Murder in Minneapolis: Time to Stop Coddling the ICE Gang and Its Enablers

ICE thug murders woman in Minneapolis
ICE thug murders woman in Minneapolis

On January 7, gang members — gathered in Minneapolis for the purpose of abducting immigrants and cowing the state’s population — menaced motorist Renee Nicole Good, then murdered her when she attempted to flee.

This wasn’t the ICE gang’s first murder, and won’t likely be its last.

ICE, its allied gangs — “Homeland Security,” “Customs and Border Protection,” et al. — and its shot-callers (e.g. Kristi “Ice Barbie” Noem, Greg “Lying Poltroon” Bovino, and Tom “$50k Cash in a Paper Bag Isn’t a Bribe” Homan) are at war. They’re at war with America, and they’re waging that war on Americans. The presence of immigrants on US soil is the excuse, not the point.

How should Americans go about defeating this armed and dangerous domestic enemy?

The first thing to understand about the conflict is that it’s “asymmetric.”

The evildoers are a centrally commanded paramilitary force. Yes, they’re violent wannabes who are too lazy, incompetent, or evil to find real jobs, but their sociopath bosses give them effectively unlimited funding and access to advanced weaponry.

The forces of good, on the other hand, are everyday Americans (and immigrants) who’d really rather be left alone to make their livings doing productive work. No central command. No guaranteed paychecks courtesy of the nation’s tax slaves. Few automatic weapons.

Believe it or not, that asymmetry can actually work to the benefit of the good guys.

As satisfying — and as justified — as it would be to send these hoodlums home in body bags when they get violent, another recent incident in the Minneapolis area shows a more peaceful, and more effective, way forward.

“If you are with DHS or immigration, let us know as we will have to cancel your reservation,” read a January 2 email from Lakeville’s Hampton Inn Hilton (the ICE gang redacted the identity of the recipient in its whining post on X). “Please pass on this info to your coworkers that we are not allowing any immigration agents to house on our property.”

Unfortunately, the hotel’s owners, Everpeak Hospitality, backed down, and Hilton Hotels apologized, groveled, and canceled its franchise agreement with Everspeak.

As Hilton likes to tell us, “It Matters Where You Stay.” I can’t help but wonder if Renee Nicole Good’s murderer spent the night before his crime enjoying Hampton’s “light and warmth of hospitality.”

Setting this specific murder aside for a moment, given the high proportion of immigrants who work in the hospitality industry, why would ANY hotelier want to host a violent gang which focuses on targeting its employees? And why would any non-violent, non-gang-affiliated patron want to rent a room there?

Ostracism can be more effective than violence.

If ICE gang-bangers start finding that they can’t rent hotel rooms, get served at coffee shops, receive communion at churches, or find play dates for their kids with decent people’s kids, they’ll be incentivized to modify their behavior, abandon the thug life, and seek real jobs.

But getting there will take some peaceful pressure from normal people … perhaps starting with a boycott of Hilton-affiliated hotels.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Humanitarianism is the Warmest Place to Hide

Kim Phillips-Fein misses the days when “La Guardia enjoyed the support of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the federal funds uncorked in the New Deal,” but pinball-playing “pinheads” and potheads had their pleasures pruned by such politicians’ puritanical purges. Public domain.

Zohran Mamdani’s promise to bring “the resurgent flame of hope” to “the January chill” as mayor of a literally frozen New York City during his January 1 inaugural address got the cold shoulder from conservative commentators.

Despite his vow to move the city to unity past “a tale of two cities, the rich versus the poor” and highlighting constituents “who supported President Trump a year before they voted for me,” some just aren’t buying Mamdani’s narrative. At most, reactions to lines such as the pledge to “replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism” in City Journal or The Wall Street Journal don’t go quite as far as National Review‘s Noah Rothman in invoking “the warmth generated by torchlit marches, book burnings, and crematoria.”

Yet those red-baiting Mamdani’s “Red Apple” could stand to scratch the surface and see how much the gilded apple of Trump Tower pokes through — and not just because he won’t be able to “deliver universal childcare for the many by taxing the wealthiest few” if those fat cats pull up stakes.

Mamdani at least acknowledges that Bill de Blasio took office via the same winning “tale of two cities” rhetoric in 2014 — and the precedents of David Dinkins and Fiorello La Guardia, both memory-holed by the subtitle of Run Zohran Run! Inside Zohran Mamdani’s Sensational Campaign to Become New York City’s First Democratic Socialist Mayor. The contrast to such predecessors as former mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and election competitor Andrew Cuomo is left unsaid.

