Saturday, September 20, 2025

An Unavoidable American Conflict


Charlie Kirk’s assassination by a radical young “all-American” leftist demonstrates that the ideological crisis that’s raging in education, politics, and pop culture has irreversibly escalated.  His death marks the beginning of a new chapter for America.  We’ve crossed a cultural Rubicon; the nation is irreparably divided by competing moral visions, national unity is forever lost, and conflict is unavoidable.

Kirk’s death was as tragic as it was predictable.  Many lay the blame on evil, but evil came in a virulent form of social Marxism, equity, that’s cloaked in the woke cultural rizz of transgender rights, social justice, equality, fairness, tolerance, Critical Race Theory, DIE, anti-racism, white supremacy, systemic inequality, and patriarchy, to name a few.  It’s a toxic philosophical cocktail, an expansion of classical Marxism transformed by Critical Theory and post-modern philosophy, that’s become the best of the worst of what the world’s deadliest ideology, the gospel according to Karl Marx, has to offer.

Equity is taking America by storm — it’s the price America pays for bailing on Christianity and religion in record numbers.  It captured the Democrat party.  (The Biden administration was committed to building equity into the “everyday business of government” — see Executive Order 14091.)  Countless Americans like Kirk’s assassin were drawn to its promise of an infinitely tolerant, progressive, permissive post-Christian society, where everyone is equally free to choose his gender, lifestyle, and sexual preferences without the moral judgment of the “Thou Shalt Nots” of the Christianity they despised.

But as it turns out, there’s a serious downside to decadence.

The despisers of religion can’t live as atheists.  A world without God leaves humanity suspended in moral ambiguity, lacking an ultimate authority.  It’s an intolerable existence that sends people searching for a new moral constitution that could liberate them from the constraints of a biblically influenced worldview.  Atheists need religion.  As John Grey notes in Seven Types of Atheism, “the God of monotheism did not die, it only left the scene to reappear as humanity — the human species dressed up as a collective agent pursuing its self-realization in history” (p. 1,157).

Post-Christian Americans looking for moral guidance turned to equity as a new secular religion, and equity was happy to oblige.

This set America up for the showdown that has plagued humanity for over a century, Christianity versus Marxism, and it put Charlie Kirk in the crosshairs.

Kirk was defending the nation’s Jewish and Christian moral vision, which placed well defined boundaries on the transgender community’s demand for equality and the universal acceptance of gender preferences.  His message upheld definitions of gender that had been universally accepted until the early 20th century.  As Marxism, Critical Theory, and postmodern philosophy made their long march through America’s institutions and culture, they successfully eroded confidence in freedom, free markets, and the moral guidance of the Jewish and Christian worldviews.  It took generations, but they deconstructed America’s foundations, offering a utopian vision for radicals who dared to transform the nation.

Their messages were nuanced but congruent.  America is genocidally corrupt, having creating countless inequalities through oppression and exploitation in the form of racism, homophobia, patriarchy, wealth, income inequality, transphobia, incarceration, policing, slavery, and white supremacy.  Western capitalist Jewish and Christian values were responsible for the total of human suffering, including war, starvation, crime, violence, drug addiction, poverty, slavery, and persecution of the LGB and transgender community.  It was ultimately destroying humanity, and there was only one solution to eliminate the disparities: equity.  Everyone must experience comprehensive equality, equal outcomes for all, across every level of society.  Marx’s demand for equality, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” was reinterpreted in every context, including gender.

Equity for the trans community means unqualified acceptance of gender lifestyle preferences and complete access to protected spaces and sports.  Christianity’s morality was the quintessential roadblock.  It denied their validation and equality, which marginalized and stigmatized them, leading to transgender suicide rates approaching unparalleled numbers.  This was defined as an act of trans-genocide that must be ended by any means necessary to protect the community.  Anyone who refused to capitulate to the demands for gender equity was declared a fascist because he systemically oppressed the community by denying the unqualified equality and acceptance they needed to survive and thrive.

This narrative radicalized the heart and mind of a seemingly all-American Gen Z kid who despised Christianity and lived with a “transitioning” transgender partner.  Kirk was a hate-mongering fascist defending genocide; his death was a justified act of liberation that would help bring an end to American fascism’s victimization of the transgender community.

