Episode 221

On a cold January day in Minneapolis, a young mother senselessly and tragically lost her life protesting Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. How her life was lost is intensely disputed; she was either a radicalized leftist that tried to kill an ICE officer with her car or she was an innocent wallflower just trying to get out of a dangerous situation. The truth, of course, is somewhere in the middle, but the tragic incident has ignited riots in the city that has led to even more loss of life. Who was Renee Good and what were the circumstances surrounding her death? On this episode of the Removing Barriers Podcast we will discuss these issues and more, seeking to understand how this incident came about and who benefits from the continual unrest.

[MCG]

Because when you call someone a domestic terrorist, you’re inciting your base. When you call someone a Gestapo, you’re inciting your base. Because if they’re Gestapo, a Nazi, well, why not block the street?

[Jay]

Well, that’s exactly the point. That’s why they are reacting the way that they are. That’s why the protesters are reacting the way that they are.

[MCG]

If they’re domestic terrorists, why not shoot them?

[Jay]

Thank you for tuning in to the Removing Barriers podcast. I’m Jay and I’m MCG. And we’re attempting to remove barriers, so we can all have a clear view of the cross.

[MCG]

This is episode 221 of the Removing Barriers podcast. And in this episode, we will be looking at the incident surrounding the death of Renee Nicole Good after being shot by ICE agent Jonathan Ross.

[Jay]

Hi, this is Jay. MCG and I would like for you to help us remove barriers by going to removingbarriers.net and subscribing to receive all things Removing Barriers. If you’d like to take your efforts a bit further and help us keep the mics on, consider donating at removingbarriers.net slash donate. Removing barriers, a clear view of the cross.

[MCG]

All right, Jay, let’s start by talking about who was Renee Nicole Good.

[Jay]

Renee Nicole Good was a 37-year-old woman who was killed by a U.S. ICE agent during an enforcement action that they were carrying out in the city of Minneapolis on January 7th of 2026. Her death has been ruled a homicide by the county medical examiner, the Hennepin County medical examiner. According to news sources, she was an American citizen, a mother of three kids, 15, 12, and six. She’s a member of the LGBTQ community. She’s survived by her so-called wife, Becca Good. She studied English and creative writing. She graduated from Old Dominion University. Friends and family and local media describe her as a compassionate, loving, caring, affectionate person who’s known for kindness and for nurturing other people. Notice how I’ve gone on and on and on about who Renee Good was. I’ve mentioned at least 15, maybe 20 things about her that we were able to find from news sources. But how come I can’t find that kind of information on Jonathan Ross? So, and Jonathan Ross was the ICE agent that ultimately shot her. I find it interesting that if we want to know who Renee Goode is, we have all manner of news sources that will talk about who she was, and there’s hardly anything about the agent. Jonathan Ross.

[MCG]

Well, it could be difficult to find stuff about him because he is a federal agent, and a lot of stuff may not be about him on the internet, I’m assuming.

[Jay]

If that were the case, and I understand that as a federal agent, there’s probably not a lot of information about him out there. What I’m getting at is, and we’re probably jumping too early into this, I just want to point out how the news sources are going well out of their way to humanize one, give you all details and information about her, And I don’t even think they’re trying to find any information on the agent.

[MCG]

Well, they did find his name.

[Jay]

Well, they found his name. We know that he’s an ICE agent. We know that he served in the military. And we know that six months prior, he was involved with another situation with a car and a hostile person. And that’s all we know about him. And so that question is interesting to me. Who was Renee Good? And I think that’s something we ought to keep in mind when we are considering the new sources that are giving us information about this tragic event. We have to realize that it might be skewed. I don’t know if it’s intentional or not, but the idea is to humanize the deceased and perhaps, I don’t want to say vilify, although that would be the intention for many people, but certainly to portray, in not so great terms, the ICE agent. Well, we know who Renee Nicole Good was, according to news sources, according to statements that were made by friends and family.

[MCG]

Well, remember she was allegedly part of the Defend 612 group and many other anti-ICE groups on Facebook and other social media. And Defend 612 or 612 would be the area code of…

[Jay]

Minneapolis?

[MCG]

Minneapolis.

[Jay]

Well, that’s very interesting to note because Now, we might get into this later, but this seems like a situation where her partner may have pulled her into this entire thing, encouraging her to behave in a way that she might not have otherwise done. From what I understand, she doesn’t even live in Minneapolis. She drove in from, I think it was Wisconsin or something like that?

[MCG]

No, she lived in Minneapolis.

[Jay]

She lives in Minneapolis.

[MCG]

She moved there probably a year, year and a half earlier.

[Jay]

Okay, so I got that wrong. I think that when you consider that she was a part of this group, Defend 612. And this is not just a social media group seeking to hold rogue ICE agents accountable. This is a group that are coordinating with other anti-ICE or leftist groups in order to have a decentralized means of quickly alerting everyone to where an agent might be, where a staying operation, or where an operation might be happening so that they can, like a flash mob, can coalesce and harass or antagonize or otherwise interact with, in a negative way, the ICE officers or the ICE agents.

