Last summer, Democrats called for blood and began training “warriors” to resist ICE. Last week, there was yet another tragic instance of actual blood, blood that was immediately seized upon as leverage to enact their preferred policy of ending deportations.
In our system of government, the minority party generally seeks leverage to influence events. Lacking the necessary votes in Congress or control of the White House, they cannot directly implement their policies or control the flow of legislation, but if they are politically savvy and have something resembling a sound strategy, they are not without the means to ensure their voices are heard and at least some of their priorities are implemented. At times, this leverage comes from our unique system of government itself. There are certain things – passing budgets and raising the debt ceiling, for example – that require sixty votes in the Senate, meaning that outside of extraordinary circumstances such as the first year and a half of Barack Obama’s Presidency when Democrats commanded 60 votes, the majority party needs the minority party simply for the government to continue functioning. Without at least a handful of defectors from the minority, the government is either shut down or unable to pay its bills. We saw this ourselves late last year when Democrats were able to initiative a government shutdown that elevated healthcare funding as a national issue. Though the subsidies that caused the shutdown were not a part of the specific spending bill in question at the time, Democrats refused to vote to keep the government open under even a continuation of the existing budget until their concerns were heard. As a result, Congress is voting on various options to extend healthcare subsidies as we speak. Though none might be successful, Democrats used their leverage to force a vote on one of their top priorities. Similarly, Republicans were able to extract key concessions from Democrats while President Obama was in office, leading to the first substantial cuts to government in a generation, known as sequester. In both cases, one might say all cases, the process wasn’t pretty as each side railed against the other for holding the government or the government’s good name hostage, but the underlying reality was simple: The minority party had leverage and their constituents demanded they use to exert at least a small amount of influence to achieve their priorities. The majority at the time, perhaps needless to say, wasn’t happy, but when they were in the minority, they did the same.
Outside of these few instances where minority votes are almost always required, the passage of major legislation not considered under the reconciliation process also requires 60 votes in the Senate, offering the opportunity for astute, skilled politicians to forge compromise bills, getting at least some of what they want even as they cannot dictate everything they prefer. For example, under President Joe Biden, a bipartisan infrastructure bill was passed based on mostly Democrat priorities while including a few key Republican items, enough to secure 19 votes from the Senate GOP. These compromises ensured no new taxes, repurposing existing spending Republicans had previously objected to rather than relying on entirely new spending, and reductions in the means the IRS had to enforce taxes related to the bill. Similarly, 17 Senate Republicans voted for President Biden’s CHIPs Act in exchange for tougher restrictions to prevent funds from flowing to China through the companies that were being subsidized, restrictions on stock buy backs and dividend payments, the establishment of an advanced manufacturing tax credit to reduce the strict reliance on direct subsidies, the expansion of investment in research, additional investments in wireless supply chains, and security protections for research. To be sure, the Republican base wasn’t particularly happy in either case – as Democrat bases were not happy when compromise legislation was passed under George W. Bush (No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D) – but minority politicians are generally faced with a difficult, albeit entirely binary choice. They either use the leverage they have to influence where they can, demonstrating to their constituents, particularly independents, that they can “get stuff done,” or remain perpetually on the outside looking in, watching the policy train barrel away from the station with no input on where it’s headed and no real control over events. While this isn’t an easy position to be in by any means, caught between your base and your necessarily limited power like a rock in a hard place or more classically, Scylla and Charybdis, it’s the position the minority party has had to navigate since the Founding of the country and many politicians have managed to turn it into their advantage, one way or another.
The Trump Era seems substantively different, however. While Democrats have been willing to exert their leverage when sixty votes are required such as the shutdown last year, they do not appear to be interested in compromise of any kind even when it might be to their and their constituent’s advantage. The Big Beautiful Bill, passed last Fourth of July with no Democrat votes, was a perfect example. Less than five months later, the expiration of temporary healthcare subsidies suddenly became the country’s greatest concern, but while the bill was being debated and there was at least the potential to include significant healthcare provisions, Democrats did nothing beyond railing against it as certain to kill people and destroy the economy. Not only did they propose no alternative, they completely passed up an opportunity to do something that might have benefited them and their constituents, seemingly because it would also be seen to benefit a President they loathe. The present situation is so extreme that only a handful of Senate Democrats have supported any legislation at all only twice in the last twelve months, voting against everything except for two instances. First, 16 Senators voted for a crypto-friendly bill in May followed by eight voting to end the government shutdown in November. Otherwise, the only time they have voted in favor of anything was when they felt it could hinder or embarrass President Trump, such as during the vote to release the Epstein files last year or the recent War Powers resolution, which would symbolically limit his ability to initiate military action in certain instances. They have done this even knowing that President Trump is a dealmaker – at times to his own detriment – and there are certainly deals to be made on key topics including healthcare. Beneath his braggadocio and hard-nosed political rhetoric, he’d be more than likely to forge compromises with his political opponents, even should they anger his own base. For better or worse, everyone knows the President craves approval and if they were willing to engage, Democrats could almost certainly exploit that to their own advantage, both in terms of policy and overall politics by potentially dividing Republican voters.
