General

Tucker on the Great Replacement, the fate of Whites if they become a minority, and the riots in Minnesota

Tucker with his most forthright statement on the Great Replacement, emphasizing, as we have often noted here, that terrible things happen when a formerly dominant people becomes subjugated. He emphasizes anti-White hatred in high places and notes that as the White population of America slides into minority status, the hatred only increases and becomes more explicit. He notes that this has happened often in history and focuses on the fate of the Palestinians who once formed the great majority of the area but are now a viciously oppressed minority. Of course, he is quick to say that his comments are not to be construed as hating anyone (i.e., Israelis), and when he discusses the U.S. he never mentions the role of the organized Jewish community in bringing about the Great Replacement as a necessary condition and the most active force in favor of the 1965 immigration law that has transformed the country.
He then turns to Minnesota, noting that the anti-ICE movement is really a movement to speed up the Great Replacement by preventing deportation of illegals,  and he notes that 14 states do not have voter ID laws, making fraudulent voting by illegals easy.  His monologue aired prior to the killing  of Alex Pretti who is now a cause célèbre for the left. My worry is that the killing of the activist was indeed unjustified and will contribute to shutting down all the ICE operations throughout the country. Of course that’s what the left wants. If the shooting was indeed unjustified, the officer involved should be the target, not the whole operation.
Tucker then has an interesting interview with Nick Shirley, they journalist who exposed some of the Somali fraud. He reports from the ground in Minneapolis and emphasizes the complete lack of law enforcement by the local police whether it’s traffic laws for anti-ICE protestors or inflicting harassment or worse on ICE officers. He closes with an interview of an Evangelical pastor from Idaho who was formerly affiliated with the Minneapolis church that was invaded by anti-ICE protestors, including Don Lemon.

Tucker on What the Violent ICE Protests Are Really About and What It Means for White

ZeroHedge: What The Left Doesn’t Want You To Know About Alex Pretti, The Man That Border Patrol Shot

What The Left Doesn’t Want You To Know About Alex Pretti, The Man That Border Patrol Shot

Mainstream media outlets rushed to paint Alex Pretti as a blameless ICU nurse gunned down by heartless Border Patrol agents in Minneapolis on Saturday. They highlighted his work caring for veterans and seized on video snippets showing him holding a phone. The New York Times ran with that angle, running the headline “Man Killed by Federal Agents in Minneapolis Was Holding a Phone, Not a Gun,” and claimed that footage captured Pretti only with his phone in hand, insisting that agents had no reason to believe he was armed during their encounter.

Media outlets are also quick to point out that Pretti held a valid Minnesota concealed carry permit and legally owned the gun, as if that absolved him for his actions against the Border Patrol agents.

Others point out that he had no criminal record, just traffic tickets.

But what the mainstream media isn’t telling you is that Pretti wasn’t just some random bystander.

According to Jeanne Massey, a neighbor, Pretti was part of a “Signal ICE” group chat of volunteers who organized a sophisticated operation to track ICE activity in real time and alert each other when agents were in the area.

These folks patrol streets, blow whistles, alert residents, and film operations to disrupt arrests.

That puts him not on the sidelines but plugged into the very network that coordinated responses to federal enforcement operations.

Mother Jones profiled the group just last week.

“A new activist twist on neighborhood watch is taking shape in Minneapolis and other cities under occupation by federal immigration agents: ICE Watch,” the outlet reported.

“As Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel drive around these cities, they’re often tailed by people in the neighborhoods. The idea is to make sure witnesses are present for any immigration arrest, to catch incidents on video, and to protest—or at least get the detainee’s name.”

The article described the “ICE watchers” as “passionate, determined, and just about everywhere—and ICE is getting frustrated.”


Massey and Pretti were part of the Kingfield neighborhood ICE Watch.

Massey spoke on behalf of her neighbors, saying, “Let me be clear: we are horrified, we are furious, and we are not going to pretend this is anything but what it is — another senseless act of violence carried out by federal agents in our city.”

“This is the third time in just weeks that someone has been shot during these so-called enforcement operations, and it’s devastating to see another life taken while our community is trying to stand up for justice and safety.”

Massey explained that she was one of many Minneapolis locals who flocked to the scene where the man was shot dead this morning.

She said that she was there when the ICE agents stormed the crowd and tear gassed the bystanders.

“People here are terrified, but we are also angry — angry that federal agents continue to operate with impunity, with lethal force, with no accountability,” Massey claimed.

“Our city is under siege. No one here feels safe, and that is unacceptable.”

The mainstream media seems to be uninterested in reporting on Pretti’s involvement with his local ICE Watch group.

Similar gaslighting took place after the shooting of Renee Good after she attempted to run over an ICE agent with her car earlier this month. She was immediately portrayed as a scared “Minnesota mom” who had just dropped her son off at school and accidentally found herself in the middle of an active ICE operation.

In reality, she was a committed anti-ICE activist who deliberately sought to obstruct federal immigration enforcement, and was part of her local “ICE Watch” group as well, with which she received training on how to obstruct federal agents.

