(Photo Courtesy: https://images.pexels.com/photos/6131921/pexels-photo-6131921.jpeg)In the 1980s, loving football meant trusting your gut, wearing your lucky jersey, and believing in game-day rituals. Fans and coaches relied on emotion, tradition, and a dash of superstition to guide every decision.Fast forward to today and the landscape looks entirely different. Analytics, win probabilities, and real-time data have become central to how teams strategize—and how fans experience every snap.This article traces football’s transformation from a world driven by instinct to one shaped by information. We’ll look at what’s been gained in accuracy and insight—and what’s sometimes lost when heart gives way to numbers.The shift from intuition to informationBack in the 1980s, a football fan’s world ran on gut feeling and emotion. Every Sunday, stadiums and living rooms buzzed with nervous rituals—lucky socks, pregame routines, that seat nobody dared move from if the team was winning.On the field, coaches trusted their read of the game. Play calls came down to instinct, sometimes defying what little data existed. Fans rode emotional waves, convinced a collective hope could tip the balance.Fast forward to today, and almost every aspect of football feels more calculated. Coaches carry laminated play charts packed with probability tables. Fans scroll through advanced stats before kickoff, arguing over expected points added or red zone efficiency like seasoned analysts.This shift hasn’t just changed how teams strategize—it’s transformed how fans experience the game. There’s a certain confidence that comes from trusting models instead of superstition. Even sports betting now leans on algorithms and predictive analytics rather than hunches or hero worship.If you want a modern snapshot of this new mindset in action, check out https://www.steelernation.com/2025/12/19/steelers-calm-confident-sports-betting. The article breaks down how data-driven conviction is changing the stakes—and shaping a calmer, more analytical football faith.The 1980s: Football faith and the power of instinctThe 1980s stand out as a golden era for football fans who thrived on bold personalities, spontaneous play-calling, and pure instinct.Stadiums buzzed with energy, and living rooms transformed into mini arenas as every fan believed their rituals could tip the scales.This was an age when decisions—whether in the stands or on the field—were made with heart, not spreadsheets.Players, coaches, and supporters shared an unspoken bond built around hope and belief rather than hard numbers.Those legendary moments—miracle comebacks, gut-driven gambles—became folklore passed from one generation to the next.It’s impossible to talk about 1980s football without remembering how trust in intuition shaped not just games but lifelong memories for millions of GenX fans.Superstitions and rituals: The fan’s edgeEvery Sunday in the 1980s felt like a personal quest for fans convinced their routines held real power over the outcome.Lucky jerseys weren’t just for show—they were armor against disappointment. Some families refused to watch games anywhere but their favorite spot on the couch. Others had snacks arranged in a specific pattern, convinced even potato chips could swing momentum.The shared belief that little things mattered created tight-knit communities bonded by hope and quirky traditions. There was a sense that passion plus ritual might just make all the difference when victory was on the line.Fan Rituals Study 2024 explores how these superstitions left a lasting mark. Stories from that era show how collective routines forged deep identities among football faithful—a sense of belonging many still chase today.Coaches and players: Trusting the momentOn the sidelines, gut feeling often trumped any pregame plan. Coaches read subtle shifts in momentum and made bold calls based on nothing more than a hunch or reading a player’s eyes across the field.This style wasn’t about playing it safe—it meant embracing risk because sometimes instinct knew better than statistics ever could. Quarterbacks changed plays at the line after sensing something nobody else caught. Defensive captains called audibles fueled by adrenaline rather than scouting reports.A recent interview with former Eagles quarterback Ron Jaworski captures this spirit perfectly. He describes how intuitive decisions shaped both strategy and morale during those high-stakes moments in 1980 (Ron Jaworski 1980s Intuition). That willingness to trust your gut defined an era—and still inspires anyone who believes football is played as much with heart as with skill.The data revolution: how analytics changed football fandomFootball fandom looks nothing like it did a generation