The death of an outspoken conservative American was only a matter of time.  The coming conflict remains unavoidable.

This is incomprehensible to conservative Americans.  We think America is indomitable; no American in his right mind would ever deny freedom to embrace Marxism in any form.  But we’re fatally naΓ―ve, because we don’t understand how ideas build nations and tear them apart.  America is caught in a war of competing ideologies, and we don’t know how these wars work.  We were too busy enjoying endless prosperity to learn that America, like any other nation, rises and falls based on the ideas that define its vision for equality and justice.

Every nation is built on a set of generally accepted ideas, beliefs, and assumptions that define concepts of justice, peace, freedom, property, equality, and acceptable sexuality and conduct that become the foundation for society.  That nation remains relatively stable until the ideological foundation changes, as radical ideas and theories cast a new vision of equality and justice that criminalizes the past and demands liberation for the future.  This ideological crisis results in bloodshed as irreconcilable visions of equality and justice compete for supremacy until one ultimately defeats the other.  This is the story of the battle between the Jewish and Christian West and Marxism throughout the 20th century.  The battle has come to America.  It’s as vulnerable to Marxism as any nation.

Aleksander Solzhenitsyn warned us: “Alas, all the evil of the twentieth century is possible everywhere on earth.”

If you’re incredulous, ask those who suffered under Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot what happens when equity captures the hearts and minds of young radicals who were willing to liquidate over 100 million to achieve the utopian promise.  Kirk’s death reveals that equity has no intention of leaving America unscathed.

The right is incapable of accepting the reality that equity is entrenched in America and refuses to accept that they can’t vote their way out of this ideological war.  The left has no idea that equity opens a Pandora’s box that pours out an incomprehensible bowl of wrath upon America.  As long as these two facts remain unchanged, the nation's future is as predictable as Charlie Kirk’s tragic death.



The Left Is Destroying Civil Society

When tragedy strikes, thriving societies and countries come together – despite political differences – to get through even the toughest of challenges.

But in order for civil society to survive, especially in a country full of people from different cultures, religions, backgrounds and certainly political differences, decency and empathy must underpin the nation. Decency and empathy allow for moving past even the most egregious sins and circumstances.

In the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, there are clear indicators that civil society is falling apart. At the very least, the seams are fraying. 

“When he was shot, there were cheers from the balcony [behind Kirk],” 18-year-old Mariah Peterson, who was just 30 feet from Kirk when he was killed at Utah Valley University, told The Telegraph. “It was horrific to be a part of. There was just no human empathy.”

Those who weren’t loudly cheering have justified his killing or made up excuses and justifications for why it happened. Not just trolls on the internet, but powerful people in local government and Congress.

In St. Louis, Missouri, a major U.S. jurisdiction, a resolution honoring Charlie Kirk was voted down 5-2.

On Capitol Hill, in the heart of America's capital city, many Democrats are gleeful.

“There are a lot of people who are out there talking about him just wanting to have a civil debate,” Democrat Congresswoman Ilhan Omar said on a recent podcast. “There is nothing more effed up, you know, like, than to completely pretend that, you know, his words and actions have not been recorded and in existence for the last decade or so.”

And in typical fashion, those in our national media and driving the discourse have been the worst behaved.

“You can’t stop with these awful thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and then not expect awful actions to take place,” MSNBC’s Matthew Dowd said on air. In other words, Kirk exercising his First Amendment rights to talk about politics half the country shares means he had it coming. In a glimmer of sanity, Dowd was fired.

ABC News National Correspondent Matt Gutman described the words of Kirk's killer as "touching," driving the narrative that the killer was simply trying to protect his "trans" lover, with a bullet. 

Caustic reactions also spilled into the Airline industry, with pilots charged with the safety of hundreds on their planes, issuing statements of support for Kirk’s killer. Nurses, doctors and some members of the military have done the same – presenting a jarring reality for conservatives about those tasked, even trusted, with their care and safety.

Even those on the left disturbed by the literal silencing of Kirk have prefaced statements with, “While I didn’t agree with him,” or, in the case of former President Barack Obama, falsely claimed “we don’t yet know what motivated the person who shot and killed Charlie Kirk.”

Unlike the left and broader Democrat Party, the conservative right isn’t rioting in response to Kirk’s political assassination. Instead, they’re praying and showing up to vigils by the thousands.