Finally, here’s how Dana Loesch put it:

Yes, you absolutely can carry at a protest.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is an anti-2A statist. 

No, you absolutely cannot interrupt a federal op while armed and tussle with LEO.

That’s how tragic things happen. 

This isn’t rocket science.

Hard to argue with that.

New York Times is back on the race science beat

New York Times is back on the race science beat

A kinda boring article though

Emil O. W. Kirkegaard

Jan 25

READ IN APP

Back on the 23rd October 2025, some journalist I hadn’t heard of called Mike McIntire emailed me. He said he was writing some smear piece for the New York Times, and his email checked out. I mean, of course, he didn’t put it that way, but it was clear from his email what the intention was. Naturally, he asked to have some call or send some questions. The reason journalists do this is that their ‘professional ethics’ codes usually require it (sometimes local laws may also do so), and the secondary reason is that they can then engage in some fresh quote mining of whatever you say. So if you talk freely with such a journalist for an hour or so, then at some point you might have said something that sounded fishy taken by itself, but which in context made sense. However, it will soon appear in the smear piece without that context. Or better, it will appear with a rather different context that is provided by the journalist and probably be some adversary or another.

Mike McIntire is not a science journalist, so he is off his typical topic. This begs the question of why he was assigned to do this particular piece. I don’t know, but I can guess. My guess is that the piece was ordered by some editor or other higher-up. As a matter of fact, his email was timed with another very similar email around the same time from another journalist from another major American newspaper, Zusha Elinson from WSJ. Never heard of him either, but he emailed only a day later (24th October) and about the exact same topic. They both wanted to write some piece on Bryan Pesta’s academic freedom lawsuit. For those not familiar, Pesta was fired through tenure from his university ostensibly on grounds on data mishandling, but really for collaborating with us on doing anti-woke race and genetics research. The curious thing was the timing, only 1 day apart, and on an obscure lawsuit by a professor against a mediocre university. As far as I know, there were no legal updates on the case at the time, so why did 2 supposedly independent journalists both want to write a story before any legal updates? My guess is that they had insider knowledge of the verdict, which is why they were planning their smear pieces ahead of time and at two different outlets for extra publicity. Perhaps they were coordinating behind the scenes. I don’t really know, and any particular theory of this is of course a kind of conspiracy theory. Maybe one day we will know what the truth is.

Pesta’s lawsuit eventually concluded some time later (no money for poor Bryan), but no pieces by Mike McIntire or Zusha Elinson appeared. After a while, I started to think they had dropped the idea since apparently no one except Pesta replied to them. Today this was shown to be not correct, as New York Times dropped their new article:

If you read the piece you may get the impression that it’s a bit a nothingburger. I agree. Essentially nothing is new in it and it seems strangely delayed. It did however help provoke some debate on X/Twitter. There’s even a current AI news summary about it. It’s almost entirely negative about the NYT’s article. If you are too lazy to read the article, it goes like this:

  • Fringe researchers (that’s us!) used some federally funded data for analyses that the NYT disapproves of.
  • They duly bring in some carefully chosen critics to say some bad words about the work and or us. In this case everybody’s favorite strawberry Antifa geneticist Kevin Bird (burn down the buildings!), and omnibus denialist Sasha Gusev.
  • There’s some additional quotes from various officials from ABCD/PNC/NIH who feign astonishment, anger etc..
  • Some calls for further data security and of course more mandatory training.

The most amusing part is the angling to America’s geopolitical enemies, since apparently one of the authors of some paper or another is Chinese. According to their current googling, he may even live in China. Actually, at the time of the study he did not live in China at all. Then there’s another guy who was a coauthor on one paper, who lives in Russia. They then go on some fear mongering about what might happen if Americas enemies have copies of sensitive genetic datasets. It’s a funny line of argument considering that the ABCD itself previously held a contest for Chinese researchers to predict intelligence from the brain data. As a matter of fact, these data are not very sensitive, which is why 1000s of researchers and their students worldwide have access to them. You can simply go to the websites of these datasets and look at their proud listing of research. The page for ABCD’s portal lists 100s of studies, many done by researchers entirely based in China. This is also true for the UK Biobank by the way. The reason there isn’t more security is that the data aren’t terribly useful for anything geopolitically sensitive. In fact, even if the data were public, the subjects would have relatively little to fear. Yeah, someone could maybe identify some of them using FBI-like methods of uploading all the data to some genealogy websites and finding their 2nd cousins, but then so what? All you will get from this is that someone called Joe Doe filled out some survey years ago. It’s already illegal to use this information for much of anything. Since 1000s of people already have access to this kind of data, and I’ve never heard of any abuse cases, probably it’s not terribly useful otherwise someone would have already abused it to make money somehow.