ago.Analytics have become as much a part of Sunday rituals as tailgate snacks or game jerseys.For teams, the surge in data has led to smarter strategy—scouting reports and playbooks now pulse with predictive models and player metrics.For fans, numbers offer new ways to connect, analyze, and even outsmart the experts. The cultural impact goes deeper than spreadsheets or scoreboards. Analytics have created a whole new language for talking football—one that rewards curiosity and statistical savvy as much as tradition.This shift hasn’t erased passion, but it’s reshaped it. The digital age rewards those who dig into stats, challenge assumptions, and see patterns others miss.Fantasy leagues and the rise of the armchair analystIf you want proof of football’s new reality, look no further than your office fantasy draft or weekend group chat.Fantasy football turned ordinary fans into data detectives. Every trade or waiver-wire move hinges on projections, targets, red-zone efficiency—terms that barely existed in the 80s fan vocabulary.This trend exploded with online betting platforms and dedicated analytics tools. According to Fan Data Trends 2024, fantasy leagues now drive engagement for millions by encouraging fans to pore over stats and predictive models every week.Suddenly, a diehard’s devotion isn’t just about favorite players but also about mastering probabilities and outsmarting algorithms. It’s competitive—and deeply social—in ways that keep fans glued long after kickoff.Media, metrics, and the new language of the gameWatch any NFL broadcast today and you’ll hear terms like win probability or expected points per drive tossed around as casually as touchdowns.This shift goes beyond TV. Podcasts break down advanced stats; social media debates erupt over quarterback efficiency ratings; even highlight reels include next-gen data overlays.The NFL Analytics Survey 2024 notes that this wave of data-centric coverage has changed how fans debate every play—offering context for decisions once chalked up to luck or nerves.I’ve seen this firsthand at local bars in Pittsburgh: arguments hinge less on memory and more on what the numbers say. Stats haven’t killed tradition—they’ve given us all new ways to join the conversation.Finding balance between intuition and analytics in footballFootball has never been more data-driven, yet its emotional pull remains as strong as ever.For many fans, the numbers deliver new ways to understand the game—offering clarity, debate fuel, and even an edge for those who love a smart prediction.Still, there’s a growing conversation about what might be lost when cold calculation edges out gut instinct and split-second courage.The tension isn’t just academic. It shapes how we watch, cheer, and argue every Sunday.The case for gut feeling in a data-driven eraNo matter how advanced the models get, some football moments defy logic—and that’s part of the sport’s magic.Veteran fans will point to plays where a quarterback’s hunch changed everything or when a coach went against the book and came out on top.A 2024 Texas Monthly feature spotlights Arch Manning’s ability to trust his instincts at key moments. His emotional leadership doesn’t just electrify his team—it reminds everyone that intuition still writes some of football’s best stories.These are the moments that analytics can’t always predict but fans never forget. Arch Manning IntuitionBlending numbers and nostalgiaThe smartest teams—and fans—aren’t choosing between tradition and tech. They’re finding ways to combine both for a deeper connection with the game.I’ve seen groups embrace pregame rituals while tracking advanced stats on their phones. Some teams encourage fan traditions while quietly refining their strategies behind spreadsheets and simulations.A 2024 case study from European Sport Management Quarterly highlights a supporter-owned club blending data tools with time-honored routines. This approach lets old-school passion meet new-school insight, enriching both sides of fandom.This hybrid mindset is catching on across leagues. It helps keep football unpredictable—yet more accessible—for everyone watching from home or the stands. Hybrid Supporter Case Study 2024ConclusionFootball has traveled a long way from the days when faith in the outcome rested on gut feelings and lucky charms.Today’s fans and teams crunch numbers and trust predictive models, but the emotional spark hasn’t faded.The shift from instinct to information reflects how society as a whole has embraced data, yet it hasn’t erased the thrill of last-minute surprises or the hope born in every kickoff.Whether cheering for a stat-backed favorite or believing in a hunch, true fandom thrives on passion, unpredictability, and the stories we share.