[MCG]

Well, on the surface, at least we need to mention that It’s a community or neighborhood watch group. So what you said may be true in the sense that they may have done some of that or they are doing some of that. But on the surface, it’s a community watch group or neighborhood watch group for that area. And of course, we heard of Signal groups, Signal being a messaging app where they can form groups and whatever the case may be. mobilize each other.

[Jay]

And it’s encrypted, right? They can’t really…

[MCG]

Yeah, Signal is encrypted. But an important thing about Signal is that if you don’t want people to see your number, they won’t see your number. So there’s some level of anonymity there as well. And I don’t know if she was part of the Signal group. I would assume she was. And allegedly, she was part of 612. So all of these seem to be connected. But let’s go into the circumstances surrounding her debt. As you mentioned, on January 7th, 2026, 30 a.m. in the morning. And from what I gathered, she dropped off her kid at school slash daycare. As you mentioned, she’s a mother of three. I think she only had custody of one of her kid, from what I gathered. And that’s the youngest one that was being raised by her and her… Partner. Partner, quote unquote, wife. And then I think after she dropped off her kid, they said she went to Portland Avenue, which is between 33rd and 34th Street. protest ICE activities in the area. So basically, they say that she did that, she’s going to go protest. And this was only a few blocks from her home. So she was not far from her home. And Faith would have it that it’s not even far from where George Floyd was, quote unquote, the incident happened. She was in her SUV and she stopped sideways in the road. I guess with the intention to impede their agents’ movement.

[Jay]

She was fully blocking one lane with her vehicle.

[MCG]

Right.

[Jay]

Allowing regular vehicles to pass, but impeding ICE.

[MCG]

Well, she did allow one ICE vehicle to pass, if you’ve got a video, but she was, for the most part, blocking the road, and that was illegal activities. It’s more illegal to block the road, and it’s even more illegal to be blocking federal agents. So, technically, she wasn’t, in my opinion, peacefully protesting. She was… All right, so I think from what I see the video, and I could be wrong here, but it seemed like she allowed one vehicle to pass, and that vehicle was what the one Jonathan Ross was in or even was driving. Then there was another ICE vehicle that stopped after the first one passed, whether she let that one pass or whatever the case may be. And the ICE agent came out and approached the door. So the driver came out, approached the door, and then there was another one that came out. Jonathan Ross came out from the other vehicle. think he went to the back the

[Jay]

back to get her license

[MCG]

get her license plate he was

[Jay]

recording with his phone

[MCG]

right that’s when you hear if you listen to the video you hear I guess we calling Rebecca her partner at this point they had a little conversation and then he was making his way to the front I guess and that’s when Renee First, she put the vehicle in reverse, and I think the vehicle was kind of sitting in his eyes a little bit or whatever. And then she put it in drive going forward. I don’t think personally her intention was to hit Jonathan. I think she was basically trying to flee and arrest. Whatever her intention was, Jonathan has no idea what’s in her mind. From other angles, you can see that the vehicle actually made contact with him. After the vehicle made contact with him, he pulled his weapon. He fired once, and the first bullet went through the frontman’s screen, and then the other two or three, depending on who you ask and whatever the case may be, went through the passenger side window. One of them hit her, I think, was in the head, and we can assume that was a fatal shot. Anyways, I have a news article that kind of explained this a little bit better, but it was amazing to me how difficult it was to find one. that just kind of give you the facts without giving you…

[Jay]

What you’re supposed to be thinking or feeling about the facts.

[MCG]

A political spin on it. I think this one does a good job on it, but I think there might still be some political spin on it. But they will explain what happened, and you can hear some of the audio for yourself from here.

[News Article]

New surveillance video obtained by CNN shows the moments leading up to the Minneapolis mom Renee Nicole Goode’s death. when she was fatally shot by an ICE agent on January 7th after veering her car towards him, captured in harrowing video shared across the internet. In the newly surfaced footage, which offers fresh insight into the controversial events as they unfolded, Renee’s plum-colored SUV can be spotted pulling into frame and then letting out a passenger before making a turn perpendicular to the street, seemingly in an attempt to block traffic on the road where ICE had been operating. However, cars can still be seen passing by in the grainy footage. According to CNN, the footage lasts for nearly four minutes before the deadly interaction between her and ICE officer Jonathan Ross occurred. After agents asked Goode to exit her vehicle and attempted to open the door, she quickly reversed the car before barreling forward in what feds say was an attempt to mow down Agent Ross. He then quickly fired off three shots at Goode.

