paradime

I agree, it's a load of hyper-bias hyperbole spun 3 way to Sunday, but public record shows what happened in this case. It was the website that intended to leak (dox) thousands of US ICE agents personal information that had a denial of service flood attack. The DOJ didn't have legal authority to prevent this because the site was in the Netherlands. In a sophisticated cyber attack, using a VPN (Virtual Private Network) can effectively hides your real IP address by routing your internet traffic through a remote server, making recipients see the VPN server's IP instead of user's, which masks the location and identity. It's not uncommon for hackers to run traffic through multiple randomized ghost VPNs to cover their digital footprints. That's not to say Russia didn't play a part in this, but what is their motivation here?

That wouldn't surprise me, but Trump's authoritarian executive order aren't holding up in federal court, the senate, or in congress. This week it's been one loss after another. From the queen of liberal liberal bias media, but this republican move towards descent isn't covered in conservative bias media.

It's been over politicized, but two studs still doesn't make a right. Under the Fourth Amendment, anyone in the United States, citizen or not, has the constitutional right to be free from excessive force by police officers, sheriff's deputies, highway patrol officers, federal agents, and other law enforcement officials.The violence you support here is incongruent with the law. You don't need to agree with her politics, or have a legal library to understand the our protections in the US Constitution's bill of rights. The clearly shows what happened in this event, ant courts will decide if this was an excessive use of deadly force in this situation. Taking into consideration the totality of motive, emotional destress, and reactions in this event. She was disrespectful, confrontational, emotionally charged, and used her vehicle for obstruction as a means of protest. On the other hand, the ex policeman now federal ICE agent that confronted her, was also emotionally charged. He didn't follow procedure when making a traffic stop 2 years earlier and was severely injured because of it. Not following procedure, he pulled his firearm standing in front of her car to block escape, and shot her instead of taking a step to avoid getting bumped. It's garnered unwanted attention for ICE enforcement efforts. So now it's up to the court's to decide the legality of his actions. Two wrongs of self righteous hate, so play stupid games win stupid prizes.

Hearing other perspectives on this.

Two stupids don't make a right. All you have to argue with are cheep shot inferences. I didn't take sides, I gave common legal knowledge, and facts as they pertain to this incident. They don't train police to stand in front of a car to block escape, and for obvious reasons. ICE authority is narrow and very specific enforcement related to their task. It doesn't extend to traffic infractions and detention of U.S. citizens. In a non-enforcement encounter like this, she had a right to refuse search and seizure under the 4th amendment. Unlike the Woke/MAGA propaganda machine, constitutional law doesn't give a fuck about her political/sexual orientation. The ICE officer won't get qualified immunity because he stepped beyond his authority and violated the civil rights of a US citizen using deadly force. Two stupids makes shit like this happen.

And ICE agent's are trained in their legal limitations. In fact, they do not have authority to enforce civil violations, or make traffic stops. Let alone standing in front of a vehicle blocking escape, then using deadly force because he positioned himself in a stupid place.

Pot meet kettle.