A Minnesota state employee with two decades of experience is blowing the whistle on what may be the largest welfare fraud scheme in American history—and claims state leadership tried to silence her instead of stopping the thieves. Whistleblower Exposes Staggering Fraud Scheme Faye Bernstein, a contract management and compliance specialist at Minnesota’s Department of Human Services, has come forward with explosive allegations about systematic fraud within the state agency. Federal prosecutors estimate up to $9 billion was stolen through networks of fraudulent fronts posing as daycare centers, food programs, and health clinics. Bernstein began raising red flags about the fraud in 2019, consistently escalating her concerns to the Governor’s Office and external oversight bodies. Despite her two decades of experience and documented expertise, state leadership allegedly dismissed her warnings and characterized her as “the bad employee.” This represents one of the largest welfare fraud cases in recent United States history. Retaliation Instead of Investigation Bernstein describes facing a coordinated effort to silence her legitimate concerns about taxpayer dollars being stolen. According to her testimony, she was branded “racist” for identifying fraud patterns, had her work responsibilities diminished, and was ultimately “trespassed from all DHS-owned or leased property.” She stated she notified leaders in multiple departments so frequently that she became embarrassed about sounding like “a broken record.” The retaliation demonstrates a disturbing pattern: instead of investigating massive fraud, state bureaucrats attacked the messenger. Bernstein emphasized that claims of leadership unawareness are “absolutely false,” directly contradicting Governor Walz’s public denials of prior knowledge. Democrat Whistleblower Puts Truth Over Party What makes Bernstein’s testimony particularly compelling is her political background. She is a self-identified Democrat with a voting history exclusively for Democratic candidates. This undermines any attempt to dismiss her allegations as partisan attacks. Bernstein rejected characterizations of the fraud as “make-believe,” stating: “I see this every day… and it is not make-believe.” Her willingness to expose corruption within her own party’s leadership demonstrates the non-partisan nature of these fraud concerns. This is about protecting taxpayers and ensuring government accountability, not political gamesmanship. The case highlights how honest public servants face institutional barriers when challenging powerful bureaucratic interests, regardless of party affiliation. Congressional Investigation Forces Accountability The Trump administration’s federal oversight has brought this scandal into the national spotlight. Governor Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison are now scheduled to testify under oath in a congressional investigation. Walz has announced he will not seek re-election, abandoning his 2026 campaign amid the growing scandal. Senator Joni Ernst has proposed legislation creating early-warning systems for federal fraud, requiring documented attendance for childcare payments, and mandating recovery of improper payments. These reforms directly address the vulnerabilities Bernstein exposed. The investigation continues with federal prosecutors charging individuals involved in the fraud network, while the Treasury Department conducts audits and investigations into Minnesota’s payment systems. Systemic Failures Demand Reform The Minnesota fraud scandal exposes dangerous vulnerabilities in government contracting and oversight processes. The lack of guardrails in contracting oversight has been characterized as “pretty shocking” by fraud experts examining the case. Minnesota taxpayers bore the financial burden of this $9 billion theft, while legitimate childcare providers and service organizations suffered reputational damage from association with fraudulent operators. State employees and potential whistleblowers now face a chilling effect on future reporting, having witnessed how Bernstein was treated for doing her job. This case serves as a warning about vulnerabilities in federal payment systems and demonstrates why limited government and strong oversight mechanisms matter for protecting taxpayers from bureaucratic incompetence and corruption. Sources: Minnesota DHS Whistleblower Details ‘Smear Campaign’ After Reporting Fraud Concerns to State Minnesota Fraud Exposed – Fox News Politics Trump Defends Minneapolis Federal Enforcement Treasury Announces Audits and Investigations in Minnesota

Now, Canada’s National Observer brings us a story of the Don River going from a state of pollution to rival the Thames of London, to a biodiverse ecosystem home to over 20 species of fish. As with so many rivers that bisect cities all along each side of the border in the Great Lakes Region, […] The post Toronto River Once So Polluted it Caught on Fire Now Is Flush with Fish appeared first on Good News Network.

