Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

The Great Omi — aristocrat who tattooed himself head to toe, filed his teeth and was banned from sta

Giulia Pastrana — the 'Ape Woman' who sang beautifully but was exploited and embalmed for display af

"Very gratifying". The post The experience Billy Joel called “the highlight of my life” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is in a big mess of racial discord. Mamdami has faced growing displeasure from black activists who are upset that they are being denied the leadership roles that they enjoyed under former Mayor Eric Adams. His solution to this problem? Hire as his “Chief Equity Officer” and “commissioner of the Mayor’s Office of Equity & Racial Justice” a woman named Afua Atta-Mensah, who styles herself as a black liberation activist. (RELATED: The White Supremacists Have Taken Over!) “I hope we get closer to Black liberation in my lifetime. I know the fight is ongoing, but I hope so,” Atta-Mensah said in a 2023 interview. Her Instagram bio reads: “Using my time on this ? to learn, love and explore. Building movements and snatching chains. BX 4fr. [Blacks for real.] Until liberation is real. ✊?????” She has called to “Re-Center Race.” Atta-Mensah’s appointment drew controversy after the New York Young Republican Club discovered X posts in which she disparaged white people, specifically liberal white women. The posts were shortly thereafter deleted, alongside her account. (RELATED: The ‘Warmth of Collectivism’ Comes to New York) In response to a post on X that read, “Who’s not police but FEELS like police to you?” Atta-Mensah responded, “white women at nonprofit organizations.” Also, in reaction to a post that read, “A lot of y’all are Amy Coopers to the Black women in your non-profits every day,” a reference to the white woman who called the police on a black bird-watcher during COVID, Atta-Mensah said, “THIS IS A WHOLE WORD!!!!” Atta-Mensah also responded to an X post in which the writer said watching the HBO series Succession made them want to tax rich white people. She said, “Tax Them To The White Meat!!!” and included a hand-clapping emoji. In her X posts, Atta-Mensah spoke about the racism that she believes is present among white liberals. In response to a post that said, “we don’t talk about white liberal racism enough,” she said, “Facts! It would need to be a series of loooooonnnnnnnggggg conversations.” “There is no one I trust more to advance racial equity across our work in City Hall.” When Mamdani was asked at a press conference about her racially inflammatory posts, he responded that Atta-Mensah is “frankly” a “brilliant” addition to his administration. He also said, “There is no one I trust more to advance racial equity across our work in City Hall.” Atta-Mensah is coming into the Mamdani administration at a time when black leaders in the city are worried that the Democratic Socialists of America’s strained relationship with black Americans could result in black New Yorkers being excluded from the administration and overlooked in policymaking. Mamdani is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). (RELATED: From Solidarity to Statism: Mayor Mamdani’s Vision for New York City) Tyquana Henderson-Rivers, a black political consultant in New York City, said on Facebook that black women “no longer have a seat at the big table” in New York politics under Mamdani. “It is acting out what Black people don’t like about the D.S.A.,” she said. “And that’s acting as if race doesn’t matter.” In an interview in December, Atta-Mensah attempted to reckon with the poor sentiments that black Americans have for the Democratic Socialists of America. At the time, she was a member of Mamdani’s transition team. Atta-Mensah explained that there are “real tensions” in New York over the Democratic Socialists of America’s connection to gentrification. She then stated that some black people have the “perception” that the people who talk to them about “class consciousness” are the same ones who “don’t say hi to you in the morning and push you out of your apartment.” Of this perception, Atta-Mensah stated, “[W]e have to hold the complexity of that.” She reassured her audience that members of the Democratic Socialists of America are “not a monolith,” just like black communities. (RELATED: Mamdani’s Rent Control Plans Will Make the Rental Market Worse for Working People) In an interview, Henderson-Rivers told the New York Times that Mamdani “doesn’t have the best relationship with the Black community” and that “it seems like he’s not interested in