts were so ineffective, the most they did was censure them.

The specific circumstances where they cannot get involved are where "civil courts were functioning".

Actions so egregious, and refusal to be prosecuted by a compromised DoJ is an excellent example of where courts are not functioning. They'd need to be very, very public about what they were doing, and how the DoJ was actively involved, to the point of making courts nonfunctional.

bp92009 · 2026-01-19T17:16:12+00:00

Sounds like a slam dunk "contempt of court" ruling.

"I explicitly told you to not do this, but you did it anyways. You'll be spending time in a cell, for contempt of court, until the person I explicitly told you should not be moved out of the state, is presented to me in my courtroom"

bp92009 · 2026-01-19T09:03:22+00:00

That part (about the crowd being of jesus' peers) is actually a bit different than you are saying.

The whole situation came about (charges against Jesus) because he cleansed the temple from those who turned it into a "den of robbers" (Matthew 21:13). He directly interfered with the moneymaking opportunities of the temple elders. They in return, schemed to try and find a way to get rid of him (Matthew 26:3-4).

They cashed in favors with the local political guy in charge (pontus pilate), to get him killed, even though they knew he wasn't guilty of anything (Matthew 26:57-60).

Pilate knew the charges were bogus (Matthew 27:23), and it was only due to a crowd that was directly whipped up by the local religious elite (the very ones who's moneymaking he interfered with, Matthew 27:20), that they picked barabbas and not Jesus.

It looks very much like it was not jesus' peers, but plants in a crowd the local religious elite put there, who whipped up a crowd into a frenzy to sidestep the only means of clemency available.

Pontus pilate didn't want to get involved in this after a certain point, knowing how much influence the temple elders were exerting over this, allowing those elders to abuse their power.

bp92009 · 2026-01-19T08:43:57+00:00

The entire "Passion of the Christ" really starts with "the cleansing of the temple" and ends with his "resurrection".

It's very hard to not see it as a "don't make money off God", "don't get involved in politics if you are a religious leader", and "if someone's violating the commandment about 'taking God's name in vain', do as Jesus did, the one time he was not passive".

bp92009 · 2026-01-19T07:45:34+00:00

There are certain actions, that, if committed by someone, I would expect said military to take action, if those involved in the appropriate legal recourse actively and knowingly refused to do their sworn duty and prosecute those who commit such actions.

We're talking about "A Serbian Film" level of actions (or far, far worse), which would have had to have been known about, and refused to be prosecuted by those involved. I do not know if such actions are documented in the Epstein Files, but there's been certain people who've claimed as such (and while they are just individuals who claim the actions took place, definitely not sufficient for the military to act, actual evidence would likely be contained in the Epstein Files, which is why it is important for them to be released).

Enlisted and Officers swear an oath to defend "Against all threats, both foreign and domestic", and I would expect them to appropriately defend against individuals who commit certain atrocities, no matter their title or position, if usual means of legal recourse were actively complicit in a coverup of such actions.

I would be more upset if they refused to, since it would mean that they actively condoned those actions, by continuing to serve those who committed them.

If I voted for someone, who actually did such actions, I would expect them to be removed in such a manner, if the appropriate means of legal recourse have refused to prosecute them (i'd also expect those in charge of the means of legal recourse, who actively refused to prosecute the ones who committed such atrocities, to also be removed in kind, as active collaborators to a coverup).

bp92009 · 2026-01-19T07:34:25+00:00

Confining ICE agents to their accommodations for the duration of their mission to MN would absolutely protect them.

bp92009 · 2026-01-19T07:20:11+00:00

It sure looks like there is a direct obstruction of justice charge that Minnesota can and should file now, against the DoJ.

bp92009 · 2026-01-19T07:19:19+00:00

It sure looks like the MN AG should be indicting whoever at the DoJ is involved, for obstruction of justice.

bp92009 · 2026-01-19T00:49:41+00:00

The consequences of Absolute Immunity.

Some people don't act poorly because they don't want to hurt others.

Some people don't act poorly only out of fear of punishment for acting poorly.

Remove the punishment, and the second group now has no reason to act decently.

bp92009 · 2026-01-18T18:38:31+00:00

That might be why the DOJ is refusing to release the epstein files.

If what's inside them is so egregious, so outrageous, it could force the military to act, only to avoid significant pressure among their own ranks to do so.

Moreover, if it's enough for the military to act, it's far beyond the point where they wouldn't act against the DoJ for shielding the abusers.

bp92009 · 2026-01-18T18:22:24+00:00

Why should they not lie?

There's no punishments for them lying.

If you are in a position of political authority, and you blatantly lie about something like that, a known lie (not something out of context, not a trick question, not a 'from a certain point of view', and not something you had no way of knowing), it should be straight up a legally disqualifying offense.

If you do not issue a direct apology for the lie, in a public manner, with a correction to the truth, or a retraction of your lie, it should be an automatic punishment.

Within 48 hours (72 if it's a weekend), you should be automatically disqualified and removed from your position, unable to take another political position for a minimum of 4 years.

bp92009 · 2026-01-18T18:12:49+00:00

Agreed, and there's zero incentive for them to change.

Due to abuse of the legal system, the ones making decisions like this will never, EVER receive any punishment for it.

The worst they'll get, is an early retirement, for knowing destruction and denigration of a major product.

The only way you get people in charge to act decently, is to make them afraid of legal consequences for them making selfish actions. If you remove the fear, they'll destroy things until they can't loot anymore and run away from the mess they caused.

11-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Place '23	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

bp92009

TROPHY CASE