Criticism of the study itself I think there were only two attempts. The first and most funny is that they showed this modified table:

The goal was to show that some of the sample sizes were small and this is very bad. Of course, the total sample size of ABCD is 10k+, but if one keeps subsetting to minor ethnic groups, the samples may become small. Not really the fault of the researchers as such, just a data limitation. The fun thing is that they had chosen these sample sizes among many from a larger table, which I think may be this one (from HV blog):

You can see that the larger sub-samples have all been left out to create the worst possible presentation. What a dumb trick. In any case, if one is estimating only the means of groups, and the gaps are large, then smallish samples can be OK. What matters is not so much the sample size, but the statistical power. That is, the precision of the studies relative to whatever effect is being studied. If you wanted to show that men and women differ in grip strength or height, you wouldn’t need many people since the gap is very large. Even 10 people from each group would be enough. In any case, what matters is the bigger picture, not the specific mean IQ of, say, Vietnamese Americans. There is a neat way to compare the precision of these estimates, namely, by comparing them with the same-ish groups on another test, the SAT/ACT. Doing so gives you this plot:

The IQ mean estimates are ‘only’ correlated at 0.93. Maybe there is some differences in the sampling (SAT takers are a different age cohort), but a small deviation from a correlation of 1.00 is expected due to the sampling error, and of course because the tests aren’t measuring entirely the same thing (SAT/ACTs are heavily loaded on knowledge, whereas ABCD’s battery includes a lot of memory tests). Rather, given that some of the samples are rather small, it is slightly surprising that they are so strongly correlated. It’s possible to adjust for the sampling error downwards bias (towards 0) in theory. If the amount of random error is known (standard errors of the mean) for each mean, one can estimate backwards and figure out what the original correlation most likely was before some random errors were added to the observations. The effect of the correction is probably small since we are already close to 1.00. I asked GPT to cook up some R code. After several false attempts, it got me some working code using variant of Deming regression I hadn’t heard of (based on York et al 2004). This approach produced the value of 0.965, which seems plausible enough. I would have to do some more simulations to be confident about this (topic for future post no doubt). The ones I did showed that the adjustment was working a little bit. Anyway, it is obvious that the small samples of some of the ethnics wasn’t important for the study.

The other criticism was just that the blank slate model was not assumed. Basically, the dog meme. One should control every possible alternative cause, according to NYT science, and not worry about the sociologist’s fallacy. Maybe they can take a lesson in causal reasoning since controlling for these factors gives uninterpretable results. Hereditarians and egalitarians agree that if we compare only (hypothetical) perfectly average specimens of this or that race group (in every way, their mothers and fathers income, education, occupational status, where they live, where they grew up, what job they have, their grandparents’ education etc.) then the gap would be smaller to some degree. Egalitarians like to think of this as some big a-ha! moment. However, on the hereditarian model this result is also expected because if you do such a statistical comparison, you are controlling for all the other things also indirectly caused by genetics (including in past generations by the ancestors’ genetics), and thus ending up with a comparison of a rather genetically elite hypothetical member of [ethnic group] compared with the average Joe Whiteman (or in the case of higher scoring ethnics, a below average member). This method cannot yield any causally informative conclusions, which is why it isn’t helpful to do this in endless detail as they propose (this useless method was also used in The Bell Curve replies). In fact, they spend a lot of space mentioning that the datasets didn’t even include all the possible hypothetical variables they could imagine being important, so naturally Pesta et al could not have used them to begin with, so how can they be faulted for not doing so?

The rest of the article was somewhat boring, and I don’t think it’s worth your time to dig up the various quotes they took from this or that blogpost and put in some other context. But I will give one example. They have this paragraph:

Another paper, coauthored by Mr. Kirkegaard, was limited by what he acknowledged were small sample sizes and a lack of nongenetic data. Those shortcomings did not stop him from trumpeting the findings online as proof that “genetic ancestry, not social race, explains observed gaps in social status.”

It concerns my 2023 blogpost about a paper based on ABCD data. They don’t seem to understand the point of the post. The point is simple: if social race (egalitarians claim, variously, that it’s not genetic, or it’s complicated, or whatever the current obfuscation of the month is) is so important causally for all sorts of things, then clearly, social race should predict outcomes better than genetic ancestry. This prediction has been tested a number of times in various datasets and using different methods. But it is always found that genetic ancestry (real race) predicts outcomes better than whatever race people consider themselves to be (or their parents or interviewers consider them to be). This is not consistent with their causal models that posit strong effects of social race. That’s why my quote says social race is not the causal factor at hand. They can then claim it is some other so far unidentified unmeasured causal factor (X), but then they gotta step up their science game and tell us what specifically it is. For decades, 100s of academics have been claiming it is discrimination based on skin color. But we and others have found that skin color does not predict outcomes when genetic ancestry is controlled so that causal model is clearly incorrect. The onus is on these egalitarians to produce anything resembling a coherent scientific theory of how gaps are caused, and how it can be tested. They have spent 10 decades making either too-vague-to-test claims, or advocating clearly disproven models (e.g. colorism, stereotype threat). It’s time to put up or shut up.

Just don’t hurt their feelings: Australia’s Frightening New “Hate Speech” Laws Are Clearly Aimed At Pro-Palestine Groups

Video Link

Australia’s Labor government has successfully passed a “hate speech” bill that’s plainly aimed, at least in part, at suppressing pro-Palestine organizations as “hate groups”.

