Violence with political roots is tearing our country apart

July 14, 2026

The physical interference with government agents who are arresting people who have broken our immigration laws by coming into the country the wrong way is an example of political violence. And the violent attacks on these agents is an even worse example.

The week-long preliminary hearing for Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk’s alleged killer highlights a far more serious one, along with the murder of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson on a New York street in 2024, the murder of a Minnesota state lawmaker in 2025, two assassination attempts on President Donald Trump in 2024, and attacks on the CDC headquarters, and other targets.

Charged with Kirk’s murder is 22-year-old Tyler Robinson. After the murder and before he was arrested Robinson was talking with his parents. They reportedly asked him why he committed this crime, to which he said, "there is too much evil and the guy spreads too much hate."

Robinson’s roommate and lover, Lance Twiggs, testified in the hearing that Robinson confessed to killing Kirk for the same reason he had given his parents: he was angry at Kirk and disagreed with the things he said at his public appearances.

Since the murder of Brian Thompson, allegedly because of features of healthcare insurance to which many people object, a shockingly large number of people have celebrated the murder as a good and proper way to complain about the way the industry is operating.

So, in the minds of some people, anger at differing ideas, and disgust with insurance issues somehow justify murdering someone.

All of this political violence ought to concern everyone. And, in fact, according to a Pew Research Center survey of 3,445 U.S. adults conducted last September, people do recognize this trend.

The poll shows that 85 percent of those polled believe politically motivated violence is increasing. And Democrats and Republicans are almost evenly supportive of that opinion. The poll shows that 86 percent of Republicans and those who lean Republican, and 85 percent of Democrats and those who lean Democrat recognize that political violence is increasing. 

Both left-wing and right-wing politics are blamed for this increase, at nearly the same levels, both over 50 percent among those polled. And, those polled say that nearly half of the extremism is from those who do not have clear political views.

Among Democrats, 76 percent say it is right-wing extremism that is the major problem, and 32 percent say it is left-wing extremism.

Among Republicans, 77 percent say the left-wing is the major problem, and 27 percent say the right-wing is the problem.

Just how big of a problem is political violence? A poll by YouGov shows that 59 percent of all adults think it is a big problem. In the party breakdown of whether it is a big problem, 58 percent of Democrats think it is, 54 percent of Independents think it is, and 67 percent of Republicans think it is.

Perhaps more troubling is the result of whether political violence is ever justified. Here is the percentage of those polled by YouGov who think it is sometimes justified, in the following categories: Very Conservative - 3; Conservative - 6; Moderate - 8; Liberal - 17; Very Liberal - 25.

GovFacts online offers this explanation of the cause of this violence: “At the heart is affective polarization — not mere policy disagreement, but visceral dislike and distrust of opposing parties. Since the 1990s, Americans’ feelings of anger, contempt, and hatred for political opponents have intensified more sharply than in most other Western democracies.

“This is driven less by economic debates about ‘who gets what’ and more by cultural debates over identity, immigration, and religion — arguments about ‘who we are’ that are harder to compromise on.”

This development is so at odds with the American culture. It is a danger to our nation’s well-being, and it puts the country’s future at serious risk.

One of the hallmarks of our constitutional republic is the idea that political differences can, should, and will be resolved through peaceful discussion and compromise, not by violence.

If the people fear violence in response to an idea, they may be deterred from taking part in political activities or exercising their right to free speech. And during a heated or even violent election period, people may even fear going to the polls to vote. This is wrong. It is not the America.

We cannot allow this political violence to continue, let alone to increase. People on all sides need to settle down, cool the hot rhetoric, realize that their differences are merely based on differing ideas that have equal status under the First Amendment, and return to sensible, peaceful means of resolving them.

That requires maturity of thoughts and actions, and staying true to the ideals of America’s founding.

We have got to get back to how things were done a few decades ago. Back then, Democrats and Republicans, who most often held different views on issues, made the effort to talk to each other sensibly and peacefully, working to find a mutually suitable solution to the problems. It isn’t that hard, if you put your mind to it.