Northwestern Law professor Paul Gowder decodes the signal: The courts established ordinary measures cannot succeed when states organize systematic resistance. They certified that regular law enforcement has become impracticable. They documented the exact threshold Section 332 requires. The founders designed a system that assumed conflict between federal and state authority. For decades, that friction was suppressed. Emergency powers normalized after 9/11, federal agencies expanded into state domains, courts deferred to administrative expertise. The Guard deployment battles weren’t system failure. They were constitutional gravity reasserting itself. Courts blocking deployments under Posse Comitatus didn’t weaken Trump’s position. They certified that ordinary measures had become impracticable, crossing Section 332’s threshold. December 31, 2025. Trump announces Guard withdrawal from Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland via Truth Social. Governor Newsom celebrates: “President Trump has finally admitted defeat.” But the machine’s interpretation misreads strategic repositioning as retreat. You cannot claim ordinary measures have been exhausted if contested forces remain deployed. Pull back. Let obstruction resume unchecked. Document the refusal. Then demonstrate what unilateral executive action looks like when constitutional authority aligns. THE DEMONSTRATION January 3, 2026. Maduro extracted. No congressional briefing. No allied consultation. SDNY unseals a narcoterrorism indictment. Filing cabinet heading to New York with twenty-five years of receipts. Congress wasn’t briefed. Allies weren’t consulted. The operation executed on presidential authority alone. Then two days later (last night), aboard Air Force One, POTUS responds to questions about crime in Democrat-run cities: Used. The word choice matters. Invoked suggests consideration. Used suggests deployment. The next triggering event, another federal agent detained, another governor proclamation shielding criminal networks, launches the formal dispersal order under Section 334. The 72-hour window begins. When obstruction continues, federal troops move under the Insurrection Act. Constitutional authority. Historically unreviewable under Trump v. United States. THE HIDDEN NETWORKS Intelligence sources describe what the roundups since fall 2025 actually target. Embedded cartel operatives running fentanyl distribution chains under state-level protection. The riots following military arrests aren’t organic resistance. They’re funded backlash from criminal enterprises losing billions. Pre-staged materials appear at protest sites. Simultaneous actions coordinate across jurisdictions. The coordination runs deeper. Federal employee networks across multiple agencies held Zoom training sessions in early 2025. Officials with verified government IDs discussed “non-cooperation as non-violent direct action,” the 3.5% rule for governmental collapse, and infrastructure sabotage through coordinated sick calls. They planned to make federal law enforcement impracticable. The exact language Section 332 requires. Sanctuary policies exist because cartel operations generate billions flowing through state systems. Governors sit on nonprofit boards receiving federal grants. Those nonprofits contract back to state agencies, cycling federal dollars through “charitable” organizations. Cartel cash launders through these same construction and real estate networks. When Trump’s operations extract high-value targets, they disrupt the business model. The Machine defends itself through coordinated obstruction designed to make federal enforcement impracticable. This transcends immigration policy. This tests whether states can capture governance for criminal enterprises and nullify federal supremacy. THE LINCOLN PARALLEL Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation confounded supporters and critics alike. Abolitionists expected moral thunder. Instead they received dry legalese about “military necessity” and “war powers.” The document deliberately avoided the word “freedom.” It specified which states, parishes, counties. It exempted border states still in the Union. Constitutional historians recognize the genius. Lincoln wasn’t making a moral proclamation. He was establishing irreversible legal predicate under war powers. Once issued, even Northern defeat couldn’t fully restore slavery. The proclamation made restoration of the old order structurally impossible. Trump’s April 28 order follows identical construction. Critics expected immigration rhetoric. Instead: technical language about “unlawful insurrection” and “federal supremacy.” Specified sanctuary jurisdictions, formal notification procedures, funding suspensions. Avoided inflammatory language. Constitutional