Free speech advocates are sounding the alarm about the new laws, saying their extremely vague wording, lack of procedural fairness and low thresholds for implementation mean groups can now be banned if they make people feel unsafe or upset without ever actually posing any physical harm to anyone.

For me the most illuminating insight into what these laws are actually designed to do came up in an ABC interview with Attorney-General Michelle Rowland on Tuesday. Over and over again throughout the interview Rowland was asked by ABC’s David Speers to clarify whether the new laws could see activist groups banned for criticizing Israel and opposing its genocidal atrocities in a way that causes Jewish Australians to feel upset feelings, and she refused to rule out the possibility every single time.

Video Link

“Let’s just go to what it means in practice: would a group be banned if it accuses Israel of genocide or apartheid, and as a result, Jewish Australians do feel intimidated?” Speers asked.

Rowland didn’t say no, instead saying “there are a number of other factors that would need to be satisfied there” and saying that agencies like the AFP and ASIO would need to make assessments of the situation.

“Okay, just coming back to the practical example though, if a group is suggesting that Israel is guilty of genocide, what other measures or factors would need to be met before they can be banned?” Speers asked.

“Under the provisions that are now before the parliament, there would also need to be able to demonstrate that there are for example, some aspects of state laws that deal with racial vilification that have been met as well,” Rowland responded, again leaving the possibility wide open.

(It should here be noted that Greens justice spokesperson David Shoebridge has pointed out that “state laws that deal with racial vilification” can include “tests like ‘ridicule’ and ‘contempt’,” meaning people could wind up spending years in prison for associating with groups that were essentially banned for upsetting someone’s feelings.)

“Just to be clear, if a group is saying Israel is engaged in genocide, or they’re saying that Israel should no longer exist, that is not enough for that group to be banned?” asked Speers.

“Well, again, that would depend on the other evidence that is gathered, David, so I would be reluctant to be naming and ruling in and ruling out specific kinds of conduct that you are describing here,” Rowland replied.

All this waffling can safely interpreted as a yes. Rowland is saying yes. Speers pushed this question three different times from three different angles because it’s the most immediate and obvious concern about these new laws, and instead of reassuring the public that they can’t be used to target pro-Palestine groups and aren’t intended for that purpose, the nation’s Attorney General confirmed that it was indeed possible.

So that’s it then. Under the new laws we can expect to see the Israel lobby crying about Jewish Australians feeling threatened and unsafe by every pro-Palestine group under the sun, and then from there all it takes is the thumbs-up from ASIO to put the group on the banned list and cage anyone who continues associating with it for up to 15 years.

The bill that ended up making it through Parliament is actually a narrowed down version of an even scarier bill that was scrapped by Labor due to lack of support which went after individuals as well as groups. The earlier version contained “racial vilification” components which could have been used to target any individual who voices criticisms of Israel or Zionism — so it doesn’t look like I’ll be doing any prison time for my writing any time soon. The new version moved its crosshairs to groups with the obvious intent to disrupt pro-Palestine organizing in Australia.

And we’re already seeing the Israel lobby pushing to resurrect the laws targeting individuals. A new ABC article titled “Jewish leaders call for vilification offence to be revisited as Coalition splits over watered-down hate laws” cites Zionist Federation of Australia president Jeremy Leibler and Executive Council of Australian Jewry co-chief executive Peter Wertheim arguing that the new laws don’t go far enough.

So we can expect the Australian Israel lobby to both (A) push to get pro-Palestine groups classified as “hate groups” under the new laws and (B) keep pushing to make it illegal for individuals to criticize Israel in the form of new “racial vilification” laws. They’ll keep trying over and over again, from government to government to government, until they get their way.

This comes after Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council Executive Manager Joel Burnie publicly stated that he wants to ban pro-Palestine protests and criticism of Israel throughout the nation, and as prosecutors drag an Australian woman to court for an antisemitic hate crime because she accidentally butt-dialed a Jewish nutritionist and left a blank voicemail.

So things are already ugly, and they’re getting worse.

It’s so creepy knowing I share a country with people who want to destroy my right to normal political speech. It would never occur to me to try to kill Zionists’ right to free speech, but they very openly want to kill mine. They want to permanently silence me and anyone like me. I find that profoundly disturbing.

Israel supporters are horrible people. And I hope my saying that hurts their feelings.

Jonathan Turley: “It’s Going To Get Really Serious”: Liberal Influencers Discuss Public Trials, Court Expansion After Democratic Takeover

“It’s Going To Get Really Serious”: Liberal Influencers Discuss Public Trials, Court Expansion After Democratic Takeover

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Former CNN correspondent Jim Acosta spoke with popular podcaster Jennifer Welch, discussing the plans for radical changes after a Democratic takeover this year. Like many Democratic figures, they said that the expansion of the Supreme Court is obvious.

The expansion is essential to clear away any restraints on a radical agenda that will include the trial of a host of conservatives, from Trump to the young former DOGE employee who was injured when he came to the rescue of a woman in a carjacking in Washington, D.C.

Figures like Eric Holder have expressly stated that packing the Supreme Court with a liberal majority will be the priority after any Democratic takeover.