Under enormous pressure, the right is upholding civil society as they mourn the greatest political leader in a generation, who was also a friend to many, all while under assault from the left.

Non-political bystanders have a choice to make – join the conservatives in their empathy and decency, or get caught in the ruin and demise of the country.



🎭 π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓

 


Welcome to 

The π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


Republican Wing of UniParty Demand $25,000 Per Month for Each Representative to Hire Personal Security


Traditionally, it’s called “the people’s house” because the House of Representatives is supposed to represent and reflect the people to whom the congressional members represent.

Republicans in the House threatened to withhold votes if Speaker Mike Johnson did not pass an enhanced House Member Security Funding Bill that includes a payment of $25,000/month per lawmaker to hire their own private security. This is in addition to the pre-existing security packages the House members receive.

The monthly funds would be designated for use hiring private security when the representatives are not in Washington DC. It is the republican wing pushing this demand.

WASHINGTON DC – Speaker Mike Johnson huddled Thursday afternoon with House Republicans who are threatening to oppose a GOP-led government funding bill Friday morning if leadership doesn’t add more member security dollars to the underlying measure.

During the closed-door meeting, Johnson told the group there could be additional money for that purpose included in the separate legislative branch spending bill, which funds the operations of Congress and is in the midst of bipartisan, bicameral negotiations, according to four Republicans who were in the room. (read more)

Let me ask a question…..

 

What incentive exists to make sure American society is safe from domestic regional violence, if the representatives of the regions don’t ever have to concern themselves with such matters?


The Democrats' Fascist Panic


From the late 1970s to the early 1990s, America was gripped by the "Satanic Panic" -- a belief that secret satanic cults were infiltrating daycares, and using media to spread their message and abuse children. In 1988, Geraldo Rivera ran a special called "Devil Worship: Exposing Satan’s Underground" that fueled the conspiracy theories and alarm.

It turned out the "Satanic Panic" was based on claims backed by no to little evidence and in the early 1990s Kenneth Lanning and FBI analysis showed "no substantiated evidence of nationwide satanic networks, and warned about suggestive interviewing and mass-hysteria dynamic."

But the damage was done. The McMartin preschool trial spanned from 1984 to 1990, when the case was dismissed. It was the most expensive legal case of the time, and one defendant -- Ray Buckley -- spent five years in prison, pre-trial.

This is important because we're in another such period. This time, however, it's not satanic, but political.

The Left has entered a period of Fascist Panic. 


Ever since President Trump came down the escalator, this has been the narrative: he's a fascist. He's literally Hitler. He's an authoritarian who will cling to office like a dictator. In his first term, none of those things came to fruition. Even with the events of January 6, President Trump left office. In the four years that followed his departure, the Left kept repeating that mantra and used it as grounds for spurious legal cases against Trump. Cases they admitted were meant to stop him from running for the presidency again. In fact, several Leftists lamented that the US couldn't do what Brazil did, namely, jailing former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro for 27 years for "election denialism."

It's nothing new, of course. Democrats have been calling Republicans Hitler for decades. But after each Republican leaves office and the world doesn't end, they often look back fondly on guys like Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney. In fact, many on the Left admit they longed for the days of such "decent Republicans" while casually omitting the fact that Democrats once accused Mitt Romney of giving a woman cancer and claimed that he planned to re-enslave Black Americans.

But the rhetoric, as we learned this last week, has escalated with deadly consequences. Charlie Kirk was assassinated because the Democratic Party has convinced a not insignificant portion of its base that Kirk -- and all conservatives -- are "domestic terrorists" or "White supremacists" who pose an "existential threat to democracy."

Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI) continued to call conservatives "extremists" and "Nazis" this week. AOC voted against a resolution to honor Kirk, writing, "We should be clear about who Charlie Kirk was: a man who believed that the Civil Rights Act that granted Black Americans the right to vote was a ‘mistake,’ who after the violent attack on Paul Pelosi claimed that ‘some amazing patriot out there’ should bail out his assailant, and accused Jews of controlling ‘not just the colleges – it’s the nonprofits, it’s the movies, it’s Hollywood, it’s all of it.'"