attorneys recognize the structure. Irreversible legal predicate under insurrection powers. Even political defeat cannot fully restore sanctuary authority. States would have to prove they’re not in systematic insurrection. Both presidents disguised constitutional warfare as administrative procedure. THE COMPLETE RECORD When you review the eight-month timeline you recognize what most ‘experts’ miss. The April 28 EO satisfied every Section 334 requirement. It designated sanctuary conduct as insurrection. It provided formal notification. It established consequences. It granted eight months to comply. Compliance never arrived. California and New York passed laws shielding criminal networks. Illinois officials threatened to prosecute ICE agents. Multiple states coordinated legal defenses against federal authority. Courts blocked every standard enforcement attempt. They certified that ordinary measures have become impracticable. Every statutory requirement checks complete: Formal proclamation warning insurgents to disperse: April 28, 2025 Executive Order 14287 Extended opportunity to comply: Eight months from April to December 2025 Documented systematic multi-state obstruction: Sanctuary laws, prosecution threats, coordinated resistance Exhausted ordinary enforcement measures: Guard deployments blocked by federal courts Judicial certification of impracticability: Supreme Court ruling with Kavanaugh footnote The legal architecture stands finished. The predicate has been established. Only the final triggering event remains. Thomas Jefferson signed the Insurrection Act into law on March 3, 1807. He understood executive authority: forge the instrument ahead of the storm, then await the conditions that justify its use. Abraham Lincoln used it to preserve the Union when eleven states organized systematic resistance. Ulysses S. Grant invoked it to shatter the Ku Klux Klan when Southern governments refused to protect Black citizens. Dwight Eisenhower deployed federal troops to enforce Brown v. Board when Arkansas chose defiance. Each invocation followed the same pattern. Local authorities refuse to enforce federal law. The president issues formal proclamation. Forces deploy when resistance continues. The current situation exceeds every historical precedent in scale and coordination. Multiple state governments coordinating systematic obstruction. Sanctuary jurisdictions spanning dozens of cities. Criminal enterprises funding the resistance through captured state institutions. The April proclamation gave them eight months to stand down. They chose escalation. THE COUNTDOWN The January 4 statement confirms what the legal timeline already established. Prerequisites met. Constitutional threshold crossed and judicially certified. The operational timeline is active. The next escalation triggers the formal dispersal order. Section 334 requires the president issue proclamation ordering insurgents to “disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes” before deploying military force. That’s the legal tripwire. Once issued, if obstruction persists after the compliance window closes, federal troops can enforce federal law. Active duty forces under the Insurrection Act. Constitutional. Unreviewable. The forces won’t conduct door-to-door immigration raids. They’ll provide security perimeters while federal law enforcement executes targeted operations against high-value assets. Operatives. Trafficking nodes. Criminal infrastructure. Targeting oath-bound officials elected and appointed, as well as federal employees who swore to uphold federal law and chose insurrection instead. THE RESTORATION Sanctuary jurisdictions received explicit insurrection warnings last spring. More than half a year to comply. Every olive branch rejected. Courts blocked ordinary enforcement repeatedly, certifying impracticability. The Venezuela op demonstrated unilateral resolve. Yesterday’s statement activated the operational sequence. Pattern recognized. Machine is exposed. Evidence is complete. What remains is execution. They’re just waiting to hear it tick. The most powerful weapon restrains until every prerequisite aligns. Until mercy extends fully and meets systematic rejection. Until the constitutional framework demands its use. Every prerequisite has aligned. Mercy has been extended and rejected. The framework demands its use. Revolution destroys. Reversion restores. The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves. The Insurrection Proclamation frees a republic. Happy Monday. Thank you for reading this, for sharing it, and for supporting this work. Pattern recognition requires people willing to see what’s actually there instead of what they’ve been told to see. You’re doing just that. One attachment • Scanned by Gmail