This has long been the plan among far-left figures, but it is now being embraced by establishment figures as essential to securing a radical agenda to achieve lasting power.

Years ago, Harvard professor Michael Klarman laid out a radical agenda to change the system to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election.” However, he warned that “the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described.” Therefore, the court must be packed in advance to allow these changes to occur.

This week, Democratic strategist James Carville laid out the step-by-step process of how the pack-to-power plan would work.

“I’m going to tell you what’s going to happen,” he said.

“A Democrat is going to be elected in 2028. You know that. I know that. The Democratic president is going to announce a special transition advisory committee on the reform of the Supreme Court. They’re going to recommend that the number of Supreme Court justices go from nine to 13. That’s going to happen, people.”

Acosta and Welch, however, added a Jacobin touch by demanding trials for a wide range of conservative figures — a call that has been echoed by Democratic members promising impeachments and investigations.

Welch, who appears to be auditioning for the role of Madame Lafarge, insisted:

“The blue tsunami means that Congress is going to haul Elon Musk, ‘Big Balls,’ and a bunch of other people’s a– in front and say, ‘What crimes did you commit?’ And it’s going to get really serious. And the same with Trump because I believe, and this is just my opinion, that Trump and all of the bottom-feeding morons surrounding him and Elon Musk and all the bottom feeding clinger-onners that surround him, I think they commit crimes every day.”

In my forthcoming book, Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution, I discuss how elected officials often try to enlist mobs to advance their political agendas — only to be consumed by the unrest they helped fuel. This yielding to a “mobocracy” was one of the critical dangers that the Framers sought to deter through protections against majoritarian tyranny.

What is most notable is the warning to establishment figures who are dismissed as “integrity Democrats” who might be squeamish about doing the things that must be done to political opponents. As always, Welch was the face of unrequited rage:

“And I think to reconcile all of this is going to take hardcore — not ‘integrity Democrats – ‘F–k you Democrats’ … ‘F–k you for f–king over our country.’ We are serious about this. We are prosecuting. We’re going to uncover every document, every phone call, everything you did. We will be relentless about it. And that’s the mindset they’ve got to have because I think the electorate is going from, ‘We’ve got to get him out, but also we want accountability.’”

With “integrity Democrats” out of the way, the left will be able to change the system to guarantee not just a radical agenda but permanent power, as explained by Klarman. It is a chilling and ironic prospect on the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the author of the forthcoming “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution,” which will be released on Feb. 3 as part of the celebration of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

JTA: Jews against ICE in Minnesota

I’m sure they would act exactly the same if Israel was rounding up illegal immigrants. And what did the Israelites do to the natives when they reached the promised land: Slaughter the natives of course.

Jewish groups opposed to the aggressive surge in immigration enforcement are signing letters, planning protests and mending frayed interfaith partnerships.

The Hebrews’ flight from Egypt is on a lot of Jewish minds right now, as the annual cycle of Torah readings has reached the Book of Exodus.

But for many Jewish leaders in Minnesota, the ancient story has particular resonance.

With Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents descending on the Twin Cities in search of undocumented immigrants and stirring chaos and pushback, the story of Exodus — about a king who tries to thwart the growing number of “foreigners” in his midst, and the leader who seeks to protect them — is inspiring local Jews as they respond to ICE despite the risks of doing so.

“As we’re currently reading in the Torah, Moses confronts Pharoah knowing it won’t be easy, and feeling his own doubts about such an act,” Rabbi Aaron Weininger, who leads the Conservative Adath Jeshurun Congregation in the suburb of Minnetonka, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “And in doing so, the Israelites enslaved in Egypt are able to get unstuck. They’re able to taste freedom.”

Inspired by such teachings, and frequently invoked Jewish injunctions like “welcoming the stranger,” Jewish groups are signing on to open letters, and synagogues are actively involved in pro‑immigrant actions and advocacy. The Jewish presence at an interfaith anti-ICE rally this week is expected to be substantial, including about 100 rabbis and Jewish leaders who are flying in from out of state.

“Our community members and staff live and work in every corner of society. There are too many stories of lives upended by what the government itself refers to as the ICE surge,” reads an open letter, issued Monday, spearheaded by the Jewish federation and signed by around two dozen Jewish groups.

Jewish groups “are deeply concerned by the current volatile situation throughout the Twin Cities and Minnesota,” according to the letter. Its signatories as of Wednesday afternoon include 13 area congregations, ranging from Reform to Modern Orthodox; two Jewish day schools; Minnesota Hillel; the Minnesota JCC; the progressive group Jewish Community Action, and Jewish Family and Children’s Service of Minnesota.

ICE’s presence — which includes masked, heavily armed officers conducting aggressive traffic stops, neighborhood raids and street patrols — has wreaked havoc in the region, with mounting reports of legal immigrants, asylum seekers and even U.S. citizens being snatched off the street and from their homes as the agents, empowered by the White House, hunt for migrants.

The local school system has allowed students to attend virtually as many immigrants in the city are staying home to avoid becoming a target. One result has been a dearth of caregivers tending to local Jewish seniors, according to the letter from the Jewish groups.