They see fascists everywhere, and their definition of fascism is "anything I don't like is fascism." Much like the Satanic Panic of the 40+ years ago, this fascist panic is not rooted in reality.

Donald Trump is not a fascist. His voters are not Nazis.

And Democrats need to tone down the rhetoric before someone else gets killed.



Trump Declared Antifa a Terrorist Group in 2020, Will This Time Turn Out Differently?


RedState 

President Trump used his social media platform, Truth Social, on Wednesday to declare Antifa to be a "major" terrorist organization.

I am pleased to inform our many U.S.A. Patriots that I am designating ANTIFA, A SICK, DANGEROUS, RADICAL LEFT DISASTER, AS A MAJOR TERRORIST ORGANIZATION. I will also be strongly recommending that those funding ANTIFA be thoroughly investigated in accordance with the highest legal standards and practices. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

See Trump Goes There, and It's About Time: Antifa Is 'A Major Terrorist Organization' for more from my colleague.

This is not President Trump's first rodeo with Antifa. As American cities burned during the mostly peaceful and totally COVID-resistant demonstrations of the Summer of 2020 raged, it was obvious someone was calling the shots. The establishment's response to that sets the scene for where we are today.

President Donald Trump tweeted on Sunday that the U.S. government would be “designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization.”

There were just two problems with that. First, he doesn’t appear to have the legal authority to do so. And second, it’s not clear that the loosely defined group of radical activists is an organization at all.

What Does President Trump's Declaration Mean?

The federal government doesn't have a provision do designate any domestic organization a terrorist group; rather, it recognizes terrorist acts. This is how it breaks out.

Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) are designated by the Secretary of State under Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended, a group is designated as an FTO if it meets three criteria: 1) the organization is a foreign entity; 2) the organization engages in terrorist activity (see (as defined in section 1182(a)(3)(B) of Title 8 or terrorism (as defined in section 2656f(d)(2) of Title 22), meaning that it covers acts like hijacking, sabotage, assassination, or the use of explosives or firearms with intent to endanger people or property to achieve political, religious, or ideological aims; and 3) the organization’s activities threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security of the U.S.

Specially Designated Global Terrorists were created under Executive Order 13224 by President George W. Bush on September 23, 2001. It permits the Secretary of the Treasury to designate entities or individuals as SDGTs if they: 1) Commit or pose a significant risk of committing acts of terrorism that threaten U.S. nationals or national security; 2) provide material support to designated terrorists or terrorist organizations; or 3) they are owned, controlled by, or act on behalf of an already designated terrorist group.

There is no legal provision for a domestically based terrorist organization. Section 2331(5)(a) of Title 18 defines “domestic terrorism” as criminal acts taking place with the U.S. that appear intended to 1) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; 2) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or 3) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

I think that, at this stage, it makes more sense to see this as a directive from the President to the Attorney General to get serious about suppressing Antifa.

Objections

The New York Times ran an excellent, factual, though heavily politically slanted, overview of President Trump's order: Can Trump Actually Designate Antifa a Terrorist Group? Here Are the Facts.

The primary objection, other than it being an action by President Trump, is that Antifa isn't an organization; it is a philosophy.

Antifa is a label for a political subculture or protest style. The phenomenon does not have a leader, an initiation process, membership rolls, a headquarters, a bank account or a centralized structure.

Cynthia Miller-Idriss, an American University professor who studies domestic extremism, said antifa was an idea that could mobilize people. She compared it to concepts or ideologies like “white supremacy” and “Islamist extremism,” as distinguished from specific groups like the Aryan Brotherhood or Al Qaeda.

“There may be little groups organized around antifa in a neighborhood or community that meet up and share that stance, but it would be very hard to see that as connected in an organizational form that could be tackled,” she said, adding, “There is no expert I’ve ever heard of who has identified antifa as an actual organization.”

If you want to know what the truly stupid will be saying about Antifa, you can do worse than lackwit Malcolm Nance.

As The Blaze helpfully pointed out, the same arguments used today to argue Antifa is not an entity are those used to claim al Qaeda was also an idea, not an organization, while claiming you couldn't fight terrorism because it was a tactic, not a group.

Can It Work?

Probably, if the FBI can be forced to pay attention to it, there doesn't have to be an organization of formal contact to establish the predicate for a conspiracy charge. What is needed is an overt act in the commission of a crime.