[MCG]

All right, so I don’t think her intention, of course, we will never know what her intention was because sadly, she’s no longer with us. But I don’t personally think that her intention was to mow down Agent Ross, as this guy said in that news clip we just played. However, as I said previously, there’s no way Jonathan Ross could have known her intention either. I think that her intention was to escape. And sadly, in her attempt to escape, she hit in.

[Jay]

what other option did she have? Because she made the decision to reverse and then put her vehicle in drive and drive forward. He made the decision to… shoot her? What other options did they have? If he doesn’t know what’s in her mind and she is barreling forward and what might appear to him to be an attempt to run him over or to hit him with her car, what other option is there?

[MCG]

All right, so I’m going to start with Jonathan Ross. What option did he have? firstly, I would say, I guess Jonathan and his team, meaning the ICE agents that were stuff, they seemed like they were done with their arresting and whatever the case may be, and they already had the person they wanted to detain, detain. So I would say maybe they could have ignored Renee Antics and just drive around her. That’s one thing they could have done. I’m not saying that that’s the right move for them to do as federal agents or whatever the case may be, but they could have definitely ignored her, driving around her stuff and just get out of the area. Of course, she was partly blocking the road and she was impeding federal agents, AKA that’s known as a federal crime. He could have avoided going at the front of the SUV. Now, that’s Monday morning quarterbacking because he went to the back basically to, I think, to get the license plate, and I think he went to the front to to be at a different angle than the other two agents that were already at the door, or whatever the case may be. I’m on the morning quarterbacking, but he could have avoided the front of the vehicle. Lastly, I would say that he could have tried to get away from the front of the vehicle without shooting, right? So technically, since he was able to shoot and still get away, he probably could have gotten away without shooting. Yes, the Vika would have hit him still because the Vika hit him. Or maybe now, who knows? Maybe the split second he took to get his gun out could have been used to get away. Or maybe the split second he used to shoot maybe stun her enough that give him that split second to get away. I don’t know. I’m just throwing thoughts out there that what he could have done. And that’s three of them. The first one is to just for the entire ice team just to ignore her antics because basically they did to agitate. They said they did to protest, but they did to agitate. In my opinion. I’m not just put this on Renee Good, I’m talking about everybody that’s there. For most part, to me, from what I’ve seen, they’re not necessarily protesting, they’re agitating. They want to annoy and whatever the case may be. Maybe that’s the purpose of protest. I don’t know. I don’t go to a protest. But I imagine if I go to a protest, I want to protest. peacefully as the First Amendment say, rather than to get into the way and do antics. If I’m marching down the street, I’m marching down the street with a plaque or whatever the case may be, I want to remain as lawful as possible. They seemingly didn’t want to do that. Again, I’m not talking about just Renny Good, I’m talking about everybody that were there seemingly. I’m sure there were probably some that were there that were being legal and peaceful, but whatever the case may be. But I guess they could have ignored that. Secondly, again, he could avoid going to the front of the vehicle. And lastly, I guess he could have tried to escape without shooting. Okay. Now, what options did Renee Goode had? Well, they’re not going to like this one, but how about just staying home? Again, I guess I’m just putting my personality upon her. But if I hear I say agents are in my community executing an arrest, I’m not going to go out there and try to prevent them from arresting anybody. And I’m an immigrant. I’m a legal immigrant. But even if it’s my next door neighbor, and even if my next door neighbor and I are good friends, I’m I’m not going to go out there and try to prevent the ICE agent from doing an arrest. Why? In this country, we have law and order. We have a way to do stuff. Just like when we talk about Black Lives Matter and BLM and all these things, we say that, hey, there’s a place where you fight these things. It’s called a court of law. In this situation, there’s a place where you fight this thing. It’s called in the ballot box. If you don’t want ICE agents to be doing these things, the next election, you go and vote. You rally your people and whatever the case may be, you go and vote and you vote out the current administration and the ICE agent will lose the power or the command that they get it from their administration to go out and do these things. So quite honestly, how about just staying home and let federal agents do their job? In my opinion, there are better ways to protest than blocking the street, harassing and agonizing the police. And that’s what ICE agents are. They are federal law enforcement officers. Okay, the next one. And this one is very, very big to me. And I always mention this one when it comes to these police-involved