Protesters demonstrate against Immigration and Customs Enforcement after Renee Good was fatally shot by an ICE officer Jan. 7, 2026 in Minneapolis. (Jen Golbeck/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

The letter followed an earlier missive from 49 Minnesota Jewish clergy, distributed on Friday, that describes “grief” and “horror” over ICE “wreaking havoc across our state.”

Quoting Deuteronomy — “Love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” — the rabbis and cantors spotlight the “tragic death” of driver Renee Good at the hands of an ICE officer Jan. 7 and include a prayer to “spread a canopy of peace and protection over all those wrongfully targeted by ICE at this moment.”

Both of those letters precipitated what is turning into a larger institutional Jewish pushback to ICE. On Wednesday, leaders of the Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist movements issued a joint statement to “condemn, in the strongest terms, the violence with which the Department of Homeland Security is enforcing American immigration law — above all, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, as well as in cities and towns across the nation.”

“Our sages taught that the Book of Deuteronomy’s directive, ‘Justice, justice shall you pursue’ (16:20), implies that the law must be enforced through a fair process, and that one should pursue justice whether it would be to one’s advantage or to one’s loss,” the statement reads, with the Jewish leaders further calling on the Justice Department to investigate Good’s death.

Rabbi Jill Avrin, campus lead at the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas, said it was “unprecedented” for such a wide variety of local Jewish groups to sign onto such messages.

“We have a really diverse Jewish community here, and we felt that this is a moment that is impacting all of us,” Avrin, who helped draft the letters, told JTA.

The multiple open letters are trying to appeal to shared spiritual values as the standoffs between protesters and ICE agents become increasingly fraught. A number of prominent figures — most recently Bruce Springsteen — have compared ICE’s tactics to the Gestapo; at the same time, an anti-ICE protest that disrupted a church service over the weekend has prompted concern and controversy across the interfaith community and led at least one Republican to compare the protesters to Hamas.

Local Jewish leaders say they are not dissuaded from what they view as a Jewish imperative to respond.

“Judaism isn’t about skipping the hard parts,” Weininger said. “It’s about noticing the struggles for centuries that have led us to this point: slavery, persecution, destruction, exile, coming home.”

Residents protest during an immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis, Minnesota on Jan.14, 2026. The protest comes after an ICE agent shot a man in the leg during an enforcement operation. (Madison Thorn/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Rabbis have been active in local mobilizing against ICE. They attended a community vigil for Good; Weininger discussed the issue during his Shabbat sermon. He also helped draft the rabbinical open letter, and this week is one of around 80 to 90 rabbis — many others from out of town — planning to attend an interfaith march in Minneapolis with more than 600 clergy present. Around 50 of the rabbis expected to attend are part of T’ruah, a Jewish social justice network, which mobilized after local clergy put out the request.

“What’s scary is that lawful actions are being targeted,” Weininger said about the situation on the ground. “We’re talking about protest and prayer and taking action in community, and even those modes of engagement are under attack.”

Recalling how Minneapolis Jews similarly mobilized in 2020 to protest George Floyd’s murder by Minneapolis police, the rabbi described “a real sense of civil society here, and I think that is true of the Jewish clergy community in how people care for one another.”

Rabbis also spoke out at a Tuesday interfaith press conference denouncing ICE and outlining plans for this week’s march. “As people of faith, as leaders of faith communities, we are called to say, ‘Enough. Not on our watch,’” Rabbi Tamar Magill-Grimm, who leads the Conservative Beth Jacob Congregation in Mendota Heights, said while standing next to a local imam.

Some Jewish groups across the country have raised concern about ICE’s activities for months, with some synagogues posting signs identifying themselves as houses of worship that agents do not have authority to enter. Rabbis affiliated with T’ruah have participated in “ICE watch” actions in other cities.

But Minnesota’s Jews have now witnessed firsthand the effects of a sustained, targeted ICE presence on their community. Local synagogues have hosted “upstander” training seminars for congregants to learn how to react in the face of an ICE encounter. For many congregants, the experience has pushed them to action — but it’s also invoked an eerie sensation, bringing echoes of a dangerous past.

“As a Jewish parent in Minneapolis, history feels too close right now,” one Twin Cities resident told Daci Platt, a fellow Minnesotan who works at Kveller, a JTA sister publication. “The sense of safety we usually rely on feels shakier than it ever has.”

Jewish community organizations are particularly concerned about the threat the ICE raids, which have focused primarily on non-white Twin Cities residents, pose to a caregiving workforce largely composed of immigrants.

“Jewish seniors are not having their basic needs met because their caregivers are too afraid to come to work,” says the letter spearheaded by the federation.

Amy Weiss, CEO of Jewish Family and Children’s Service of Minnesota, told JTA that ICE has also affected her organization’s ability to serve its nonsectarian clients more generally. Much of their own staff are from immigrant communities, and Weiss worries about drawing attention to them by sending them out into the field to help clients.

“People are afraid to go to work. They’re afraid to leave their homes,” Weiss said. “I don’t see this as political. When you look at our mission, to support people in need, then this is very basic. These are the very basic needs of the community.”