us because there’s no representation in his kitchen cabinet.” Other black leaders likewise complained to the New York Times that Mamdani had not selected any black people to fill his five “deputy mayor” positions. “For someone who prides himself on being directly engaged with everyday New Yorkers, to be so tone deaf to the cries of Black and Latinos in the city for access to power is shocking,” said Kirsten John Foy of the group Arc of Justice. “There are some very good people of color that have been appointed to some high-level positions, but those people are not at the center of the decision-making apparatus in this city.” L. Joy Williams, who heads the New York State NAACP, also told the Times, “It is clear from the lack of conversation and engagement that there doesn’t seem to be a lot of focus and attention on the needs of Black New Yorkers in the city.” In an interview last year, Atta-Mensah recalled that when she first began working with Mamdani during his campaign, she initially had “questions” because she believes that “any class analysis that is devoid of a race analysis is not one that is practical or transformational for America.” She asserted that one of her first priorities for Mamdani’s campaign was “making sure that the campaign saw the strategy [of utilizing race analysis] as a necessity not just for winning but also for governing.” The first thing she did for Mamdani, Atta-Mensah stated, was to “build a team that had a similar vision and understanding” as hers. To counteract what she says was a “conversation about a lack of diversity within the team,” she explained that the team she oversaw was “almost all people of color.” Atta-Mensah described the races of the people within her team, saying: “Majority Black. Seven Black folks, two Latinos, one Indo-Caribbean staffer, and we had one member of the team doing Jewish outreach.” Julie Su, who holds the position of “Deputy Mayor for Economic Justice” and who will be Atta-Mensah’s direct superior, commended her appointment by making a commitment to “racial equity.” Given all the allegations that Mamdani’s administration is not concerned with black New Yorkers, Su made sure to note in particular her desire to “celebrate Black excellence.” (RELATED: To Harvard and Back with Julie Su) “There is no economic justice without racial justice,” said Su. “I am thrilled to get to work with Afua Atta-Mensah to make this more than just a statement of principle and to celebrate Black excellence and racial equity for all of the beautiful communities who call NYC home.” Mamdani’s administration is steeped in racial fixation and is shaped at every level by race-based ideologies. This extends well beyond the appointment of Atta-Mensah and Mamdani’s repeated commitments to racial equity. Catherine Almonte Da Costa, the woman who was supposed to be Mamdani’s director of appointments, was forced out of her job after a rant about “money hungry Jews” was discovered on one of her social media accounts. Additionally, Cea Weaver, Mamdani’s tenant advocate, posted on X that homeownership is “a weapon of white supremacy” before later saying that her phrasing was “regretful.” (RELATED: What Doctor Zhivago Teaches Us About New York City’s Housing Debate) The president of the New York Young Republican Club, which discovered Atta-Mensah’s social media posts against white liberals, stated, “The mayor said there is no one he trusts more than Atta-Mensah to push ‘racial equity,’ and make no mistake: tweets about taxing ‘white meat’ reflect the approach of the entire Mamdani administration to reshape New York.” READ MORE from Ellie Gardey Holmes: Carney Cozies Up to China Why Is RFK Jr.’s FDA Allowing Abortionists to Flood Red States With Pills? College Fine Arts and Theater Programs Are About to Be In Trouble

During my time in the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, I focused on international terrorism cases involving Palestinian groups hostile to Israel. Among them, Hamas stood out as the most active and determined — particularly in the United States, where its presence took the form of aggressive fundraising efforts. The FBI’s investigations were predicated on information and evidence of material support to terrorism, often funneled through a web of front organizations (e.g., The Holy Land Foundation), designed to obscure the true destination of the money: Hamas operatives bent on attacking Israel. Hamas and other groups began launching rockets from Gaza into southern Israel around 2001, escalating significantly after Hamas took full control of the territory in 