shooting. The second option that Renee Good had, how about simply complying? The ICE agent came out of their vehicle and they said, Get out of your car. There’s a back and forth and all this stuff. She put a vehicle in reverse, she put it in drive, and she tried to flee. How about the simply complying? They gave her a legal command. The Supreme Court have ruled over and over again that police officers have a right to actually to get out of your vehicle. It reminds me of Takaya Young. She was a pregnant young lady in Ohio who stole liquor and was confronted by the police in the parking lot. And she was shot and killed by a police officer after driving away while a police officer was in front of her car. She’s not very dissimilar from Renee Good’s situation. And this is what I said way back in episode 143 concerning Takaya Young, and it fully applied to Renee Good at this moment. And here are some benefits I will say to compliance. Especially when it comes to law enforcement, your interaction with law enforcement. I haven’t had any involuntary interaction with law enforcement in years. But here’s the thing. Values of compliance. You will not have extra charges tack on to the current potential charges that the police officer stop you for. You will live to fight another day or to fight the injustices in the court of law. Not being shot by the police officer. It shows some level of civility and you show respect for the rule of law and respect for authority. Again, the side of the road, which is where most people interaction with law enforcement is going to be, is not the place to plea your case. I guess you can ask the officer for leniency. I guess he can try to befriend the officer or smooth talk to the officer, see if he can get out. But at the end of the day, it’s not the place to argue and to I try to get out of the ticket and all this stuff. I remember the last time, many years ago, when I was pulled over, I tried to get out of the ticket because honestly, quite honestly, I don’t think I was speeding. I still hold to that to this day. And I was right because the judge agreed with me. So technically, I wasn’t speeding. But Officer Smoky, well, that’s not his name, but he pulled me over, accused me of speeding. And I took my ticket and I decided that I was going to go to court because I didn’t feel like I was speeding. Now, what did you do to prepare to go to court? Well, I decided I’m not going to get a lawyer. I’m going to represent myself. And what did they say? He who represents himself as a fool for a client? Well, yeah, that’s me. Anyway, I studied the merge lane because the merge lane on that particular rd was very, very short. And it was a deep curve coming around and you have a very short merge lane before you enter the main traffic. Quite honestly, it probably should be a heel day or something because it doesn’t make sense the way you have it. So I studied it and I tried to learn how long a merge lane should be for safety and all that stuff. And I went to court and I present that to the judge. The judge didn’t buy it, but he let me go. And not only that, I didn’t even ever pay a court fee. He dismissed the case. He dismissed the court fee. The only thing I forget to ask him for was that $5 I had to pay to park. So the only thing I had to pay was $5 to get out of the parking lot. But here’s my point. When I was standing there in the court, to my right was the police officer that pulled me over. We were on equal grounds. I was talking to the judge. He was talking to the judge. He no longer could say, hey, do this, do that, do that. No, the judge is in charge. The judge is going to bring down the judgment. The judge say, hey, I’m going to let him go. I’m going to dismiss the case. And the judge did. Didn’t even have a pay court fee. No, I could have chosen to not to comply because up to this day, and it has been several years now, I still don’t feel like I was speeding. Maybe I was, but I don’t think I was. I think the person in front of me was speeding and the officer clock him, I believe it was me. Anyways, I digress. Only thing I’m saying is there’s some values in compliance, meaning you don’t have extra charges tack on. You live to fight another day or to fight it in court. You’re not being shot by the police officer. You’re showing some civility, and you show respect for the rule of law and the rule of authority. Now, I look at many of these incidents. Let’s go through some of them. Eric Gardner, New York, when he said I can’t breathe, could have been avoided by compliance. Sandra Blond, Texas, died in jail, reportedly. by suicide, could have been prevented by compliance. Michael Brown, Ferguson, Missouri, fight with a police officer, could have been prevented by compliance. The police officer simply asked him to get out of the road. Freddie Gray, Baltimore, resisting arrest, could have been prevented by compliance. Rayshard Brooks, Atlanta, fighting with police officers, could have been prevented by compliance. George Floyd, Could have been prevented by compliance. Alton Sterling could have been prevented by compliance. Dante Wright could have been prevented by compliance. Now, I’m not saying that all of these men and women were necessarily in the wrong. But when an officer is giving you a legal command, comply. And may I add, Tekia Young could have been prevented by compliance. And really good, say it with me. have been prevented by compliance.

[Jay]

I just have one question for you. Do you still feel that you weren’t speeding?

[MCG]

No, I wasn’t. The judge agreed. Sorry, that’s just so funny. According to the court case, I wasn’t speeding.

[Jay]

Oh my word. Okay. All right.

[MCG]

It doesn’t matter what anybody say right now. The records show that I was not speeding.

[Jay]

Yes, indeed. Yes, indeed. Okay.

[MCG]

Anyway, so my point is, what option did she have? Her biggest option was simply to comply. And again, I don’t want to go victim blaming because I already said what Jonathan Ross could have done. But I think when it comes to authority and law enforcement, there’s some onus on us as well. We normally try to say, well, what they can and can’t do and all these things. Yes, there’s some onus on the police officer to not violate your civil rights and your constitutional rights and stuff like that. But there’s also some owners on us. And all of us try to be lawyers at the stand of the street. I guess police officers need to start asking us to show evidence of a, you know, a degree from some law school or something because comply. fight in court.

[Jay]

It never ends well when you don’t. Well, I would agree with you except on two points. One, when you said that she should have stayed home. Okay, let’s be super magnanimous and say that this was something she was really passionate about. She just couldn’t stay home. She had to be out there in order to support the detainee or whoever was being arrested. She had to be out there. It was very important to her. Okay, fine. Go out there and protest. But can you do it from the sidewalk? Can you do it from a position where you’re not in competing lawful federal investigation and criminal proceedings or arresting? Can you do it from a position that doesn’t endanger you and put you in a situation where your children would be bereft of you, that they could lose you? Can you make your commitment to root out these evil ICE agents from your city? Can you make your point? by recording these agents so that if something does go south, there is a visual record of what happened. Can you do that? You mean to tell me that the only thing you had in your mind was to get in your vehicle on an icy, cold Minneapolis winter day and cross-park your vehicle in such a fashion that you’re blocking one lane of traffic? That’s what you automatically go to when you think protest? So let’s be magnanimous and say, hey, she doesn’t want to stay home. This is too important for her. Okay, fine. Can you do it from the sidewalk? Can you do it in such a fashion that doesn’t hurt other people or endanger other people? This is where I don’t agree, because if you look at the video, and goodness, we’re experiencing this right now with the winter storm going through this big ice snowmageddon thing that we’re enduring in the month of January in 2026, but the conditions were icy. You could see that when she decided to go forward in her vehicle initially, the tires were spinning on the ice. There was no traction there because of the ice on the road. So when she’s pressing the gas to go forward and the tires are spinning, what do you think that sounds like to the ice officer in front of her car? It sounds like a car that’s revving and you hear the tires spinning. What are you supposed to think, that she’s trying to say hello? What do we want this man to think? Furthermore, something that I don’t see a lot of the online commentators and pundits referencing when they slow down the video and they look at it, the first video that was put out that I saw was the one that was taken from the perspective of Becca Goode. So behind the vehicle and on from the driver’s side. That’s the one I saw first. And after she reverses, The reverse lights go off, which means now it’s in drive.

[MCG]

Well, at least not in reverse anymore.

[Jay]

Or at least not in reverse anymore. Let’s be magnanimous and say that. She accelerates, and because the ground is icy, the tires spin for a second or so, and both of Jonathan Ross’s feet move at the same time while his feet are on the ground. Now look here. I don’t know of any man that can slide backward with both feet. touching the ground at the same time, unless something’s pushing him on the icy ground. I mean, he might have been trying to do the moonwalk or something, maybe channel up Michael Jackson or something, but both of his feet were sliding backward as she was accelerating forward, which would indicate that she hit him with her car.

[MCG]

Well, I think It’s not disputed anymore whether or not he was hit.

[Jay]

I’m going to tie this all together. This is why I’m bringing this point here, because the news articles and the news pundits and all of the people that are in our media apparatus in the country were saying, she didn’t run him over. She didn’t run him over. She didn’t run him over. They say that. to make you think, like when you hear that, you just automatically think, okay, she didn’t hit him. He shot at her for no reason. But the point wasn’t that she ran him over. The point was that she hit him with her car. Whether or not she was trying to is irrelevant. There was someone in front of her vehicle. She willfully took that vehicle out of reverse and drove forward and hit him with the car. Now, President Trump’s tweet certainly didn’t help things when he said something exhort, he said something exaggerated, like she mowed him down with her car, ran him down with her car. And the media took that and ran with it and said, You know, she didn’t run him over. She didn’t run him over. What they weren’t telling people was that, yeah, she didn’t run him over because he was slip-sliding all over the place, but she did hit him with the car. And if you are trying to hit someone with your vehicle, that is assault with a deadly weapon, is it not?

[MCG]

Yeah, it is.

[Jay]

So when we ask what option does she have, even if we were magnanimous and said, okay, she could be protesting from the sidewalk. She could have chosen not to get in her car. She could have chosen not to block the road. She could have chosen to listen and comply, like you said, when the officer came and pulled on her door. She could have refused to drive forward when there was a human being in front of her car.

[MCG]

I’ll say this, though. We’re kind of jumping the gun, but let me say this, though. I would argue, and again, I’m trying to be fair on both sides here. I don’t think she saw Jonathan. Think about it. When he came out first, I think he went to the back of the vehicle. And then he started making his way to the front. At the same time, she was talking to the police officers through her window, not police officers, well, the police officers, but the agents through her window. They were telling her get out. One of the kids may be talking on the door and they were going back and forth. Her partner, quote unquote, wife was also yelling stuff. So I think based on the fact that she was talking to those two agents at her door and Of course, I don’t think you need to look down or look out to put their vehicle from reverse to drive. So I think the fact being is that when she made the decision to drive, and remember, when you make a decision to do something, your brain has to send that signal to your feet or whatever the case might be to go. Now I’m getting a little bit technical here, but the split second between her decision to drive, I think she could have still been looking out her window. The reason why I’m saying that is because you could see when a I think Jonathan kind of shout out, oh no, or something like that, or whatever the case may be. But at the same time, you could see her cranking the steering wheel had to the right, which would be to avoid hitting Jonathan. So that’s just my analysis of it. If she could, again, we can’t prove this, but there’s a possibility that she did not see him. So that’s why I’m saying I don’t think her intention was to hit him, even though she ended up and hit him. Of course, intention is not going to necessarily changed the fact that she hit him with a deadly weapon. But anyways.

[Jay]

What about Jonathan Ross? What could he have done? His partner or his fellow ICE agent told her to get out of the car and was pulling on the door handle to open the door. So at this point, she’s no longer an innocent bystander. She’s no longer someone that they’re ignoring. She’s literally being detained. If they tell you to get out of your car, that’s you’re basically being detained, right? So he is backing up his fellow agent.

[MCG]

Right.

[Jay]

And he does so, literally puts his body on the line and stands in front of the vehicle to do so, backing him up, putting himself in a position where she can’t, if she’s sane and in her right mind, can’t drive forward.

[MCG]

Again, I don’t even think that was his intention. I think he was just going around to them. I don’t think his intention was to stand in front of the vehicle because most law enforcement are trained not to stand in front of vehicles. So again, I’m just guessing here. I’m not a police officer, and I don’t know what was going to rent a good mind. I just don’t think that a trained officer would have necessarily stand in front there. He was like he was dead center or whatever the case may be. Based on what I’m seeing, I think he was more going around to them. I’m assuming. I don’t know.

[Jay]

Then that makes this all the more of a situation then. fact that she would drive forward. Now, okay, your argument was that she probably didn’t see him.

[MCG]

I’m assuming, so your point can be valid. I’m just saying.

[Jay]

Right. So if you’re not trying to hit anyone and you see someone walking in front of your vehicle trying to get out of the way, is your first inclination going to be, hey, drive forward anyway? I don’t think so. I think that takes away from the argument that perhaps, or from the thought that perhaps that she didn’t intend to. Okay, even if she didn’t intend to, she certainly didn’t care if she hit him. How about we say that?

[MCG]

Well, again, I don’t know, but this going to the next question. was she a fleeing arrestee or was she an imminent threat to the police officer?

[Jay]

I think she was an imminent threat to the police officer. She wasn’t an arrestee. They didn’t say, hey, you’re arrested, but she certainly was being detained. She certainly didn’t comply with a lawful order to get out of the vehicle. So she’s certainly not a fleeing arrestee.

[MCG]

I would say she’s both.

[Jay]

She wasn’t being arrested. She was being detained.

[MCG]

Well, I know there’s a technical difference, but- Oh,

[Jay]

right, okay, got you.

[MCG]

To me, both of them are the same.

[Jay]

Okay.

[MCG]

If a police officer come up to you, pull you over and come up to you and say, step out of the vehicle, Whether or not they slap cough on you or not, to me, that’s an arrest. technically might be a detain. But to me, once your freedom is impeded, in any way, what they call it, detain for questioning or whatever the case may be, you’re being arrested.

[Jay]

She should have just complied, because all of these other protesters that are professional agitators that are being paid by these shadowy corporations that we don’t know anything about, they go through the legal process, and then in many cases, the state ends up paying them for the inconvenience. So she should have just complied. That would have had a better outcome for her. in the long run. Instead, she chose to flee, and it sadly ended with the loss of her life. And I don’t want to be hard about this, because she’s someone’s daughter, she’s someone’s sister, someone’s aunt, I’m sure, someone’s friend, obviously someone’s mother. This is a very terrible thing for these loved ones to see. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that she made very poor decisions that all had fatal outcomes for her.

[MCG]

Yeah, I fully agree on that. I think the moment she chose to disregard law enforcement, legal orders, and attempt to drive away, she was now resisting arrests. And in my opinion, she became a fleeing arrestee. And the moment she drove the car towards a federal agent, whether or not that was an intention or not. I think in this case, it happened at the same time.

[Jay]

What happened at the same time?

[MCG]

She made a decision to disregard legal orders. She was resisting arrest. She was a fleeing arrestee. And at the same time, she drove her car towards a federal agent, which means she put his life in imminent threat. And I will say this, it did not help that her so-called quote unquote wife was yelling to her jive, baby drive or something like that.

[Jay]

Yeah.

[MCG]

So she had someone in her ear yelling in her ear to drive. They have the federal agents there to do out in her to come out. And at the same time, Johnathan Russell was trying to get assuming, giving him the benefit of doubt, giving her the benefit of doubt, getting from in front of the vehicle. Cognitive overload. She hit the gas to jive. He shoot to protect his life. She died. Of course, also, I want to say this because I think we kind of mentioned this briefly, but there have been reports where he suffered internal bleeding. There have been evidence that the SUV did contact him. Again, I mentioned I don’t think her intention was to do that. As I mentioned also, I don’t think Takia Young, episode 143, intention was even to hit the police officer because even in that situation, it was even more clear that Takia Young, in my opinion, intention was not to hit the police officer because Takia Young, even before she moved her vehicle, turned the steering wheel all the way until it locked and she pulled out a lot slower than Renee Goode did. Renee Goode come across to me as she almost floored it.

[Jay]

Floored it, right, because the tires were spinning.

[MCG]

Takia Young could have just took her foot off the brake. I don’t sure if she gave it much or any gas at all. And she was shot. And the police officer who shot Takia Young has been recently been released from any potential charges or whatever the case may be. You know, there’s a saying that they said, we judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their actions. If we want to judge both Renee Good and Jonathan Rush by their intentions, to me, I can say both of them had good intentions. One wanted to go and back up to their partner. She wanted to, if you want to call this good intention, turn her vehicle away from him and escape. It didn’t make any sense because they already had their license plate. And even her so-called wife said, quote unquote wife, said that they don’t change their plates every day. you come and talk to us later, it will still be there. Today, I already knew that federal agents probably was going to come to their home and talk to them. So I guess the intention wasn’t necessarily to hear them, but to escape for the moment. So judging both in the by the intention. Unfortunately, in the court of law, because intentions so hard to prove, actions a little bit easy to prove. Her action is that she drove her vehicle, which is a deadly weapon, towards a law enforcement officer, and she was shot for her actions. That’s what it boils down to here.

[Jay]

The situation here, however, is intense because, well, there’s a lot of baggage there, shall we say. There’s a lot of, I don’t want to say rioting, Although I, okay, there’s a lot of protesting. There are vigils and memorials. She’s held up as a sort of, you know, George Floyd type figure. You know, she’s not going to get that honor. No, she’s not going to get that honor. Oh, she’s white and female, maybe.

[MCG]

Because of one thing, because of race.

[Jay]

Right.

[MCG]

But that leads to the next question, though. Do you think this was more about politics or fact?

[Jay]

That’s what I was going to come to. The fact that People have taken her name, taken her face, held it up as an example of ICE brutality. It’s all about politics now, and there’s very little going around about the facts of the case, the facts of what happened, what we can see from the videos, from actual documenting of what happened that day. I’ve even heard people say that the officer was not in any danger or imminent threat because he was off to the side. Even though he was in front of the vehicle, he was off to the side and she barely grazed him. So he was in no immediate threat. And I thought, in what universe is that the case? Well, that’s the case in a universe where you are trying to demonize the ice ages because you don’t agree with what they’re doing, your ideology doesn’t allow you to agree with what they are required by law to do. So because it’s mired by the facts, and I’m sorry, not mired by the facts, it’s mired by the politics, it’s mired by the ideology, we can’t get to the bottom of what actually happened. It’s the same thing that happened with Floyd, Freddie Gray, Trayvon Martin, you name it. This happens over and over and over again, where the facts of the case, they take a backseat to the political ideology that’s battling for preeminence in the culture today. And everyone is complicit. The media, both the left and the right, when I say the left and the right, I should clarify, both the Democratic and the Republican Party, everyone is complicit in trying to bury the facts of this thing in order that their ideology might reign supreme, or what their position might reign supreme. An example of that is the fact that, well, let’s not even use this example. Let’s use another example. We see recently that the news is reporting that ICE is detaining children, ICE is detaining children. And they refuse to report on the fact that when certain people are being detained by ICE, in almost all of these instances, the parents ran away and left the children. They tried to evade ICE, left the children, abandoned the children, and tried to run away. When ICE tried to give the child back to the mother, the mother wouldn’t open the door because she didn’t want to, you know, to interact with ICE. The mother wouldn’t open the door to receive the child. She had to call a lawyer or call some sort of community organizer, somebody, to go through her in order to get her daughter back. So what do you want ICE to do? Just leave the kids just standing there in the Minneapolis gold? They’re not detaining the children. It’s not like they’re kicking down preschool doors and finding children. But because the media is reporting it that way, Oh, we think ICE is so terrible. They’re going after the children. It’s the same thing with the Renee Good situation. You have a situation where we don’t know the intentions, but we can only go by the facts. She drove her vehicle into the guy. And the media is reporting it in a completely different fashion. And so what you have on both sides, you hear the leadership in Minneapolis, in Minnesota, Governor Walz and all of these different people talking about how ICE is brutal. They use words like brutal, Gestapo.

[MCG]

Yeah, we’ll get to that.

