The Pretti Shooting May Not Have Been So Pretty, But Grander Immigration Plans Seem to be Taking Place

Minneapolis has been the location of yet another civilian death at the hands of the federal government’s immigration policies, and this time, for a twist of irony, Republicans are suggesting that because the victim had a gun, he was in the wrong. Any time that something like this occurs, we automatically know where conservatives and liberals will stand on the issue: conservatives will support law enforcement’s actions no matter what and without any of the facts, while liberals will say that the agents murdered the victim in cold blood. The powers that be have conditioned the populace to take the “either or” stance without critical thought, and of course, when Democrats regain power someday, they will go back to expanding the size and scope of government, while Republicans will again flip flop to the anti-government position. This back and forth over which party has access to power switches every few years, and this is the design utilized to keep us divided and at each other’s throats instead of uniting for a common purpose: to resist authoritarianism in general.

Unlike in the Renee Good death at the hands of Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) agents, this new shooting by Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which caused a nurse working for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to lose his life, has far fewer nuances involved that would justify deadly action by law enforcement officers. In fact, witnesses and bystanders have videos recorded from multiple angles, and it is difficult to conclude anything other than the fact that the Donald Trump administration is lying about the incident and that CBP agents were in the wrong. Now, is it possible that in the moment that police felt threatened and intimidated with the fact that Alex Pretti had a concealed weapon attached to his person? Of course, with recent anti-ICE protests erupting with agitators intentionally putting themselves in danger to push agents to their breaking point, it is possible that the heat of the moment helped to produce these negative results, but the victim posed no threat that would warrant the use of deadly force, despite claims by CBP and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that he had approached law enforcement with a 9-millimeter semi-automatic pistol drawn (the evidence just does not support this account of the story).

In fact, at the time, Pretti was recording the police encounter with his cellphone (no gun was in his hand), and he only reacted when a CBP agent shoved a woman violently to the ground (her and another woman were apparently blowing non-lethal whistles at the officers), and CBP says that she was asked to move out of the roadway and refused to comply (apparently this is justification to push people onto the ground). He ran over and tried to help her up, when he was shot with some type of chemical irritant (likely pepper spray) and wrestled to the ground himself. Independent video footage from the incident does not seem to indicate that Pretti resisted arrest or deserved to be fatally shot in any way, shape, or form, especially after police had confiscated the gun that the victim had never taken out of the holster (CBP claims something different and seeks to show that he did resist arrest or that the gun was fired or taken out of the holster, but footage taken by bystanders would suggest otherwise).

It is now being reported that two separate officers fired lethal shots at Pretti (one with a Glock-19 and the other with a Glock-47), and there is really little to dispute that the federal police were the aggressors in the situation (unless you blindly follow the official narrative and take the federal government’s word for it without looking at the witness’ recordings). Additionally, the CBP agents stood around without rendering aid to the dying Pretti, and they were more interesting in “counting his bullet wounds,” indicating that they may have wanted to see him die or may have been afraid that they would get penalized for taking such hasty actions (again, CBP is attempting to mislead the public by claiming that it did render aid, but this does not appear to be the case).

There has been zero evidence presented by the federal government showing that the victim had any intentions to kill ICE agents (provoke, perhaps), but that did not stop Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Kash Patel from labelling Pretti as a “domestic terrorist.” Patel said, “You cannot bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want,” while Noem echoed this sentiment by claiming, “I don’t know of any peaceful protester that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign.” Even President Trump himself agreed that Pretti should not have had a gun on him around police.

It is strange to hear conservatives and Republicans argue against the First and Second Amendments, when they would be outraged if the same type of actions occurred under a hypothetical Kamala Harris administration (and they defended Kyle Rittenhouse when he brought a gun to a counterprotest). The hypocrisy is not the most important factor here, and it is more concerning that Republicans want to restrict gun rights (and speech and political assembly) by suggesting that protesters cannot be armed in the vicinity of police that are doing their jobs. Some have even suggested that he should have been carrying a gun permit on him (Republicans used to believe that getting a license to carry a firearm was an infringement on the Second Amendment, but since it was a liberal carrying a gun and Trump said otherwise, they must argue the opposite position now).

Our founding fathers would have a few things to say about preventing protesters from carrying firearms, as well as about the increase of a standing federal police force patrolling the streets of our cities. The new logic of Republicans now seems to be that since the Red Coats were the equivalents of federal law enforcement in the colonial days, Americans should not have protested against them, and colonists should have respected the troops in the streets and rolled over to King George III. Conservatives prefer to defend law enforcement and the power of the state over individual liberties, and Democrats do the same thing when they are in power, so it is an endless cycle of cherry picking which authoritarian should enact executive orders and “own” the other side.