Author of How to Prep When You’re Broke and Build a Better Pantry on a Budget “I’ll just pull out my Glock/HK/Ruger and deal with those punks. Once they see their buddies drop, they’ll back off soon enough.” “We could end this by just killing anyone who sets foot on our block.” “All good Americans need to do is start mowing down protesters with their cars if the roads get blocked.” Chances are, if you ever read the comments or visit any type of social media outlet online, you’ve read some comments pretty similar to the ones above. After all, this is America, land of the free, home of the brave. It’s up to all good patriots to defend our property and our country from scumbags with deadly force. But not so fast. Things are never as cut-and-dried as people with 3-second solutions like to make them seem in the comments. You can’t escalate directly to lethal force in every situation. Let’s take a look at the situation Terry Trahan wrote about a few years ago, where a lady was sitting in a restaurant having dinner when she got surrounded by an unruly mob who insisted she raise her fist in the air in support of a group of activists. The comments section is filled with people who are apparently ready to open fire on a city street into a crowd of people. Is that really the appropriate response? While I absolutely agree that the behavior of that mob is horrible and that these things shouldn’t happen, is this a moment that requires the use of uncensored deadly force? Have any of these folks stopped to think about what happens after they open fire? Because I can tell you what is very likely to occur if you unload a magazine in a public space in the middle of downtown Washington DC. At best, you will be arrested and charged with brandishing a weapon or illegal discharge of a weapon. At worst, one of your bullets will go through its intended target and hit an innocent bystander – maybe a child – maybe even your own child who is making his way back from the bathroom.  Or you’ll kill a member of the angry mob, and someone will take the gun away and turn it on you, and you’ll be dead. Or you’ll valiantly take down three attackers and find yourself awaiting trial for homicide, among other charges. And you know what else? Every idiotic off-hand comment you ever made online about blowing people away will come back to haunt you in court. If you think you’re anonymous online, I assure you that you are not. Even when you use a VPN, your actual IP can be traced, given enough resources and time. Choosing how you escalate your response We’ve all heard the saying, “When your only tool is a hammer, you treat everything like it’s a nail.”  The same is true when your only tool is deadly force. Obviously, there are life and death situations in which deadly force is the only possible response if you want to live. When someone bursts into your home waving a gun screaming that they’re going to kill you, when someone in a mask is trying to drag you into a van with dark-tinted windows, when someone is clearly intent on beating the crap out of you until you’re dead – all of these things are situations in which your use of a lethal response is entirely justified. But… a lot of situations require more finesse unless you want to risk a) spending the rest of your life in prison and praying you don’t drop the soap or b) waiting for bloody vengeance from your adversary’s friends or family or c) criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits forever and ever until you die. You need to have an understanding of the appropriate escalation of force. A book I read last year has a place on everyone’s shelf during these times in which a conflict can arise for just about anyone, just about anywhere. That book is Scaling Force: Dynamic Decision Making Under Threat of Violence and it’s by Rory Miller. If you’ve been around here for a while, you may have seen my review of another of Miller’s books. That’s because, in my opinion, nobody knows more about the science of violence than Miller. As well, he spent years working in law enforcement settings, so he knows a lot about what happens after the violence takes place. To make a long story short, your goal should always be to use the lowest amount of force possible to get yourself safely out of the situation. Your ability to do this depends on understanding the different strategies you can employ and your skill at reading your opponent. Identify what the threat actually is. If you are in a situation in which you may have to defend yourself, it’s important that you understand what the threat really is. Are you just being yelled at or mocked? Are people just trying to intimidate or embarrass you? Are they trying to have an actual discussion or just shout over you? Are you outnumbered? Are they threatening to physically attack you? Are they capable of physically attacking you? Are they armed with firearms, items that could be used as bludgeons, or knives? While all of these things may make you angry, if you are not in physical danger, you have to temper your response accordingly. Part of the book is a detailed description of pre-assault indicators that can help you identify a potentially violent encounter before it happens. This goes a long way toward reducing the likelihood of you being injured, killed, or imprisoned due to your response. Here are some key steps to take during a potentially violent encounter. In Miller’s book – which I strongly recommend – he suggests a pattern that begins with simply leaving the situation, to verbal de-escalation when you are not in imminent danger, with other steps all the way up to and including lethal force. He discusses in detail how to rapidly assess your situation to see where you should start. You can find these steps on the internet but they’re not detailed. You should truly read the book to get a deep understanding of them – and you need that now more than ever. This is my personal take on what he wrote. Any mistakes or misinterpretations are mine alone. Presence: The encounter requires your presence and there are two components to this. First, is, don’t be there. Any time you ask Selco and Toby Cowern what you should do in a dangerous situation, their immediate response is “don’t be there.” And that is true of many of the things happening right now. Going to a protest, for example, is automatically putting you at high risk of being involved in a violent encounter. Your second option is to leave the situation. If you find yourself in a scenario in which you could be embroiled in a violent