Violent “protests” are illegal, and often lead to tragedies

February 3, 2026

As the original report of an event that will have strong interest among contrasting groups is released, people start reacting. Some react quite conservatively, mentioning only what has been broadcast or published. Others add information that is only partly true, or what they believe is true, even though it was not part of the initial news item, and hasn’t been confirmed.  And still others deliberately make up things that suits their narrative.

All sides use these devices to strengthen their particular position in these hotly debated events about who was right and who was wrong. Along the way, new information often comes along, that can affect how people react.

A new piece of information has appeared regarding Renee Good and Alex Pretti, both of whom were shot and killed by ICE personnel in Minnesota last month as they participated in illegal protests/riots that interfered with the federal agents doing their job to remove illegal aliens with criminal backgrounds or charges.

The two incidents that occurred weeks apart were handled as separate and unrelated events. However, new information purports to show a connection between these two individuals from many years ago.

According to the report, Good and Pretti, both 37 years-old, were classmates from 2006-2010 at the University of Minnesota, and knew each other as members of a club. It says that police discovered the connection when they accessed Pretti’s encrypted phone data, showing that both he and Good belonged to a group chat called “Kingfield Signal ICE watch group.”

Signal group chats are used by anti-ICE activists in Minneapolis and elsewhere to track, identify and impede federal law enforcement officers, according to FBI Director Kash Patel.

"We immediately opened up that investigation because that sort of Signal chat being coordinated with individuals, not just locally in Minnesota, but maybe even around the country — if that leads to a break in the federal statute or a violation of some law, then we are going to arrest people," Patel said. "You cannot create a scenario that illegally entraps and puts law enforcement in harm's way," he added.

That Pretti was a member of the Kingfield Signal ICE watch group, was confirmed by Jeanne Massey, who coordinates rapid response for that and other groups. Good’s involvement, however, has not been confirmed. But the idea that the two knew each other for many years prior to the recent events adds to the discourse, making both Good and Pretti look somewhat worse.

Both Good and Pretti were voluntarily participating in interference with ICE’s legal activities to arrest and deport illegal aliens, focusing on the “worst of the worst.” Some 70 percent of those captured so far have been charged with or convicted of crimes, either in the U.S., their home country, or perhaps some combination.

Good and her spouse, Becca Good, were present at an ICE enforcement activity, and both had made critical remarks to agents. When she blocked a street with her vehicle, refused to exit the vehicle when ordered, and then drove at an ICE agent, she was shot.

Pretti had been involved in interfering with ICE several days before the day he died, damaging an ICE vehicle and being injured as he resisted arrest. On the day of his death, he was with a mob interfering with ICE, carrying a pistol and resisting arrest with no ID. While he did have a concealed carry permit, carrying a weapon while physically and illegally interfering with law enforcement activity was not very smart.

The U.S. Constitution protects Americans expressing their thoughts and feelings about things in public gatherings. But that protection has limits: The public gatherings must be peaceful, including things like carrying signs and chanting or singing. They must not involve violence or interference with lawful activities of law enforcement, such as blocking them, physically attacking them, getting in their faces or touching them or their equipment.

The activities of both Good and Pretti, and hundreds of others, violated the Constitution’s protection of peaceful behavior, opening up the possibility of their being arrested. This behavior cannot be ignored, let alone encouraged. 

Why Americans choose to defend illegal aliens and their crimes, and try to prevent their deportation is a fair question. There is much more sympathy for cases like those of Good and Pretti than for the much larger number of Americans killed or injured by illegal aliens.

Obviously, being in the country illegally is a crime, at least a misdemeanor, and in cases where illegals have been deported and have returned, is a felony. And crimes must be dealt with for the safety of the American people.

The tragic deaths of Good, Pretti and any others that may have died, or may die in the future can easily be avoided.

If blue governors and mayors would turn over those illegals to the federal government in their states and cities, there would be less need, or perhaps no need, for ICE to move into these areas.

And if those who dislike the efforts of federal law enforcement to remove the criminal element and the others here illegally would protest peacefully, or not protest legal actions at all, these deaths, injuries, and arrests would not occur.