2007. Beyond the rockets, Israel has endured a steady toll of suicide bombings — particularly in the early 2000s — carried out by individuals deliberately groomed and radicalized by Hamas through ideological and religious indoctrination, often beginning at a young age To support the FBI’s domestic counterterrorism efforts, I established an official liaison relationship with a representative of Israel’s internal security service called Shin Bet, but officially known as the Israel Security Agency (ISA). That relationship proved invaluable. Through it, I gained deeper insight into how Hamas identifies, recruits, and deploys suicide bombers — and the process is as calculated as it is cruel. Hamas deliberately targets society’s most damaged and vulnerable — young men whose lives have been marred by poverty, humiliation, or personal failure. Hamas deliberately targets society’s most damaged and vulnerable — young men whose lives have been marred by poverty, humiliation, or personal failure. These are not hardened ideologues; they are often desperate, isolated individuals offered a final, perverse form of redemption. Hamas promises them an escape from obscurity: instead of dying in shame or insignificance, they can die as revered martyrs. Their deaths are reframed as acts of courage and purpose — sacrifices in service of the Palestinian cause. But martyrdom isn’t just about personal transformation. It’s also transactional. The family left behind is often rewarded with monthly stipends or financial support measures intended to compensate for the loss of a male breadwinner and to elevate the family’s social standing. The suicide bomber may die, but the family rises — at least in the narrative constructed by Hamas. There are striking psychological parallels between the recruitment tactics used by Hamas to groom suicide bombers and the methods employed by some radical groups — including elements of the progressive left — to draw in followers willing to justify or even engage in violence. Like many radical movements, Hamas thrives by cultivating a powerful sense of group identity. Recruits are embedded within tightly knit communities where loyalty to the group overrides personal doubts or outside influence. Conformity isn’t merely encouraged — it’s demanded. Absolute adherence to the group’s beliefs becomes the price of acceptance. Over time, the fear of disappointing one’s comrades can outweigh even the fear of death — or, in the case of Western progressives, the fear of public shaming, legal consequences, or professional ruin. The intense pressure to prove one’s loyalty to the collective can drive individuals to embrace increasingly extreme views and engage in actions they might never have considered on their own. The recruitment process often involves intensive indoctrination — spiritual, ideological, or political. For Hamas, this means a combination of religious instruction, military training, and spiritual conditioning, all reinforced through isolation from outside influences. The goal is to deepen commitment to the cause and legitimize violence as a form of righteous action. Similarly, radical progressive movements in the West rely on their own mechanisms of reinforcement. Instead of militant camps, they employ digital echo chambers, ideological training, and tightly controlled discourse on social media platforms. While the content and framing differ, the underlying strategy is familiar: surround individuals with affirming voices, suppress dissent, and reframe extreme behavior as morally justified resistance. This dynamic is no longer confined to foreign theaters. It is playing out domestically, including in Minnesota, where the mechanisms of grievance amplification, ideological reinforcement, and moral reframing have become increasingly visible. That trend accelerated following the Jan. 7, 2026, shooting in Minneapolis in which a federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent fatally shot Renee Nicole Good during an enforcement operation. (RELATED: The Death of Renee Nicole Good: Why the Democrats Will Fail Step Three in the George Floyd Script) The incident has sparked widespread controversy and protests, with local officials and community members questioning the federal narrative and the use of force. (RELATED: Who’s Paying for the Minneapolis Protesters?) Prior to the shooting and escalating in its aftermath, activist groups such as ICE Watch — informal networks that share information about ICE activity and sometimes mobilize volunteers to monitor or interfere with enforcement operations — have stepped