Always quick to demonize the left. The same stupidly bias shit comes from the Far-right. but you're too blinded by hate to see it. Fortune is valued for being centrist, and there is no party agenda in this article. It gives the kind of factual information that supports critical thinking. Not like the bias shit you regurgitate here that hides facts behind tangential hyperbolic spin that tries to legitimized moronic party messaging. Right or Left, it's the same propaganda machinery.

Neanderthals invented burn barrels, but that stupidity continues and crosses all borders. This is how modern men clean their yard.

I see, it's the old dog ate my homework excuse. Okay then, forget the link. Trump already has open door to grow U.S. military presence in Greenland thanks to a little-known Cold War-era agreement between the U.S. and Denmark President Donald Trump’s yearslong threats to take over Greenland have crescendoed this week. On Wednesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump is considering a range of options in pursuit of the country, and that “utilising the U.S. military is always an option at the commander-in-chief’s disposal.” But according to foreign policy experts, Danish officials have been baffled by Trump’s threats to resort to military intervention to gain control of Greenland because there’s already a long-standing agreement in place for the U.S. to increase its military presence there. In 1951, the U.S. and Denmark signed a little-known defense agreement allowing the U.S. “to improve and generally to fit the area for military use” in Greenland and “construct, install, maintain, and operate facilities and equipment” there. “This agreement is very generous, it’s very open,” Mikkel Runge Olesen, a senior researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies in Copenhagen, told Fortune. “The U.S. would be able to achieve almost any security goal that you can imagine under that agreement.” Given the wide-reaching terms of the contract, “there is very little understanding as to why the U.S. would need to take over Greenland at this time,” Olesen added. Though Trump’s desire for Greenland has punctuated both of his administrations (in 2019, his intentions to buy the self-governing Danish territory were immediately rebuffed by Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen), world leaders have taken the president’s most recent interest in the island more seriously. Following the U.S. forces’ capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, Trump has invoked greater imperial authority through what he has endorsed as the “Donroe Doctrine,” alluding to the 19th century Monroe Doctrine, a foreign policy warning European powers against intervention in the western hemisphere. Greenland—covered in ice and home to 56,000, mostly Inuit people—has become crucial to the defense of North America thanks to its positioning above the Arctic Circle giving it access to naval and shipping routes. Combined with its abundance of rare earths, the country has become coveted by Trump, who wants to secure it not only for its wealth of natural resources, but also against the Chinese and Russian ships he claims have anchored themselves in the Arctic region. Long-standing U.S.-Danish ties For more than 80 years, the U.S. has had a presence on Greenland, which became a foundational part of its deepening relationship with Denmark—and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). During WWII, Danish ambassador to the U.S. Henrik Kauffmann, defied the Nazi-controlled Danish government and essentially brokered a deal with the U.S. to give America access to Greenland. A U.S. military holding there would prevent Nazi forces from using the island as a bridge between Europe and North America. The deal that was supposed to dissolve after the war was instead bolstered by the creation of NATO in 1949, which obligated the U.S. to provide defense for Europe against Soviet forces. A new agreement in 1951 confirmed the U.S.’ rights to establish defense areas in Greenland, and is contingent upon the continued existence of NATO to be valid. In 2004, the agreement was updated to add Greenland, which established some self-governance in 1979, as a signatory. The U.S. has only one military base on Greenland today, the Pituffik Space Base, down from about 50 during the height of the Cold War. But should the U.S. want to expand its presence there for national security reasons, as Trump has suggested, it would require negotiations with Denmark and Greenland, Olesen said. Historically, those negotiations have been friendly. “In practical terms, there has been a tendency on the Danish and the Greenlandic side to always look at us security requests in Greenland with a lot of goodwill and a lot of openness,” he said. Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen, citing the 1951 agreement, implored the Trump administration to stop his talk of taking over Greenland. “We already have a defense agreement between the Kingdom and the United States today, which gives the United States wide access to Greenland,” Frederiksen said in a statementover the weekend. “I would therefore strongly urge the United States to stop the threats against a historically close ally and against another country and another people who have said very clearly that they are not for sale.” Trump’s motivations for taking Greenland Garret Martin, lecturer and codirector of the Transatlantic Policy Center at American University, speculates Trump’s insistence on appearing to brush off the 1951 agreement in favor of military force or offers to purchase Greenland (despite Danish officials repeatedly saying the country is not for sale), is an extension of the 19th century “gunboat diplomacy” philosophy the president took with Venezuela. In the case of Greenland, Trump could be wanting to send a message to Denmark the U.S. has greater military capabilities that it is willing to deploy. “Trump believes—and is often very keen to emphasize—the United States as leverage,” Martin told Fortune. “And it’s possible he’s trying to tell Denmark, ‘Look, you are in a position of weakness. Greenland really fundamentally depends on us. Why should we have to avail ourselves of those formalities when really we’re the key player?’” Trump’s tactics could also come from a desire to stake claim over the rare earth metals buried deep under the Greenlandic ice, which has become more urgent to Trump as China sits on 90% of the rare earth the world needs. Anthony Marchese, chairman of Texas Mineral Resources Corporation, told Fortuneearlier this week the president’s hope of mining those rare earths is nearly a fantasy. The northern part of Greenland is mineable only six months out of the year due to treacherous weather conditions, and expensive mining equipment has to endure months in that cold climate. “If you’re going to go to Greenland for its minerals, you’re talking billions upon billions upon billions of dollars and extremely long time before anything ever comes of it,” he said. According to Olesen, Trump’s desire for rare earths, as well as his national security urgency, can be addressed by Danish and Greenlandic officials through negotiations, making them less of a concern. The trouble will be if Trump’s biggest motivator to move into Greenland is a symbolic show of military prowess rather than specific demands that can be addressed through diplomacy. “It’s hard to compromise with territorial expansion,” Olesen said.

Another in a never ending stream of ignorant BS. Attributing this to the Democrats shows how your hatred rewrites historical reality. In fact, it's a quote from Benjamin Franklin - "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." Ben also said "Liberty is a well armed lamb..." Like me, he was an independent and did not belong to any political party. So no, he never was a Democrat, but he did help write the US Declaration of Independence. You don't have to give up your values to stop being a party pooper.

Did you even watch this vid? The Noem started by saying we need to tone down the rhetoric, then called protest against this policy an act of terrorism. I lost count of how many times she pegged the hypocrisy meter. MSN profiting from conflicting realities. Both sides watching this are saying "see, I told you they're F'n crazy." Thanks for reenforcing my hatred of bias news media. I read your Trump wins again shit spin story. Called you on it and replied the link to a source that proves it's bias BS. Still waiting for a rebuttal.

BS. Trump never made such a request for an EU and NATA military presence. This withers in the face of his open hatred of NATO. In his first term, he was already making overtures for the US to own Greenland. Not just because it's critical to our maritime defense of Eastern North America, but for gaining the ability to exploit it's rich mineral resources with autonomy. Trump already has open door to grow U.S. military presence in Greenland thanks to a little-known Cold War-era agreement between the U.S. and Denmark President Donald Trump’s yearslong threats to take over Greenland have crescendoed this week. On Wednesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump is considering a range of options in pursuit of the country, and that “utilising the U.S. military is always an option at the commander-in-chief’s disposal.” https://fortune.com/2026/01/08/trump-military-presence-1951-agreement-greenland-denmark/