02b U.S. Politics – Progressive

Angie Craig is a Minnesota congresswoman seeking the Dem nomination for an open Senate seat. Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan, Craig’s ultraliberal primary opponent, has accused Craig of being too tough on immigration. Craig committed the unforgivable sin — in leftist eyes — of voting for the Laken Riley Act, and supporting a House resolution condemning antisemitism and expressing gratitude for ICE.

So Craig is clearly on a campaign to atone for her transgressions, and prove to the kind of far-left Dems who vote in Minnesota primaries that she is just as out there as the wackiest of them.

MS NOW’s The Weekend gave Craig an opportunity to do that, having her as a guest on Saturday’s show.

The first topic was the blatant stunt Craig pulled on January 7th, picking an argument on the House floor–with cameras conveniently rolling–with Republican congressman Tom Emmer on the subject of the ICE shooting of Renee Good. Craig repeatedly poked her finger toward Emmer’s chest, and a colleague eventually had to pull her away. She described herself to The Weekend hosts as “a pissed off congresswoman on the House floor.” Oh, the bravery of this woman warrior! Peggy Flanagan is a hopeless lefty, but she got one thing right, saying Craig “cravenly picked a fight” with Emmer.

Don’t believe your lying eyes.

That’s effectively what the hoax-peddling Washington Post told its readers when it ran what can only be surmised as the most dishonest piece of left-wing propaganda published (so far) this year.

Splattered across the top of the outlet’s homepage on Thursday was an ” analysis” titled, “Video shows ICE agent in Minneapolis fired at driver as vehicle veered past him.” (An earlier version of the article had the headline, “ICE agent was not in the vehicle’s path when he fired at driver, video shows.”)

Right from the get-go, it’s clear that make-pretend “reporters” Aaron Davis and Jonathan Baran aren’t trying to inform their audience of what actually happened but are instead seeking to advance the Democrat Party’s anti-ICE agenda.

Upon navigating the Orwellian article, readers are immediately bombarded with the presumption that the Trump administration’s central (and well-documented) claim — that the now-deceased woman disobeyed ICE and then hit an agent with her car — is false. In typical legacy media fashion, Davis and Baran play up such framing by asserting that their “frame-by-frame analysis” “raises questions” about the administration’s account of the incident.

Hypocrisy was in high gear on Morning Joe today regarding the Minneapolis ICE shooting. The panel accused President Trump and JD Vance of “prejudging” the situation and “jumping to conclusions.” But the panel repeatedly described Renee Nicole Good as “the victim.” If Good is the victim, that, ipso facto, makes the ICE agents the guilty parties. So who’s prejudging now?

That wasn’t the only instance of hypocrisy/double standards on display. Former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson lamented that instead of “trying to calm people’s fears down,” leaders “are simply playing to [their] base and trying to amp it up.” While Johnson didn’t name names, this is MS NOW, so his accusation clearly seemed aimed at the Trump administration.

But when it comes to playing to the base and amping things up instead of calming people’s fears, consider these statements by an array of Democrats:

• Tim Walz called ICE “Trump’s Gestapo,” and declared, as he mobilized the MN National Guard, “we’ve never been at war with our federal government [until now?]”
• Jasmine Crockett called ICE “slave patrols.”
• Ilhan Omar called ICE agents “vile and beyond cruel.”
• Hakeem Jeffries implored people to “fight” the Trump administration “in the streets.”
• Good old Maxine Waters called Trump “lowdown, no good, filthy,” over ICE raids.

If protests are an “unstoppable force that they can’t oppose,” that Trump “can’t oppose,” why are they opposable? That is something Rachel Maddow will never be able to answer, but it won’t stop her from going on a rant about percentages, authoritarianism, and blah blah blah.

According to Rachel Maddow, “In political science terms, there’s what’s called the 3.5 percent rule, which is that if you look at authoritarian regimes all over the world over the last century, once you have 3.5 percent of a population protesting nonviolently against a dictator or an authoritarian, that is essentially an unstoppable force that they can’t oppose.”

The only problem with this is that it’s unclear what it is that Trump can’t oppose. What are they even fighting for? A woman who spent much of her free time dedicated to doxxing federal agents allegedly attempted to run over an officer with a deadly weapon. Now, apparently, 3.5 percent of the population is opposing this, and Maddow claims Trump can’t oppose that opposition.