The open letter also notes that there are Jews “who are immigrants themselves, have family members who are immigrants, or could be reasonably perceived to be immigrants. Many of these people are scared to leave their homes out of fear of being arrested and deported.”

The federation-backed letter is careful not to deride all law enforcement. It states, “We affirm our commitment to the rule of law, the lawful implementation of statutes, and the thousands of law enforcement officers charged with keeping us safe, whose efforts we deeply appreciate.”

Avrin, too, praised local law enforcement, whom she called “amazing” and “not the same thing as the ICE agents who are here on the ground.” She also noted that not all of the Jewish communal leaders shared the specific goals of this week’s march, which other Jewish leaders helped plan. The march’s demands include “ICE must leave Minnesota immediately” and “ICE should be investigated for human and Constitutional violations of Americans and our neighbors.”

“This moment is a moment that calls for coalition,” she said. “We are acknowledging and naming that we might be showing up with people whom we don’t actually agree with their broader platform.”

That discomfort has also arisen in some of the language of the opposition. As ICE protests in Minnesota attract growing national attention, comparisons to Nazis and the Gestapo have also grown. Avrin said the JCRC discourages such rhetoric.

During a concert in New Jersey last weekend, Springsteen decried “heavily armed, masked federal troops invading an American city and using Gestapo tactics against our fellow citizens.” He then repeated a catchphrase popularized by Jacob Frey, Minneapolis’s Jewish mayor: “ICE should get the f–k out of Minneapolis.” (On Tuesday, Frey, along with other state officials, was subpoenaed by the Justice Department for alleged obstruction of immigration agents. Some of his critics have called attention to his Jewish identity.)

The comparison is resonating for some local Jews. “I feel like we’re facing the eternal question of ‘If you were in Germany in the [19]30s or 40s, what would you do?’” Rebecca Schwengber, a local Jewish business owner who has faced retaliation since launching a mutual aid effort, told TC Jewfolk this week. “I’m comfortable with my answer now. I hate the Holocaust comparison, but the Holocaust didn’t start with camps; it started with making life uncomfortable and questioning how far you can take a population while people look the other way.”

Anti-ICE protesters disrupt a church service in St. Paul, Minnesota, accusing one of its pastors of working for ICE, Jan. 18, 2026. (Screenshot via YouTube)

The faith-based protests suffered a distraction when anti-ICE protesters disrupted a St. Paul church service. The protesters, including Black Lives Matter Minnesota, claimed that one of its pastors also works as a local ICE field office leader. The Trump administration has announced an investigation into the protest, which officials said could amount to a violation of a federal law permitting free access to any worship site.

Following the protest, Cities Church in Minnesota issued a statement saying the protesters “accosted members of our congregation, frightened children, and created a scene marked by intimidation and threat. Such conduct is shameful, unlawful, and will not be tolerated.”

The statement added, “Invading a church service to disrupt the worship of Jesus — or any other act of worship — is protected by neither the Christian Scriptures nor the laws of this nation.” A founding pastor of the church has ties to Pete Hegseth, Trump’s defense secretary.

One Republican, Rep. Will Self of Texas, said the protesters — who had livestreamed themselves from inside the church — reminded him of Hamas livestreaming on Oct. 7.

“When you livestream something, you want it to cause terror in the population,” Self told the far-right TV network Newsmax. “So when they livestreamed it, I compare them to Hamas, who livestreamed the attack in Israel that killed thousands of people.”

American Jewish leaders, for whom the freedom of worship in America has long been a key policy plank, say they disagree such a protest in a house of worship. Rabbi Jill Jacobs, who heads T’ruah, told JTA her organization “would not organize a protest of a church.”

The local JCRC also criticized the church protest, which comes in the aftermath of recent pro-Hamas synagogue protests in New York that were widely condemned by Jewish and progressive leaders alike.

“That is something we are absolutely opposed to. We would never encourage people to disrupt a worship service. That is not aligned with our values in any way,” Avrin said. “In my opinion it doesn’t reflect the broader efforts that are happening on the ground. That’s going to happen any time you have a large movement.”

Jews in that movement are focusing on injunctions drawn from the Bible. Speaking at New Birth, a historically Black Baptist church in Georgia with links to the family of Martin Luther King Jr., Georgia Democrat Sen. Jon Ossoff, who is  Jewish, gave a biblically inflected anti-ICE message.

“How can it be that masked federal agents set up checkpoints in American cities, demand papers, rip Americans from their cars, and throw them to the ground? Kill? Kill? With apparent license from the very top,” Ossoff told the congregation. “There’s a wickedness to the program. I don’t know, Pastor, where it is in scripture that it says ‘deny care to the sick, take from those with the least to give to those with the most, violate the house of worship to hunt down the refugee.’ Where in the scripture are those lessons taught?”

Ossoff, who is defending his seat in a tight reelection campaign, added that he and the church’s pastor had been “texting” about the Exodus journey of Moses, and how he used his staff to rally the Israelites.

In the face of the groundswell in Minnesota, President Donald Trump again forcefully rebuked the protesters and defended ICE.