up their tactics and visibility. (RELATED: Who Gets Canonized — And Who Gets Condemned?) Recruitment and indoctrination tactics within these networks often mirror those used by other ideologically driven movements. Participation in ICE Watch training and activities can function as a socialization mechanism that reinforces a shared worldview and strengthens group identity. Volunteers are often given labels such as “constitutional observers,” “legal observers,” or “Community Defense and ICE Watch training,” framing opposition to ICE operations as civic-minded rather than confrontational. Recruitment materials and discussions circulating on encrypted social media tend to use charged language and reinforce a singular narrative that demonizes ICE as a “white supremacist police force” lacking oversight. Like the gravitational force of a black hole, no light of rational thought can escape… Like the gravitational force of a black hole, no light of rational thought can escape; reality is compressed, distorted, and reshaped into an illusion presented as irrefutable truth. These efforts include instruction in disruptive methods aimed at frustrating ICE operations, particularly those focused on apprehending undocumented immigrants. While supporters frame such involvement as community defense or solidarity with immigrant communities, critics argue that the rhetoric and tactics can escalate confrontations and blur the line between peaceful monitoring and active interference. Adding fuel to an increasingly volatile situation, Ken Martin, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, injected incendiary rhetoric into the debate by equating anti-ICE protests in Minneapolis with popular uprisings against the violently repressive regime in Iran. In a post on X, Martin wrote, “From Tehran to my birthplace of Minneapolis, people are rising up against systems that wield violence without accountability” — a comparison that implicitly equated U.S. federal law enforcement to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The analogy was not merely overwrought; it trivialized the brutality of an authoritarian security apparatus while lending moral legitimacy to domestic activism that increasingly seeks to obstruct lawful immigration enforcement. Further parallels emerge in how both Hamas and radical ideological groups exploit grievance and alienation. Their recruitment strategies often target individuals grappling with frustration, disconnection, or identity crises. By offering a sense of purpose and belonging, recruiters can redirect those personal struggles into a deep commitment to the cause — sometimes to the point of justifying violence. Within these group frameworks, violence is not only accepted; it is normalized and even glorified. For Hamas, martyrdom is elevated as a sacred duty, richly rewarded and revered. In other radical groups — particularly some factions within the progressive left — violence may be framed as necessary resistance or a righteous means to force social or political change. That said, key differences remain. Hamas’s methods are deeply rooted in religious, ethnic, and nationalist narratives, often beginning in early childhood through systematic indoctrination in schools, religious institutions, and state-controlled media. In contrast, radical progressive groups in Western societies generally lack comparable lifelong cultural indoctrination. Their tendency to resort to violence, while increasingly visible, remains less organized and less frequent — at least for now. Still, the psychological machinery is strikingly similar: the formation of group identity, emotional indoctrination, exploitation of grievance, and the moral reframing of violence. These patterns reveal clear parallels between Hamas’s recruitment of suicide bombers and the tactics used by some radical groups — even within the Western progressive left — to attract and radicalize followers prepared to act in the name of the cause. While Hamas openly seeks the destruction of Israel and rejects Western democracy, it is increasingly elements of the far-left at home that appear to be dehumanizing their opponents and justifying violence as a legitimate means of effecting change — where calls for confrontation are celebrated, and violence is increasingly framed as not only justified — but necessary. READ MORE from Mark D. Ferbrache: Arctic Frost and the Constitutional Risks of Secret Subpoenas Against Lawmakers Why the Democrats Lost in 2024 and the Road to Recovery Image licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International.

Kaley Chiles is a licensed professional counselor in Colorado who works with clients who face a variety of mental health problems: trauma, personality disorders, eating disorders, and addiction. She is employed by Deeper Stories Counseling in Colorado Springs and is a Christian. Some of her clients are Christians and come to her having experienced same-sex attractions or dissatisfaction with their own biological bodies, termed gender dysphoria. In these cases, they want help to be freed “from what they see as harmful self-perceptions and sexual behaviors” which are not aligned with their religious beliefs. The therapy she provides is faith-informed counseling; that is, talking with the clients about how God’s Word establishes the foundation upon which persons should understand their personal identities and control their desires. Chiles’ therapy is grounded in the traditional view of human sexuality espoused by historic Christianity for generations. It teaches that one’s sex, either male or female, is set at conception and ordained by God. It is evident at birth according to one’s reproductive organs and biology. Normal sexual conduct, according to this traditional biblically based view, is a pairing of one male and one female; that is, it is heterosexual and monogamous. Desires for someone of the same sex or discontent with one’s natural sex is viewed as contrary to the moral guidance of scripture. In Colorado, however, Chiles found herself in conflict with an opposing view of human sexuality. This view served as the foundation for a state law prohibiting mental health care providers from engaging in counseling like hers with patients under 18. Since her faith-informed therapy with certain clients is meant to dissuade them from romantic attractions toward the same sex or guide them away from seeking to “transition” to a sex other than their birth sex, it is officially prohibited by the state’s Minor Conversion Therapy Law (MCTL). (RELATED: When the State Polices Speech) The Colorado ban labels Chiles’ faith-informed therapeutic approach as “conversion therapy” and outlaws it. The Colorado ban labels Chiles’ faith-informed therapeutic approach as “conversion therapy” and outlaws it. To the contrary, the MCTL (and regulations based upon it) exempts counselors who practice “gender affirmation” therapy from being banned. “Gender affirmation” is a counseling approach that accepts, supports, and encourages decisions by clients who are minors to pursue same-sex attractions or make gender transitions. This view, in contrast to the traditional view, maintains that sexual identity is not biologically set. Instead, it is merely a matter of personal choice. Any effort by a professional, including a counseling therapist, to change a client’s self-determined sexual orientation is deemed harmful and, in its most radical version, proponents of this view seek to outlaw any counseling that is opposed to the “gender affirming” therapies. In other words, Colorado-licensed counselors are free to provide “gender affirming therapy” while fines, suspensions, or loss of license threaten Colorado therapists like Chiles. Therefore, to protect her right to use faith-informed content in giving guidance to her clients, Chiles filed a lawsuit in federal court in Colorado asking the court to halt the enforcement of the ban as an infringement of her right to freedom of speech. That court denied her request. She then appealed to the federal 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, but it also denied her appeal, concluding that her spoken therapy was not “speech” at all. Instead, the appeals court devised a special category for regulated professional expression, calling it “conduct,” effectively taking it outside of the substantial constitutional protections usually accorded citizens where the government restricts their speech. Why does it matter if Chiles’ faith-informed counseling approach is determined to be “conduct” instead of “speech”? In her case, the state government’s regulatory administration would have to demonstrate only the feeblest “rational basis” for regulatory bans for it to pass constitutional muster. Lawyers refer to this “rational basis” requirement as a “low bar” requirement because it is the easiest and most lenient standard to meet. By contrast, had the 10th Circuit found Chiles’ counseling therapy was “speech,” the results would have been significantly different. Freedom of speech is a highly valued fundamental right, which, if infringed, triggers prior rulings that would require Colorado to show that it had weighty and convincing reasons — often called “compelling” — to continue to preserve the ban and save it from being unconstitutional. That compelling-interest requirement, because it places the highest proof burden on the government, is what lawyers call “strict scrutiny.” It is a high bar which Colorado would be unlikely to clear, given the facts of the case, consequently creating a high expectation of a win for Chiles. What is the U.S. Supreme Court going to do with the case? First, the Supreme Court should have no difficulty finding that this is a speech case. Fortunately for Chiles, the court has a long history of interpreting the scope of protected speech broadly, even ruling that flag burning, labor union picketing, and artistic expression constitute speech deserving protection of the most significant sort. Next, the court has made clear that “the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” The Colorado ban is targeting Chiles’ particular content. That is evident because the ban applies to Chiles only if her speech to clients contains specific content that shows an intent to change the client’s sexual orientation, alter the client’s gender expressions, or counsel away from gender transitioning. Speech that counsels the faith-informed reasons for those changes is precisely what Chiles wants to be able to convey to her clients. But it is those very words and content that promise to subject her to possible prosecution. In addition, Colorado’s ban also displays what the court has described in other cases as “viewpoint discrimination.” Viewpoint discrimination could hardly be more apparent than it is here. Chiles’ viewpoint is contrary to the state’s viewpoint about human sexuality. Her view is disfavored and therefore prohibited by law. Chiles’ traditional view of sexuality is deemed harmful by Colorado and thus barred. Colorado’s “gender affirming” view of sexuality is heralded as beneficial and enlightened. Therefore, the state’s view is permitted by a detailed exception that allows therapy speech that promotes “identity exploration,” affirms self-declared sexual identities, and helps clients accomplish gender change. It is obvious that Colorado’s ban was produced by state legislators and a governor who became so completely persuaded by this non-traditional version of human sexuality and its “gender affirming therapy” that they could not tolerate Chiles’ traditional mode of faith-informed therapy and, therefore, sought to and succeeded in outlawing it. Chiles not only has a strong case substantively, but the ruling against her by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals contributes to what is called a “circuit split.” A circuit split occurs when two or more circuit courts of appeals render conflicting opinions on the same issue. In this case, there was the 10th Circuit ruling, whereas the 9th Circuit found in another case that professional expression or conversation fell outside the speech protections of the First Amendment; in addition, the 3rd and 11th Circuits ruled that the professional expression was just another example of speech and should be fully protected as such. The “advantage” to Chiles is that when such splits occur, the U.S. Supreme Court generally seeks to restore uniformity of interpretation and therefore resolves the split. Elsewhere, in another related case, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (2018), the Supreme Court made it clear that it is unwilling to recognize “professional speech” as a “separate category of speech” that receives diminished constitutional protection “merely because it is uttered by a ‘professional.’” Making a strong and unequivocal decision in favor of Kaley Chiles would be an important step toward ending the circuit split. Most importantly, it would allow faith-informed counselors like Chiles — in 24 states faced with similar bans — to have the legal means to oppose the bans and reestablish a broader and healthier spectrum of therapy choices for young clients struggling with sexual-identity problems. READ MORE from John A. Sparks: Elementary School Parents Fight Gay/Trans Books

Writing in the Washington Times, columnist Don Feder called the recent disturbances in sanctuary cities the first steps of a left-wing attempted American revolution. He likens them to the early stages of the French and Bolshevik Revolutions. Indeed, what is happening in Minnesota resembles a fledgling insurgency with organized crowds deliberately inciting ICE and other federal agents into overreaction. If this is in fact a low-level nascent insurgency, ICE should treat it as such and implement the kind of counterinsurgency doctrine that the British used to nip the Chinese communist-led revolt in Malaysia in the bud and that the Americans eventually adopted in Iraq. (RELATED: Minnesota and the New Nullification Crisis) Emerging British doctrine saw that the best way of disrupting a revolution early was by political and police action rather than going straight to military involvement, which might further inflame the situation. That is a lesson we might keep in mind before resorting to military intervention in Minneapolis. The problem we face in cities like Portland and Minneapolis is that the local police are forbidden to assist in addressing the situation. The worst of the worst are then safely submerged in the sea of the immigrant population. They are, in turn, abetted by outside agitators; in this case, by leftist organizers. This leaves ICE and other federal agencies alone to deal with the problem by themselves. This is contrary to the situation we faced early in Iraq when we stupidly disbanded the Iraqi police as being incurable Ba’athists. I would suggest that the feds adopt classic counterinsurgency tactics. How then should we proceed before committing federal troops? I would suggest that the feds adopt classic counterinsurgency tactics. Quite frankly, what they are doing now is exacerbating the problem. I have been involved in four insurgency situations. Some have been handled fairly well, and others poorly. Below, I will offer some suggestions on best practices I’ve seen employed. First, try community policing. This is what local cops should be doing, but are not