encounter, leave. This is like “don’t be there” but in action form. If you see a crowd gathering up ahead chanting and raising their fists in the air, turn around and go a different way. If you are in a setting in which someone makes you feel uncomfortable, trust your instincts and leave. Don’t talk yourself out of listening to your gut. You’re not being silly. And who cares if you look impolite? (This is especially true for women.) Use your voice. First, you can try to de-escalate the situation. If you can’t avoid it and you can’t leave, verbal de-escalation is your next best bet. This depends heavily upon your understanding of psychology. You want to calm the situation down and one of the best ways to do that is setting up what Miller refers to as a “face-saving exit.” If you are dealing with one member of a crowd, that person will have a lot of personal investment in not being embarrassed in front of his or her friends. You’ll want to think of a way to defuse things while sparing the person from that humiliation. This, of course, sucks, because we all want to kick the butts of someone who is treating us unreasonably. However, your goal is to get away from this encounter without being hurt or killed. If you are alive and uninjured, you’ve won. Your other voice option is a sharp command if you seem like the kind of person who can back this up. Take me, for example, a middle-aged disabled woman with a pink rollator. A command from me is unlikely to have a huge effect on an angry group. However, a command from me backed up by a gun in my hand would be a lot more convincing. (This is something that has actually happened to me – you can read about it here.) Touch. In some situations, touch can be used to de-escalate a conflict. Touch can be soothing, it can help to distract someone fixated on potentially hurting you, and it can help to defuse situations that haven’t gone too far. If you are not stronger than your potential opponent, this should be used very cautiously, as touching them puts you within their reach as well. For many women, this is not going to be a viable option. Physical control. This is another thing that won’t work for everyone. But if it is within your wheelhouse, you might be able to prevent the violence from escalating by physically controlling the attacker. This prevents them from harming you or anyone else around you.  At this point, you’re beginning to get into territory that could have legal consequences.  This is also another thing that may not be particularly viable for women against a male assailant. Use less than lethal force. The next step up the ladder is less than lethal force. This might mean pepper spray, a taser, or a physical blow, to name a few options. This can be a defensive preventative that will work in some cases. If you are able to stun your attacker, it can be the thing that allows you to move back down the ladder to step one – not being there. Physically overpowering an assailant and injuring them to the extent they can no longer hurt you is an option but, again, you’ll very likely face legal consequences unless it is well-witnessed or provable that you had no less violent options. Use lethal force. The final solution in this hierarchy is lethal force. This should not be your first choice unless your life is in imminent danger. You can’t just shoot someone because you decide they “deserve” it or because you feel they’re inflicting an injustice upon you. Well, you can, but you can also expect a trial that will empty out your bank accounts and cause your family to potentially lose their home and any other assets while you finance your defense. Then, if you win, you get to start all over again economically. If you lose, you spend five years to the rest of your life in prison. Lethal force must be legally justified and even then, you can end up suffering immensely for having used it. Again – I strongly recommend you read Rory Miller’s book on this topic, as it is far more detailed than I can be in a quick article and filled with personal anecdotes that make it a very interesting read. You really do have far more options than just killing someone and most of the time, the other options will be better for your future as well as the future of your family. How do you plan to respond to the threat of violence? We’re living in a world where unruly groups of people are spending their evenings out trying to intimidate people who they feel “deserve” it, without actually knowing anything about their targets. Any of us could become a target. Understand that I sincerely believe in the right to armed self-defense. It is our basic human right to protect ourselves, our families, and our property. But I urge you to use temperance when making rapid decisions that could have long-term consequences. These aren’t problems with three-second solutions, and to look at them that way is both ignorant and short-sighted. Have you considered how you would respond to the threat of violence? To intimidation by an angry mob? To the looting of your property? It’s good to think these things through ahead of time and consider what your own options are. You’ll need to weigh your personal abilities and limitations against these steps. Remember that your response to potential violence can affect the rest of your life and make your decisions with this in mind. About Daisy Daisy Luther is a coffee-swigging author and blogger who’s traded her air miles for a screen porch, having embraced a more homebody lifestyle after a serious injury. She’s the heart and mind behind The Organic Prepper, a top-tier website where she shares what she’s learned about preparedness, self-reliance, and the pursuit of liberty. With 17 books under her belt, Daisy’s insights on living frugally, surviving tough times, finding some happiness in the most difficult situations, and embracing independence have touched many lives. Her work doesn’t just stay on her site; it’s shared far and wide across alternative media, making her a familiar voice in the community. Known for her adventurous spirit, she’s lived in five different countries and raised two wonderful daughters as a single mom.  Daisy is the best-selling author of 5 traditionally published books, 12 self-published books, and runs a small digital publishing company with PDF guides, printables, and courses at SelfRelianceand Survival.com You can find her on Facebook, Pinterest, and X. The post Escalation of Force: How to Choose the Appropriate Response to Potential Violence appeared first on The Organic Prepper.