Yet Mamdani’s assertion that subsidies for rents and rides are “not simply about the costs we make free, but the lives we fill with freedom” parallels Giuliani’s infamous line about how “freedom is about authority.” Rudy’s concomitant qualms about using such authority to “solve problems that government in America was designed not to solve” are nullified by certitude that “there is no need too small to be met” by statism — itself an echo of Cuomo’s confidence that in the New York state he then governed “there is no small solution to big problems.”

Mamdani assures us that his administration is one for which “no longer will City Hall hesitate to use its power” in the face of “those who insist that the era of big government is over.” He doesn’t specify whether their ranks include the husband of former United States Senator Hillary Clinton who originated that phrase, but it’s not that far from William Jefferson Clinton’s anti-Jeffersonian claim to find “nothing patriotic about … pretending that you can love your country but despise your Government.”

For New Yorkers who love their city despite its government, that’s not the result of what Mamdani dubs “decades of apathy” but of understanding reality.

New Yorker Joel Schlosberg is a senior news analyst at The William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.

  1. “OPINION: Humanitarianism is the warmest place to hide” by Joel Schlosberg, The Richmond Observer [Rockingham, North Carolina], January 6, 2026
  2. “New York’s ‘socialist’ mayor is selling hope — but it still looks like old statism” by Joel Schlosberg, The Wilson, North Carolina Times, October 4, 2024
  3. “New York’s ‘socialist’ mayor is selling hope — but it still looks like old statism” by Joel Schlosberg, The Enterprise [Williamston, North Carolina], October 4, 2024
  4. “New York’s ‘socialist’ mayor is selling hope — but it still looks like old statism” by Joel Schlosberg, The Johnstonian News [Smithfield, North Carolina], October 4, 2024
  5. “New York’s ‘socialist’ mayor is selling hope — but it still looks like old statism” by Joel Schlosberg, The Ledger News [Oxford,
    North Carolina], October 4, 2024
  6. “New York’s ‘socialist’ mayor is selling hope — but it still looks like old statism” by Joel Schlosberg, The Wake Weekly [Wake Forest, North Carolina], October 4, 2024
  7. “Humanitarianism is the warmest place to hide” by Joel Schlosberg, Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman [Wasilla, Alaska], January 7, 2026
  8. “Humanitarianism is the Warmest Place to Hide” by Joel Schlosberg, CounterPunch, January 8, 2026

January 3: The “Peace President’s” Latest Date Which Will Live in Infamy

Japanese aircraft attacking Pearl Harbor, 1941

I’m writing this column on the morning of Saturday, January 3, with initial news trickling in. “The facts” are still thin, and some of them will likely turn out to be either incomplete or not “facts” at all, but a few real facts are foundational and not subject to change. Let’s go through them:

First, US president Donald Trump’s attack on Venezuela is illegal under US law and should result in his impeachment, conviction, removal from office, and eventually imprisonment. Congress has not declared war on Venezuela; therefore Trump has zero authority to wage said war. But he’s been doing so at low intensity for months and just kicked it into high gear with multiple strikes on, and the claimed abduction of the titular “leader” of, Venezuela.

Second, Trump’s attack on Venezuela is an illegal war of aggression under international law — and since the Venezuelan regime is a member state of the International Criminal Court, Trump and everyone below him in the chain of command who participates in it are now subject to indictment, arrest, and prosecution for all of the crimes the attack entails.

Third, Trump’s attack on Venezuela was entirely optional. There was no plausible, let alone imminent, threat against the United States by the Venezuelan regime that could have served as an excuse for “retaliation” or any plea of “necessity.” Whatever Trump’s reason for ordering the attack (personally, I suspect it’s just another attempt to distract from his long, close, personal relationship with Jeffrey Epstein), those reasons are his own, not “America’s.”

Fourth, the whole thing is indescribably stupid and evil. US troops’ lives are being put at risk. US taxpayers’ money is being wasted. And the operation has the makings of extending that risk and increasing that waste by way of reproducing past “regime change” / “nation-building” fiascos such as South Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

The very best possible outcome of the attack is that the Venezuelan people rise up, overthrow the current regime, and replace it with something more to their liking — but probably not to the Washington, DC regime’s liking. Which they could have done at any time, without Trump’s help, had they chosen to.

The more likely outcome is that US forces will install a puppet/quisling regime to rule Venezuela to Trump’s (and Big Oil’s) liking, then spend years bleeding American blood and treasure into the place before an ignominious departure (with or without formal surrender).

What’s NOT likely is that Trump and his accomplices will be removed from office/power, charged under US law, or extradited for trial under international law.

That’s a shame. Letting violent criminals get away with violent crimes is an invitation to continue committing those crimes.

So much for a peaceful 2026.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY