Mike LaTaurus (Potentially A Bulbous Oaf)

A message to Hollywood and the narrative media. Merely race or gender swapping established characters is not innovative or imaginative. It is an exercise in politics, not art. It is proof of creative bankruptcy, which will lead to financial bankruptcy.

🚨💬 INSURRECTIONISTS ADMIT TO EVERYTHING: They want their people to die to create propaganda. In this document distributed on Signal, Minnesota activists lay out that their goal is to impede ICE and CREATE “flashpoints” They describe “flashpoints” as moments of chaos where they can de-arrest, save illegal immigrants or possibly resulting in the “murder” of a comrade. They make expressly clear that they WANT flashpoints to occur. This message is specifically designed to be distributed to their dispatchers.

Where Eric is wrong: 1. Pretti was waving for cars to drive thru the BP operation while BP Officers were in the street. 2. The woman in the white jacket who was pushed did not have her back to the officer. As she approached the snow she turned around to face the officer, and it was at that point he shoved her to get her out of the street. 3. Pretti putting himself between the BP Agent and the woman, no matter how much it might be instinctual, is a crime. 4. "Pretti did not start it" – Pretti had a clear path to the sidewalk which is where he was headed, and he reversed and went back to engage the BP Officer. THAT is where Pretti “started it.” 5. What you really want to argue but you can’t bring yourself to say it is “He didn’t resist that much.” “His motives for interfering with the Officer’s efforts were well intentioned.” That’s not the law. The “degree” of resistant nor the goodness in the heart of the lawbreaker don’t turn crimes into non-crimes. 6. BP didn’t pursue “them” and shove “them.” One of the three turned around and faced the BP Officer, stopping in her tracks. The BP Officer shoved her. Pretti could have kept going – Pretti did not. That was PRETTI’S CHOICE. 7. The “Agents” didn’t remove the gun. One Agent removed the gun and immediately turned away and left. It is UNKNOWN if any other the others were aware. This came after one or more Agents yelled “GUN” – communicating to all they were engaged with an ARMED individual who was resisting their efforts to subdue him. When an agent yells "GUN" he doesn't yell "One Sig P320 9 mm, silver with white grips, in a holster in he small of his back". "GUN" simply means armed with a handugn. 8. It is not “speculation” what gun he had – it was a Sig P320 AXG COMBAT, and the P320 DOES have a problem with unintended discharges. 9. Law enforcement agents were not obligated to assume he had only one gun. They knew nothing about him. What they knew was 1) he was resisting, and 2) he had a firearm. That means he was “armed”. Taking one gun does not, by itself, mean he was thereafter “unarmed.” If you don’t understand that, then you don’t understand the law. 10. Your continued reference to “they” in describing the actions of BP Officers is sloppy and inaccurate. "They" did many different things all at the same time.