The idea that Antifa is not a group is utter nonsense. While there might not be an Antifa Politburo, and I'm not convinced one is not located inside one of the vertiable forest of leftist/socialist/communist non-profits, there is a lot of evidence that some Antifa groups exist.

  • Item

The Antifa cell in Corvallis, Oregon, published a bulletin for its members on the crappy optics of their attacks, which have created for the group.

  • Item

Here, the Rose City Antifa, who appear most nights outside the ICE facility in Portland, Oregon, have thoughtfully added a membership application on their website. If you are an international traveler and wish to become an Antifa in another country, like the U.S., contact information is provided.

Both of these strongly imply there is some formal organization and communications channel behind the scenes. An idea has no need of a written after-action report on the bad image Antifa has, nor does it need membership applications or points of contact. The actions may seem local, even to members, but it would be rather silly to say there is no overarching organization. If you recall, communist movements have historically organized in cells where most were unaware of a higher echelon. Read Ward Clark's excellent Antifa's Inspiration? A Brief History of the Red Army Faction, and if we ever meet up, I can tell you about the time an Italian carabinieri pointed a submachine gun at me because he was convinced I was traveling with a Brigate Rosse cell fleeing a roundup.

Just last year, San Diego prosecutors broke up the local Antifa organization, sending 11 defendants to prison for up to two years for assault and conspiracy to riot. They argued there was no group, but "San Diego Superior Court Judge Daniel Goldstein said that the trial proved to him that antifa exists as an organization that appears to 'have funding and they have an ability to make contact and morph into other things very quickly in many different jurisdictions.'”

Last time around, Trump was at the end of his term, and he wasn't surrounded by particularly loyal or competent people. This time could be different. Trump has already made noises about going after the left-wing groups that fund civil unrest.

Trump also said he’d been discussing with Attorney General Pam Bondi the prospect of bringing racketeering charges against left-wing groups that he claimed were funding left-wing agitators.

“I’ve asked Pam to look into that in terms of RICO, bringing RICO cases,” he said, adding: “They should be put in jail, what they’re doing to this country is really subversive.”

Deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, also speaking in the Oval Office, cited a “network of organizations” that he accused of launching riots, specifically naming Black Lives Matter demonstrations.

“The key point the president has been making is somebody is paying for all of this. This is not happening for free, and so out of the president’s direction, the attorney general is going to find out who is paying for it, and they will now be criminally liable for paying for violence,” Miller added.

A focused effort to go after the money and add terrorism enhancements to their violent and subversive activities will take a lot of these goons off the street, and we'll get to lift the curtain and see if Antifa is really only an idea.



Independents And Republicans Have To Embrace Political Confrontation In Their Personal Lives



One of the biggest problems that America has is that there’s a side of the political divide that lives, sleeps, and breathes with their ideology at the front of their mind. That’s Democrats. And then there’s the other side, Republicans, plus the fluid middle, both of which prefer to keep their politics discreet and their personal lives as conflict-free as possible. We’re seeing that it doesn’t work, and to disastrous effect.

During interviews to promote my new book, Traitors: The Democrat Party’s Collapse Into Anti-American Filth, I’m usually asked some variation of the question, “What can people do?” I want everyone to read the book, but here’s the answer: To quote a prominent Democrat, “Embrace the suck.”

Everyone reading this is familiar with a particular kind of crippling anxiety experienced only by right-wingers and Republican-leaners. You’re at a dinner or cocktail party or some other social gathering with mixed company, and a political topic comes up, whether it’s about “Trump,” Elon Musk, or, God forbid, Israel.

Should I change the subject? Should I make a joke? What’s the best way to genuflect? I don’t want to upset anyone.

Such is the norm for unassuming, well-meaning right-wingers and centrists alike. Better to offer some vague input, or better yet, say nothing at all, in hopes that the conversation moves on.

That attitude has to end because the Democrat who’s present almost surely has no reservations when it comes to expressing exactly how she feels on the topic, usually in presumptuous, confrontational, and self-righteous ways that serve to intimidate everyone else, or otherwise dare them to say something back. This way, she can really give it to them by calling them racists and fascists. (Or, if she’s in a good mood, you might get by with only a passive-aggressive query as to whether you’re “pro Trump,” followed by the silent treatment and only forced smiles for the rest of the occasion.)