“They’re apprehending murderers and drug dealers and a lot of bad people,” the president said of the agents during a press conference to mark one year of his second term.

Holding up images he said were of immigrant criminals apprehended by ICE, including one who he claimed was connected to Hezbollah, Trump asked the White House press pool, “Why don’t you talk about that more?… Do you want to live with these people?”

The president also referenced the church protest. “I have such respect for that pastor. He was so calm. He was so nice. He was just accosted,” Trump said of the clergyman whose sermon was interrupted. (He was not the pastor the protesters were targeting.) “What they did in that church was horrible.”

Trump, too, has been a mobilizing force for Jews in Minnesota. Following the president’s derogatory comments last month about the Somali population in the state — which Trump said justified the ICE raids — many local Jewish leaders had held coalition meetings with interfaith partners.

For some in the room at the time, Avrin recalled, it was the first time they had come face-to-face with these partners since Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel and the start of the war in Gaza, which frayed many Jewish-liberal coalitions when other communal groups denounced Israel and “Zionists.”

Such partners had “stopped speaking to us, basically,” she said.

But for the Jewish leaders in the room, the Talmudic imperative to love the stranger overcame lingering uncertainty about reconfiguring these coalitions: “We can’t walk away from that just because we’ve been hurt,” she said.

ZeroHedge: Left-Wing NGOs Plan “Economic Blackout” Across Minnesota As State Becomes Testbed For Revolution

ZeroHedge: Left-Wing NGOs Plan “Economic Blackout” Across Minnesota As State Becomes Testbed For Revolution

The color-revolution risk assessment we delivered to readers in August 2025 has since seen a timeline that has been accelerated, with Democratic Party-aligned dark-money funded NGOs, left-wing militant groups, and anti-Trump labor unions leveraging Minneapolis as a testbed for coordinated socialist resistance activity, including strike actions, boycotts, and engineered social unrest, all aimed at undermining President Trump’s legitimacy, authority, and governing capacity, with the end goal of regime change at the White House.

The assessment initially forecasted that selective resistance movements would begin to materialize in 2026, with mass resistance emerging in 2027-28 ahead of the presidential election. That timeline has since accelerated, as Marxist NGOs and unions are funneling personnel and resources into Minneapolis to fuel social unrest, with the hopes of impeding the federal government’s deportation operations targeting criminal illegal aliens. Remember, these illegals are either the Democratic Party’s current voting bloc or future voting bloc.

Several weeks of protests following the fatal shooting of a left-wing legal observer by an ICE agent in Minneapolis are now evolving into what local media outlet Minnesota Reformer calls a “general strike” set to unfold on Friday. The outlet reports that “Minnesota’s unions, progressive faith leaders, and community activists” are organizing the strike, called “ICE Out of Minnesota: Day of Truth & Freedom.”

It is time to suspend the normal order of business to demand immediate cessation of ICE actions in MN, accountability for federal agents who have caused loss of life and abuse to Minnesota residents, and call for Congress to immediately intervene,” ICE Out’s landing page says.

Again, this strike is unlikely to accomplish much on the ground beyond disrupting economic activity, but the objective for nonprofits stirring up their column of useful-idiot activists, some of whom are paid, alongside unions mobilizing their members, is an optics-driven informational war aimed at shifting public sentiment and influencing politicians on Capitol Hill.

Think of this boots-on-the-ground effort as a small number of voices using a megaphone in an attempt to manufacture the appearance of widespread public outrage. The hope is that polls shift and force the White House to back down.

However, 2025 was the year when the nation learned (read here) how left-wing billionaire foundations – and even foreign adversaries – are funding NGO networks to undermine the nation to sow chaos and collapse the country from within.

There is already movement on the White House level, and even the Treasury (as revealed in Bessent-Rufo interview last week), that suggests the federal government will begin pressuring the entire nonprofit sector that should be helping the homeless and the poor, but has been hijacked by left-wing billionaires to wage a color revolution operation against Trump to derail the America First movement. These types of operations are what the CIA does overseas in third-world countries for regime changes – it’s just that this type of statecraft was inverted when Trump won in 2016.

Taking a look at the Facebook page for “ICE Out of Minnesota: Day of Truth & Freedom,” the event is listed as hosted by left-wing nonprofits and unions, including TakeAction Minnesota, Gender Justice, COPAL MN, 50501: Minnesota, ATU Local 1005, CTUL, Twin Cities Democratic Socialists, and nine other groups

Highly organized. These groups are part of the protest-industrial complex.

Alpha News’ Liz Collin provided a memo to the Minnesota Nurses Association members encouraging members to participate in Friday’s “statewide economic blackout.”

Escalations everywhere by left-wing militants.

We warned last September:

Let’s not forget that CCP-linked communist billionaire Neville Roy Singham’s dark-money-funded NGOs have been involved in nationwide anti-ICE protests:

This color revolution operation, which hides behind the nonprofit industry, is called the “invisible insurrection“… and this social unrest will broaden come spring.

Just so readers are awareonce Democrats perfect the “Minneapolis experiment,” they will attempt to replicate it across every sanctuary city.