As a former Special Forces Warrant Officer with multiple rotations running counterinsurgency ops—both hunting insurgents and trying to separate them from sympathetic populations—I’ve seen organized resistance up close. From Anbar to Helmand, the pattern is familiar: spotters, cutouts, dead drops (or modern equivalents), disciplined comms, role specialization, and a willingness to absorb casualties while bleeding the stronger force slowly. What’s unfolding in Minneapolis right now isn’t “protest.” It’s low-level insurgency infrastructure, built by people who’ve clearly studied the playbook. Signal groups at 1,000-member cap per zone. Dedicated roles: mobile chasers, plate checkers logging vehicle data into shared databases, 24/7 dispatch nodes vectoring assets, SALUTE-style reporting (Size, Activity, Location, Unit, Time, Equipment) on suspected federal vehicles. Daily chat rotations and timed deletions to frustrate forensic recovery. Vetting processes for new joiners. Mutual aid from sympathetic locals (teachers providing cover, possible PD tip-offs on license plate lookups). Home-base coordination points. Rapid escalation from observation to physical obstruction—or worse. This isn’t spontaneous outrage. This is C2 (command and control) with redundancy, OPSEC hygiene, and task organization that would make a SF team sergeant nod in recognition. Replace “ICE agents” with “occupying coalition forces” and the structure maps almost 1:1 to early-stage urban cells we hunted in the mid-2000s. The most sobering part? It’s domestic. Funded, trained (somewhere), and directed by people who live in the same country they’re trying to paralyze law enforcement in. When your own citizens build and operate this level of parallel intelligence and rapid-response network against federal officers—complete with doxxing, vehicle pursuits, and harassment that’s already turned lethal—you’re no longer dealing with civil disobedience. You’re facing a distributed resistance that’s learned the lessons of successful insurgencies: stay below the kinetic threshold most of the time, force over-reaction when possible, maintain popular support through narrative, and never present a single center of gravity. I spent years training partner forces to dismantle exactly this kind of apparatus. Now pieces of it are standing up in American cities, enabled by elements of local government and civil society. That should keep every thinking American awake at night. Not because I want escalation. But because history shows these things don’t de-escalate on their own once the infrastructure exists and the cadre believe they’re winning the information war. We either recognize what we’re actually looking at—or we pretend it’s still just “activism” until the structures harden and spread. Your call, America. But from where I sit, this isn’t January 2026 politics anymore. It’s phase one of something we’ve spent decades trying to keep off our own soil.

There’s actually a Jubba Airways. You can’t make it up.

As we all know, Trump has been head-butting with NATO since his first term. The head butting has continued into this term despite the headlines and victory laps about increased military spending and the PR about military cooperation. Meanwhile, the world order (WEF) has, to this point, dictated that Canada, Denmark, and NATO generally are allowed to sit on their collective asses vis a’vis Defense. Poland and Hungary are the exceptions since they rarely conform to WEF dictums. But we also know something else: This administration doesn’t see the world and this hemisphere through a WEF lens. Those differences in world view, opinion, policy, and sense of urgency between America and our allies are bubbling up publicly. I don’t think the friction is or will be inconsequential. In fact, I would posit that the hairline cracks we hear about, in terms of NATO cooperation and membership, will inevitably become full fledged fissures. There are any number of pressure points between this administration and our ANO’s (allies in name only) most notably the UK. Saber rattling has become the norm in communiques from Germany, the UK, and the EU. Calls for a “European only” Army and Navy have come from the upper and middle echelons of the military in several NATO member nations in Europe. The Europeans are shocked and outraged by our statements and concerns about Greenland. Now I could be wrong; but it seems that NATO’s members are viewing our actions in Venezuela as well as Trump’s position that Ukraine is largely a Euro problem, and his vision that the “Donroe” doctrine should be a precursor to a solid military defense strategy as well as a strategic trading block composed by countries in the Western Hemisphere as an emerging existential threat. And indeed it is. We have all seen examples that, by now prove conclusively, that Trump and his advisers are some of the best “tea leaf” readers ever. I honestly think this administration sees the rapid cultural, political, and social deterioration in Europe (Germany, Austria, France, the UK) and other Western nations (Australia and NZ) as harbingers and not one off’s. And as such, I believe Trump and his team have concluded that these EU countries have reached a point of no return in every measure that matters. I believe the head butting will, by the end of Trump’s term, deteriorate or accelerate to locking horns with former allies and our eventual departure from them as a bloc in favor of the Western Hemisphere as a replacement block. The “Donroe” doctrine says as much. I believe Trump would prefer to capitalize on Geography. That is to say a land mass that stretches from the Arctic circle to the Antarctic circle with North America and South America in between. I believe he sees that as something America can control, protect, and develop. How this will play out, I’m not sure. But I believe he is quietly preparing an exit ramp for our departure from NATO per se. It will be interesting. He will leave office and hand this massive initiative to Vance and Rubio; confident in their judgment and ability to execute.