For too long, we — I certainly include myself — have been under the false belief that skirting political confrontation in mixed company and social settings is the right thing to do. Who wants to fight? Who wants to make anyone else present feel uncomfortable?

The left doesn’t mind at all. They never do. They will speak up regardless of whether anyone else does. They’re already sure they’re right. They’re just as sure that everyone else present agrees with them, and if not, that’s a person who shouldn’t have been invited to be in their presence at all.

To give them a pass by attempting to change the subject or diffuse underlying tension is to cede the issue altogether.

Incentives to avoid interpersonal conflict of the political kind are strong. It keeps people happy. It keeps you in good favor with those you enjoy. But we’re at a point in time where it’s more important to demonstrate that we don’t fear others knowing our convictions. They should know, especially when those convictions are in contradiction with others who have no qualms in expressing their own.

Confrontation isn’t the same as hostility or aggression. Anger isn’t required in explaining your views, but confidence is key. Democrats can’t be permitted to dominate political conversations in social settings. If they are, as they do now, everyone else who disagrees is made to feel that much more demoralized and isolated. That makes a big difference in our national discourse, our culture, and, ultimately, our elections.

Our strategy to win elections has to include comfort with discomfort in our personal lives. When the conversation at a party or social gathering turns to politics, embrace it.



Democrat Congressional Candidate Gets a Close-Up View of the Pavement After Trying to Block ICE


RedState 

Congressional candidate Kat Abughazaleh took part in a protest on Friday at the Broadview ICE facility just outside of Chicago and was physically removed after trying to interfere with operations.

In fact, Abughazaleh, a 26-year-old social media influencer running to represent the 9th Congressional District in Illinois, was spotted on multiple occasions being forcibly pushed out of the way by Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.

She went from "inspecting" the ICE facility, as Democrats like to say, to inspecting the asphalt in a hurry.

One clip, uploaded to X by NewsNation correspondent Ali Bradley, shows one officer helpfully escorting Abughazaleh out of the way as she attempts to block a vehicle exiting the facility deliberately. 

She gets dropped on her backside in short order.

Rather than thanking the agent for executing a life-saving maneuver to prevent Abughazaleh from being struck by a moving vehicle, she took to social media to complain about her First Amendment rights ... or something. She also used the clip as a means to raise money for her campaign.

She complained to CBS News about her treatment, saying protesters were simply singing songs and protesting peacefully.

"All of us joined arms, we did not let the van pass. ICE came in and tried to drive the car through us, they almost ran someone over," She said. "We did not move, we stood strong, and that's when they brought out the pepper balls and the tear gas." 

Sure. She literally ran around from the side to get in front of the SUV, but it's the driver who "tried" to run them over.

In another clip, Abughazaleh is seen as part of a blockade, sitting on the ground, holding up signs and engaging in a chant referring to ICE as "fascist" and "racist."

Again, agents swiftly moved her out of the way. It looked as easy as opposing teams trying to break through the Chicago Bears' offensive line.

Shades of that viral video from a couple of years ago, when a woman in Germany dragged a climate protester out of the street by her hair after she and other activists attempted to block traffic.

Kat, of course, is a young social media influencer, so she's not expected to be intelligent. And framing her removal as a violation of her First Amendment rights reveals that fact. Not to mention the volumes of material on the former Media Matters stooge circulating on the interwebs.

No, dear, that's what it looks like when you FAFO by trying to block a lawful enforcement operation. Almost insurrection-y, really.

ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ramped up operations in Chicago this week, as reported by RedState's Ward Clark.

"I'm having a hard time seeing how this isn't an obstruction of federal authorities in the conduct of their duties," Clark wrote in reference to sanctuary city policies, as it was revealed that a violent gang member found guilty of murder charges had been released into the community.

Those are the types of individuals that Democrats, like Abughazaleh, are so desperate to protect. Not just in Chicago, but New York as well.

New York officials, including Comptroller Brad Lander and other Democratic leaders, were arrested with dozens of protesters for blocking entrances, obstructing law enforcement, and forcing entry to an off-limits floor at an ICE facility in Lower Manhattan.

They, too, were engaged in a politically motivated "resistance theater" protest.