Instead, they have chosen a different path, one frequently characterized by resistance, but at its foundation amounts to a strategy focused on fomenting so much outrage that violence breaks out, violence they believe can be blamed on President Trump. Rather incredibly, they have not been secret about this notion, at times going on the record to reveal that drawing actual blood was part of their plan. Last summer, Axios spoke to more than two dozen Congressional Democrats and reported outright that “At town halls in their districts and in one-on-one meetings with constituents and activists, Democratic members of Congress are facing a growing thrum of demands to break the rules, fight dirty — and not be afraid to get hurt.” “This idea that we’re going to save every norm and that we’re not going to play [Republicans’] game … I don’t think that’s resonating with voters anymore,” explained one House Democrat. Another said a “sense of fear and despair and anger” among voters “puts us in a different position where … we can’t keep following norms of decorum.” “We’ve got people who are desperately wanting us to do something … no matter what we say, they want [more],” Representative Brad Schneider, chair of the center-left New Democrat Coalition, said on the record. According to Axios, this was happening even after some Democrats had previously tried to “up the ante” in response, “Heckling Trump, mounting rogue impeachment attempts, and getting tackled by law enforcement and even indicted in their efforts to scrutinize the president’s deportation campaign.” Regardless of these efforts, the “grassroots wants more.” “Some of them have suggested … what we really need to do is be willing to get shot” when visiting ICE facilities or federal agencies, a third House Democrat said. “Our own base is telling us that what we’re doing is not good enough … [that] there needs to be blood to grab the attention of the press and the public,” they added. A fourth said he’s been told “civility isn’t working” and to prepare for “violence … to fight to protect our democracy.”
Not surprisingly, there has been no shortage of blood and violence since then. On September 10, Charlie Kirk was assassinated. On September 24, an ICE facility in Dallas was fired upon, resulting in the death of three illegal immigrants. In early October, ICE agents in Chicago were “were attacked and rammed by vehicles and boxed in by 10 cars,” according to the Department of Homeland Security. Last week, a woman, who appears to be a radical anti-ICE protester was killed by an ICE in Minneapolis when she attempted to back up and pull away despite having an officer at her door and directly in front of her car. In response, Democrats and progressives studiously pretended that she didn’t precipitate the tragic incident by attempting to flee the scene at best or intentionally ramming an officer with her car at worst, and that she wasn’t there specifically to protest and obstruct ICE to begin with. Instead, they immediately characterized the shooting as cold-blooded murder, acting as if the ICE officer had randomly walked up to her window and shot her dead, execution style. Before the woman’s body was even cold, Governor Tim Walz, Mayor Jacob Frey, and others attacked ICE in general and the Trump Administration in particular, demanding they cease operating in the city complete with foul language and going so far as to make bizarre references to the Civil War, making the violent subtext perhaps plainer than it usually is. “We’ve been warning for weeks that the Trump Administration’s dangerous, sensationalized operations are a threat to our public safety, that someone was going to get hurt. Just yesterday, I said exactly that. What we’re seeing of a governance designed to generate fear, headlines, and conflict. It’s governing by reality TV. And today, that recklessness cost someone their life.” Governor Walz continued, “We won’t let them tear us apart. We’ll not turn against each other. To Minnesotans, I say this. I feel your anger. I’m angry.” Ironically, he insisted, “They want a show. We can’t give it to them,” referring to the potential for riots. Though he is well aware that the supremacy clause fully authorizes the federal government to conduct immigration operations throughout the country, President Trump clearly ran on a platform of deporting illegal immigrants, and is therefore implementing the will of the voters, the usual process we refer to as democracy, he asked the federal government to leave, saying “We do not need any further help from the federal government. To Donald Trump and Kristi Noem, you’ve done enough.” After calling up the National Guard, he declared, “Minnesota will not allow our community to be used as a prop in a national political fight. We will not take the bait.” If anything, Mayor Frey was even more blunt, when he told ICE to “get the fuck out” of the city.