Dems Doing an About Face on Body Cameras?

43 clumps of debris from Project West Ford remain in orbit today.

A leaked undercover recording has exposed one State Department official saying the quiet part out loud: Demographics determine elections, which is why the powers that be are so focused on changing America’s.“We actually have a guy from the State Department on tape saying, ‘Yeah, this is the purpose of this. This is the Democrats. This is what they’re doing. They’re using the Great Replacement to rig elections. They want the country to be less white because white people vote Republican. White people are conservatives,’” BlazeTV host Auron MacIntyre says on “The Auron MacIntyre Show,” before sharing the clip from Project Veritas.In the clip, the State Department official claims that “they want to change the demographics of the United States.”“Project Veritas has an undercover guy speaking with a State Department official, and he comes out and says, ‘Look, it’s really simple. White guys in Nebraska, they’re not leftists. They’re conservatives. They’re naturally conservative,’” MacIntyre explains.“And they’re not going to vote for radical leftist policies. They don’t want it. So, what do you do in a liberal democracy? What do you do if you’re the Democrats and you need to push this radical progressive agenda, but the native population isn’t really interested? And the answer is, you replace them,” he says.“And by the way, this has been the policy of the left for basically ever. They’ve recognized this dynamic for a long time. Leftism cannot win in America. It is not sustainable in America without replacing the population,” he continues.“They want to replace you because of your race,” he adds. “They want to replace you because of the color of your skin.”Want more from Auron MacIntyre?To enjoy more of this YouTuber and recovering journalist's commentary on culture and politics, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Residents of a previously serene Albuquerque neighborhood are criticizing city officials' response to the surge in crime allegedly related to renters that built an underground bunker.The neighbors say there was a rise in stolen cars, stolen packages, and other nuisances after the newest renters moved in. Some of the incidents have been caught on video.'There was concrete. There were bricks inside. It was pretty large. That was built into the backyard of the house that led into the joining arroyo.' The Esquibels have been in the neighborhood for several years but noticed the change in the last year."We moved here originally because we loved it," Alandra Esquibel said to KOAT-TV. "We thought the location was great."The couple caught one person urinating near their property through surveillance video."You could see them coming in with bags, thuggish and homeless people," Joshua Esquibel said.Police records show that there were nearly 50 calls to the neighborhood in the last year before code enforcement discovered a tunnel leading to an underground bunker."It was a large dug-in tunnel network. It had support structures," said Commander Chris Patterson of the Albuquerque Police Department. "There was concrete. There were bricks inside. It was pretty large. That was built into the backyard of the house that led into the joining arroyo."Police believe the bunker was being used by criminals as a hideout."There's definitely some auto thefts that we've been able to track back to it," Patterson continued. "Some property crimes, porch packages being stolen from porches, luggage items taken from people's cars, so some auto break-ins. And then obviously we think there's probably also a drug nexus as well."Despite all of the incidents, the renters were allowed to stay at the home.The Esquibels and others question why city officials haven't used a provision that allows them to condemn a property that has three criminal acts in the span of three months.RELATED: Transient man pleads guilty to sex crimes against 16-year-old with special needs who was found in his camper after going missing A code enforcement official said the division did not trigger the nuisance ordinance because it did not know about the police calls.The tunnel has been filled in, but the residents worry there will be more crime if the renters aren't moved out."This community is super scared because of the fact that they're still there," Alandra Esquibel said. "Maybe they're renting out the bunker? I have no idea."