Noem suggested that the body-camera footage and all other video recordings will be “analyzed,” but we already know what conclusion the federal government will draw, without a shadow of a doubt (and Minnesota and Minneapolis will almost certainly be left out of the investigation). ICE will continue to exercise a license to kill American citizens with impunity, and more and more protests will erupt across many cities in the United States. The Trump administration will escalate its authoritarian crackdowns; and if it gets bad enough, the same conservatives who were rightfully concerned about Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) camps, Joe Biden’s FBI surveillance and targeting of those with right-wing views, and martial law in the streets will cheer on this same type of action, as long as it is President Trump committing the acts of totalitarianism. The police state is being ushered in by the Republican Party, and it is not surprising that the global elites are using the Trump administration for its purposes of tearing the United States apart and making it easier to control the American people.

Furthermore, if you need to show identification and proof of citizenship to ICE or CBP agents when they happen to engage in law enforcement actions in your area, you know that the show-me-your-papers society is in place. Even as a few ICE and CBP shootings have made headline news, several other American citizens (not illegal immigrants) have been dragged out of their homes and tackled by police and held in jail without phone calls (even to a lawyer), and now, we find out that ICE agents are forcibly entering and searching citizens’ homes, without judicial warrants, if they suspect that an illegal immigrant may be inside (these administrative warrants are signed by ICE offices and not a judge, as the Constitution requires). ICE is also monitoring cellphone data within its range of operations, which means that the phones of American citizens are also being swept up without warrants. So, on top of cheering on the destruction of the First and Second Amendments, conservatives are now in favor of violating the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments because Trump said that it was acceptable and necessary for ICE to do its job.

There is one last piece of this incident that warrants a discussion, and this will work to the benefit of Trump supporters’ narrative. As I have been suggesting, though I cannot prove it, the Biden administration likely allowed a surge in illegal migration into the United States to overwhelm the American population in order to allow the Trump administration to integrate tyrannical “solutions” to the problem (a Hegelian Dialectic-type of situation or what conspiracy theorist David Icke calls “Problem, Reaction, Solution”). It may have been an elaborate plan that would work to convince conservatives to abandon their skepticism of the state and fears of a new world order and become willing to accept the ushering in of a totalitarian government.

So, from this perspective, the appropriate response would be to criticize the Biden administration for its role in creating an environment where ICE and CBP agents roam the streets looking for dragons to slay, while also criticizing the Trump administration for implementing draconian policies that target illegal immigrants and citizens alike. We should rely on less aggressive means of deporting those who have entered the country illegally and stop sending armies to the streets to clash with protesters. By pitting the blind followers of Trump against the Trump-hating liberals, it may cause friction that escalates into a civil war that would destroy the United States and lead the world from a unipolar order run by the American Empire to a new one that is led by a global government.

Increased ICE and CBP agents in the streets produce increased protests, and the more protests there are, the more likely it is that deadly incidents become the result. It is a vicious cycle that will only end when we the people resist the state enough that the federal government withdraws its police troops and frees American cities. However, fueling the anti-ICE protests is an onslaught of far-left groups, including Indivisible Project (Indivisible Twin Cities being the offshoot involved in Minnesota), which has received $7.8 million from George and Alexander Soros’ Open Society Foundation over the years (these far-left groups are also funding the “No Kings” protests).

According to conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and others, planning these protests to spark a civil war is part of the “Podesta Plan” to bring down the United States, however, the problem with this type of thinking is that it unwittingly (or perhaps not) supports the police state and increased totalitarianism at the hands of ICE, CBP, and other federal agencies. If you have to stop an evil plan by putting troops on the ground and taking away Americans’ rights, you have, in a sense, become a different type of villain that just happens to oppose the primary villains. The Constitution is not something that you can violate in order to save it.

The method matters, and increasing federal police in the streets will never put you in the right if you are interested in preserving individual liberties. Even if Trump is attempting to save the United States from the globalist factions, he is not going about it in the correct manner, and he is becoming a tyrant in his own way. However, I would be more inclined to suggest that Trump is actually going along with the powers that be and is assisting them in paving a new road to totalitarianism: one that may differ from the World Economic Forum (WEF) strategies of the past but bring about the same type of plan with a new set of on-the-surface elites.

Whether you cheerlead for draconian policies to be implemented through President Trump, George Soros, the WEF, or any other global figures or groups; citizens of the United States (and the world) are not any better off with having a police state in power. You may like the people in charge today, but what happens when the Democratic Party takes control and starts using what Trump started to target conservatives again (like sending agents to confiscate guns)? You will have little room for criticism at that time because you supported the tyranny when you had the power yourself, and you only oppose it later because you are the one being targeted. The shooting of Pretti and the confrontations with protesters and ICE and CBP may seem insignificant in the grand scheme of what is going on, but it is a symptom of a greater problem. You do not wake up one morning in a tyrannical government. It is a step-by-step process that is made worse by deploying a federal standing police force in our streets.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.