allowed to in the case of immigration enforcement. A first principle of good counterinsurgency is to separate the bad guys from the law-abiding population. This means a 24/7 police presence in the target areas. ICE should rent places in the area to use as neighborhood bases of operation. Security in these outposts should be tight, but agents should be walking the streets in small groups without riot gear. ICE presence should be noticeable, but should not be patrolling in body armor, which should only be used in targeted raids where armed resistance is expected. A few agents at a time, in ICE windbreakers, talking to shopkeepers, locals, and police, and attending community meetings, makes it much safer to approach and pass on information about criminal elements. Eventually, the agents will find it much easier to target the real bad apples. By establishing patrol bases in a neighborhood backed up by reaction forces in 2007, the Americans learned not just the Iraqi lay of the land but to recognize when things were not right. Just as American soldiers learned to recognize Sunnis from Shiites, federal agents will eventually be able to differentiate the good citizens from the bad actors and outside agitators. Minneapolis is not Baghdad, and the threat level is not nearly so high, but urban neighborhoods all have their individual character. Becoming part of the community helped turn the situation around for U.S. forces. Where possible, ICE should help with day-to-day community exigencies. Helping residents shovel snow in places like Minneapolis may seem like a small thing, but it would assist in lowering the tension. It is hard to abuse someone who just helped get your car out of a snowbank or gave you help charging a dead battery. Attendance at community meetings, sporting events, and school presentations will eventually let the agents be seen as part of the landscape. Most residents do not want hardened criminals in their neighborhoods, but are afraid to be seen talking to squads of heavily armed federal agents. In most cases, this fear is warranted. They are likely to be targeted by leftist protesters or by criminal elements in the immigrant community. Mass arrests and sweeps are counterproductive. As reporter/historian Tom Ricks points out in his book The Generals, mass arrests and detentions in the early stages of the Iraq occupation made more enemies and created more insurgents than they eliminated. Not only did they lead to the debacle of Abu Ghraib, but the overwhelming amount of interrogations -even by torture- yielded no actionable intelligence. If ICE establishes an ongoing presence in urban neighborhoods, it will eventually pay off in a higher and better quality of detentions, arrests, convictions of actual criminal immigrants, as well as the deportation of naturalized American citizens who have abused the privilege of citizenship by engaging in criminal activities. Winning the information battle. The highly organized and media-savvy leftist opposition is winning the information battle by deliberately provoking ICE and other federal agents into overreaction and then portraying them as jackbooted thugs. Recent polls show a decreasing support for immigration enforcement and ICE as an organization. This is largely attributable to leftist manipulation of the optics, but like any big lie, it becomes truth if enough people believe it. A counterinsurgency approach could reverse this trend. A crowd of hecklers abusing two to three federal agents peacefully wandering the streets, talking to shopkeepers, cops, and passersby a much different optic than the same crowd harassing a squad of heavily armed and armored agents on the street. Better intelligence would allow targeted raids on the residences of real criminals by in-and-out raids at night. This would lower the opportunities for the left to foment incidents and public confrontations. In Iraq, it took four years for our military to adapt to a counterinsurgent strategy. The initial shift of approach by General Petraeus was riskier than the domestic immigrant situation, as the leftists had not yet begun to employ lethal violence as a policy. A counterinsurgency approach would make that shift on their part much less appealing. The long-term fly in the ointment here is that the Trump administration still maintains the ultimate objective of getting rid of all immigrants who entered the country illegally. It will be hard for ICE to square that circle. However, if President Trump and Secretary Noem can show real success in getting rid of the worst of the worst among the immigrants in a quantifiable manner, it might give the president top cover to modify current policy in a way more acceptable to the American public. A new approach would require patience. We did not turn Iraq around overnight, but the results justified the strategic change. Right now, ICE is using a hammer. What is needed is a scalpel. READ MORE from Gary Anderson: If We Want to Help the Iranians, We Should Disrupt the IRGC Regime Modification in Caracas Stop Building Battleships, Start Building Fear Gary Anderson observed counterinsurgency operations in Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, and Iran. He was the first to state publicly that there would be an Iraqi insurgency as Baghdad fell in 2003 in a Washington Post op-ed. Image licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International.