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Anti-ICE rebels aren’t simply “protesters.” Protest is public dissent: signs, slogans, marches, chants, petitions. It aims to persuade. It does not ram police with cars, swing fists at agents, loot businesses, or try to provoke violence.When anti-ICE activists get detained or arrested, many shout “First Amendment” as if those two words erase everything that happened before the cuffs went on. The First Amendment protects speech, publication, and peaceful assembly. It does not give anyone a license to threaten people, incite lawless action, commit assault, trespass, vandalize property, or participate in criminal conspiracy and intimidation.Clinical language can clarify motives, but it should not excuse crimes.That distinction matters because many of today’s mobs don’t merely “speak.” They physically interfere with law enforcement. They obstruct operations. They harass officers and targets. They try to create fear.We used to teach children to respect the rule of law and the people tasked with enforcing it. Today, many activists treat authority as the enemy by definition, and they feel entitled — sometimes obligated — to attack it.Not every person in a crowd acts from the same motive. Still, the behavior patterns repeat often enough that clinical language can help explain what we’re seeing. I have divided these anti-ICE “rebels” into seven categories — not as formal diagnoses for individuals I have not examined, but as recurring profiles that show up in chaotic group behavior.Trump derangement syndromeSome rebels treat ICE as an extension of President Trump and react accordingly. In my view, this presents as an irrational, disproportionate fixation that can resemble “quasi-psychotic” hostility toward anything associated with Trump — spilling over to people and institutions that have little to do with him, including federal agents doing their jobs.Celebrity worship syndromeSome activists take cues from entertainers and influencers and translate slogans into action. This is an obsessive-addictive disorder more than mere fandom. Celebrity messaging can nudge fans from passive agreement to performative activism, especially when the cultural reward system prizes outrage. Public denunciations from stars can energize followers who want to prove loyalty through escalating conduct.Mad hattersSome participants display the impulsivity, defiance, and hostility toward authority that clinicians associate with oppositional-defiant disorder or conduct disorder. In its more destructive form, the behavior resembles conduct-disorder traits: aggression, property destruction, and contempt for basic social rules.Lost soulsSome people arrive lonely, purposeless, or adrift. A mob offers identity, belonging, and a mission. The cause becomes a substitute for meaning, and the group’s adrenaline becomes a substitute for inner stability.Regressed riotersSome adults regress under stress and excitement into adolescent defiance — or younger. Think “terrible twos.” They seek confrontation, throw verbal tantrums, and act on impulse, not reason. They perform outrage as if outrage itself justifies whatever follows.Mr. and Mrs. PersonalityCertain personality disorders show up frequently in chaotic movements: paranoia, grandiosity, emotional volatility, hostility, and disregard for others’ rights. These traits can thrive in crowds because the crowd rewards extremity and dilutes individual accountability.Substance abusersAlcohol and drugs lower inhibition and increase risk-taking. For some, a riot becomes a party with a political soundtrack — an excuse to seek thrills while claiming a moral cause.RELATED: ‘How low can they go?’ Maryland Democrat seeks to punish Trump-era ICE agents for doing their job Getty ImagesThese categories help explain how a crowd can form so quickly, swing into panic, and turn predatory. People mirror each other. They feed on fear and moral fervor. They swarm, then strike.Clinical language can clarify motives, but it should not excuse crimes. Anyone who assaults officers, obstructs enforcement, destroys property, or threatens people should face arrest, prosecution, and due process. Speech receives protection; violence does not.ICE agents enforce federal law. They face danger, hostility, and organized intimidation. A society that treats mob coercion as “protest” abandons the rule of law — and endangers everyone.