Neither even remotely paused to consider that their own rhetoric and that of their progressive allies might have been at least partially responsible, pretending on a more general level that violence hasn’t been a key part of their strategy. After all, it was Governor Walz himself who referred to ICE as a modern day Gestapo, accusing them of snatching people right off the streets for no reason. “Donald Trump’s modern-day Gestapo is scooping folks up off the streets,” he said at a commencement speech at the University of Minnesota Law School last May. “This is what the crumbling of the rule of law looks like in real time,” he continued. “And it’s exactly what the founders of this nation feared − a tyrant abusing power to persecute scapegoats and enemies.” The Governor was not alone, either. Many other leading Democrats have said the same or similar, including Illinois Governor JB Pritzker who promised to “stand in the way” of federal immigration efforts that broke Illinois law, even though Illinois itself does not have any say in immigration whatsoever and even should they do so, federal law would supersede their efforts according to our Constitutional order. “We have a law on the books in Illinois that says that our local law enforcement will stand up for those law-abiding, undocumented people in our states who are doing the right thing, and we’re not going to help federal officials just drag them away just because” ICE officers believe they are here illegally. Earlier, he referred to ICE operations in his state as “authoritarianism,” an attack on all Americans, and told them to “Get out of Chicago. You are not helping us.” He went on to accuse the Administration of “waging war on our people” to cause “chaos and mayhem in the hopes to deploy military troops against Chicago and Broadview and other suburbs.” “In any other country, if federal agents fired upon journalists and protesters when unprovoked, what would we call it? If federal agents marched down busy streets harassing civilians and demanding their papers … I don’t think we’d have any trouble calling it what it is: authoritarianism.” Prior to that, he claimed President Trump was staging an “invasion” of Illinois.
Since the tragic shooting, we have not suprisingly learned that the deceased, Renee Nicole Good wasn’t simply an innocent bystander. She was a self-appointed “ICE Watch” “warrior” who was trained specifically to resist the federal government and provided tools to do so by progressive donors. According to The New York Post, she became involved in the anti-immigration enforcement group, described as “a loose coalition of activists dedicated to disrupting ICE raids in the sanctuary city” via her daughter’s progressive school, the Southside Family Charter School, a K-5 academy “unabashedly dedicated to social justice education.” “From my understanding, she was involved in social justice … we are a tight-knit community and a lot of parents are [activists],” former gym teacher Rashad Rich told The Post. To interfere with immigration enforcement, the ICE Watch group uses an app to keep track of government vehicles, report the presence of ICE agents in the area, even “encouraged agitators to bring items that would help them barricade the streets around where the shooting took place, even urging people to bring things to burn, such as dried-up Christmas trees,” actions that are clearly illegal under federal law even beyond the possibility of violence erupting as a result. “[Renee Good] was trained against these ICE agents — what to do, what not to do, it’s a very thorough training,” a parent from her daughter’s school claimed. “To listen to commands, to know your rights, to whistle when you see an ICE agent,” she added. “She was a warrior. She died doing what was right,” she continued, essentially endorsing the progressive strategy of fomenting violence when there is no need for any. “I know she was doing the right thing. I watched the video plenty of times but I also know in my heart the woman she was, she was doing everything right.”
While correlation is not caution, is anyone surprised at this tragic outcome? Last summer, Democrats called for blood and began training “warriors” to resist ICE. Overall, Department of Homeland Security officials reported 275 assaults compared to merely 19 during the same period the prior year, a 1,347% increase. From January 21, 2025 to January 7, 2026, ICE law enforcement officers experienced 66 vehicular attacks, compared to only 2 the previous year, a 3,200% increase. “This unprecedented increase in violence against law enforcement is a direct result of sanctuary politicians and the media creating an environment that demonizes our law enforcement and encourages rampant assaults against them. Dangerous criminals – whether they be illegal aliens or U.S. citizens – are assaulting law enforcement and turning their vehicles into weapons to attack law enforcement,” explained Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin. Last week, there was yet another tragic instance of actual blood, blood that was immediately seized upon as leverage to enact their preferred policy of ending deportations. Perhaps even sicker, everyone knows that 99.99999% of people would never under any circumstances behave as Ms. Good did. They are pretending otherwise, babbling about due process and unlawful orders, but the reality is that the armchair warriors on X and in the chattering classes would have complied with the officer’s request for obvious reasons. Being asked to get out of your vehicle isn’t exactly a huge deal. They are encouraging others, however, those who are susceptible to radicalization to do differently, intentionally putting them at risk as pawns in their own designs. As the Democrat’s preferred strategy at this point, does anyone doubt there will be even more in the future?
Confessions of a Conservative Atheist 