It’s been a while since I have written a proper article, but recent events have inspired me to share some observations. However, I do need to note that one of the reasons that you have not seen a recent podcast or article from me is the fact that I have had three eye surgeries since October and am scheduled for a fourth next month. So I am depending on my “good eye” to accomplish this. If you spot any grammatical or spelling errors, please cut me a little slack (or not).
An article published by American Experiment [.org] on January 7th, 2026, “Tim Walz Threatens Civil War” reported:
“This afternoon, Tim Walz called a press conference in which he threatened civil war. It was one of the most extraordinary performances by an American political leader since the Confederates seceded in 1861. Walz said that he had put the Minnesota National Guard on official notice of potential deployment. Deployment to do what? To fight ICE, federal law enforcement:
We have never seen anything like it, not just in Minnesota but anywhere in America, since the Civil War: a governor threatening to call out the National Guard to forcibly resist federal authority and prevent the enforcement of our national laws. George Wallace didn’t do that. Ross Barnett didn’t do that.
Walz can’t seriously think that the Minnesota National Guard can militarily resist federal authority. Federal forces are by no means limited to ICE: President Trump has clear legal authority to call out, for example, the 82nd Airborne to restore order in Minneapolis, if that is what it takes.”
Governor (and failed Vice-Presidential candidate) Tim Walz isn’t the only Liberal Minnesota politician to declare “States Rights”. On January 8th, 2026, CBS News reported :
“Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey had a strongly worded message for federal immigration officials after an ICE officer shot and killed a 37-year-old woman on Wednesday: “Get the f*** out of Minneapolis.”
At a news conference after the shooting, Frey said, “We do not want you here. Your stated reason for being in this city is to create some kind of safety and you’re doing exactly the opposite.”
Of course, one could speculate that this faux outrage of ICE and the shooting of Renee Good provides a rather convenient distraction to the massive fraud (estimated at over $1 billion) in the state uncovered by independent reporter Nick Shirley.
As of the time of this writing, there has been another ICE involved shooting. This time a man armed with a 9mm pistol and extra ammunition tried to interfere with operations against ICE. According to FOX News:
“A Border Patrol member shot an armed individual in Minneapolis, Minn., on Saturday at the intersection of West 26th Street and Nicollet Ave., Fox News has learned.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) told Fox News that the suspect was armed with a gun and two magazines.
“At 9:05 AM CT, as DHS law enforcement officers were conducting a targeted operation in Minneapolis against an illegal alien wanted for violent assault, an individual approached US Border Patrol officers with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun,” DHS said in a statement.”
Politicians like Governor Walz and Mayor Frey are nowhere to be found as they are more than content to inspire programmable liberals like Renee Good to run over an ICE agent, or the yet to be identified man who attacked ICE agents today.
It is clear that “States Rights” is their “War Cry” but the question that remains is on what grounds? For years the official mainstream narrative has been that the “Civil War” settled the issue of States Rights and that the Federal government reigns supreme. Information found on the tutorchase.com website gives the generally accepted view of the matter:
“The Civil War redefined federalism by solidifying the supremacy of the federal government over state governments.
The American Civil War, fought from 1861 to 1865, was a pivotal moment in the history of the United States. It was a conflict that was rooted in a fundamental disagreement over the nature of the Union and the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The outcome of the war had profound implications for the concept of federalism, which refers to the division of power between the national government and the individual states.
Before the Civil War, there was a significant debate over the concept of ‘states’ rights’. Many Southern states believed that they had the right to make their own decisions on key issues, most notably slavery, without interference from the federal government. This belief was a key factor in the decision of several Southern states to secede from the Union, leading to the outbreak of the Civil War.
The victory of the Union forces in the Civil War effectively settled this debate. The federal government demonstrated that it had the power to prevent states from seceding and to enforce its decisions on contentious issues. This was a significant shift in the balance of power in favour of the federal government.
The post-war amendments to the Constitution further reinforced this shift. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalised in the United States, including former slaves, and guaranteed equal protection under the law, and the Fifteenth Amendment granted African American men the right to vote. These amendments significantly expanded the power of the federal government and limited the rights of the states.
In the years following the Civil War, the federal government continued to assert its supremacy over the states in a variety of ways. For example, during the Reconstruction era, the federal government took unprecedented steps to rebuild the South and to protect the rights of newly freed slaves. This period saw a further expansion of federal power and a corresponding reduction in state autonomy.
In conclusion, the outcome of the Civil War fundamentally redefined federalism in the United States. It established the supremacy of the federal government over the states and set the stage for the expansion of federal power in the years to come.”
For years, decades even Liberal Democrats were happy to invoke this interpretation of Federalism. The same Liberals of today who say that President Trump has no authority to “federalize” the National Guard of “their” state are the same ones who celebrated the integration of the University of Alabama in June of 1963.
How did they forcefully integrate the University of Alabama? I’ll let Wikipedia do the explaining:
“The Stand in the Schoolhouse Door took place at Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama on June 11, 1963. In a symbolic attempt to keep his inaugural promise of “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” and stop the desegregation of schools, George Wallace, the Democratic Governor of Alabama, stood at the door of the auditorium as if to block the way of the two African American students attempting to enter: Vivian Malone and James Hood.[1]
In response, President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 11111, which federalized the Alabama National Guard, and Guard General Henry V. Graham then commanded Wallace to step aside.”
But it was good then right?
Apparently, they supported the federalization of the National Guard once again on March 20, 1965. An article published on the History.com website summarizes the story:
“On March 20, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson notifies Alabama’s Governor George Wallace that he will use federal authority to call up the Alabama National Guard in order to supervise a planned civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery.
Intimidation and discrimination had earlier prevented Selma’s Black population—over half the city—from registering and voting. On Sunday, March 7, 1965, a group of 600 demonstrators marched on the capital city of Montgomery to protest this disenfranchisement and the earlier killing of a Black man, Jimmie Lee Jackson, by a state trooper.”
Still, all good, right? It’s always “all good” when it benefits Liberal causes. So why have Liberals who have supported “federalization” as a solution to resolve “equality” and “social issues” suddenly opposed to the concept of “federalization”? A quick AI search reveals that:
“Since President Biden took office in January 2021, an estimated 6 million or more unauthorized immigrants have entered the United States and taken up residence. This figure includes individuals who were released into the U.S. interior after being encountered by immigration authorities, as well as those who evaded detection”
Who do you think these people voted for? Who do you think is paying for their housing, their medical care, their food? Who do you think are coming up with the massive schemes to defraud the government through social “safety net” programs and why are the Democrats fighting so hard to protect them to the point that they incite insurrection and threaten Civil War?
Liberals have hailed “federalization” as a solution to every social cause from the end of the Civil War and now they do not like it when it threatens their voter schemes and kickbacks from defrauding the government.
My suggestion? Deal with it. Accept it. Live with it. You wanted it. You got it. You just don’t like it when it doesn’t benefit you.
Foothills Media LLC 