[Jay]

Right, they’re loading the situation with all of these very heavy, very charged words that cloud people’s judgment, fill people with emotion, like very strong reaction, if you will, so that the facts are ignored. Well, the right is doing the same thing too, or the Republican Party is doing the same thing too, although I would say the way the Republicans are looking at this is a little closer to the truth than not, but they’re saying things like, domestic terrorists. And they’re talking about how Governor Walz and all of the people that serve under him are obstructing and not helping and all these different things. Like you could say when President Trump made that tweet and said, oh, he was run over. The internal bleeding was probably, when they say internal bleeding, I wonder if it’s an exaggeration, like he was bruising the hip or something and he had a bruise on his hip and they call that internal. I don’t even know anymore because everyone is taking this, exaggerating elements of it in order to make their side seem like they’re in the right. It’s a battle for public opinion, and we can’t even get the facts straight. So that makes it incredibly difficult to find out what actually happened. And so when that happens, justice, the truth, can never be discovered. It’s difficult for the truth to be discovered. Let me harken this back to the Derek Chauvin case. The Derek Chauvin case was an egregious miscarriage of justice. He didn’t get a fair trial, but nobody cares because The ideology says he has to be put under the prison. I’m not saying he was innocent. I’m not saying he’s a good guy. I’m not saying that he shouldn’t have changed his actions that day. I’m not saying any of that. What I am saying is that the facts should speak for themselves and there shouldn’t be such a heavy political bent or influence such that he doesn’t get a fair trial. What does that mean for the rest of us if we’re accused of something that the political ideology of the flavor of the day doesn’t agree with? How can we expect to have a fair trial?

[MCG]

Well, let me say a couple of things here that’s in response to what you just said. Firstly, I know we have done a lot of these for whom Christ died, for which Christ died. And we talk about police actions a lot. And I think we tend to have a fair balance because we’re not always on the police action side. Like for Sonia Massey, we were definitely, at least I was, definitely on Sonia’s side in terms of that the police was wrong. And he was convicted. What’s his name? Sean Grayson or whatever, that sheriff’s deputy was convicted. And then we had a situation in Florida where the young Air Force guy came to the door with a gun in his hand. And that one is a little bit more up in the air. Not even sure what has become of that right now, but that one would be a little bit more difficult to convict the police officer. So we’re not always on the police officer side. We try to be a referee and try to call ball and strikes and the way we say it. Also, I think that when it comes to whether it’s facts or politics, I think a lot of the time it’s always more about politics than facts. The narrative about ICE, to me, is more about politics. Because think about it. Obama, in his two terms as president, deployed way more folks than any other president. But we did not see this level of unrest. Obama is even dubbed the deporter-in-chief. Here is a clip of Obama.

[Obama on Immigration]

This is not going to be a free ride. It’s not going to be some instant amnesty. What’s going to happen is you are going to pay a significant fine. You are going to learn English. You are going to — you are going to go to the back of the line so that you don’t get ahead of somebody who was in Mexico City applying legally. But after you’ve done these things over a certain period of time, you can earn your citizenship. So that it’s not something that is guaranteed or automatic. You’ve got to earn it. But over time, you give people an opportunity. Now, it only works, though, if you do all the pieces. I think the American people, they appreciate and believe in immigration. But they can’t have a situation where you just have half a million people pouring over the border without any kind of mechanism to control it. So we’ve got to deal with that at the same time as we deal in a humane fashion with folks who have put down roots here, have become our neighbors, have become our friends. They may have children who are U.S. citizens. That’s the kind of comprehensive approach that we have to take. All right.

[MCG]

So what I should have done, it was to give AI that audio. and tell them to put it a Donald Trump voice. Yeah.

[Jay]

Yeah.

[MCG]

Because…

[Jay]

I almost said, what, Obama’s MAGA? What? What’s going on here?

[MCG]

If Trump said those same things today, they would deem him as being…

[Jay]

Xenophobic, racist, homophobic.

[MCG]

Whatever term you want to use. Again, I’m an immigrant. I came to this country legally, and I’ve since became a citizen of this country. I went through all the legal steps. I pay all the fines that they asked me to pay. I submit all the paperwork they asked me to submit.

[Jay]

All the pictures too. We had to submit pictures.

[MCG]

And all the biometrics that they want me to do and all the, make sure I have all the immunization. I think a lot of them don’t know what their US immigration laws are. Because even for someone like me who have never been in the country legally and go through the legal process, There’s so much paperwork I had to turn in and so much stuff I had to prove just to do this legally, and thousands of dollars later, becoming a U.S. citizen. It is almost impossible for you to start from an illegal starting point to becoming a citizen. That’s why so many of them are in the country for 20 years. class and still they’re not even on a path to citizenship. It’s almost impossible for them to ever become a citizen, unless the government grants some kind of amnesty and stuff like that and say, okay, no matter what your starting ground is, we’re going to give you citizenship. I don’t think a lot of Americans, and quite honestly, I don’t think a lot of other politicians even know what the federal laws are concerning these things.

[Jay]

They don’t, because they’re citizens. I’ve heard someone say that your average American probably wouldn’t even pass the citizenship test that immigrants have to take in order to go through the naturalization process, because it’s not even in our purview, all of what goes on when it comes to being in the country legally.

[MCG]

Well, you know, I’ve heard that quite honestly. I don’t know if that’s true. I think that might be hyperbole. because quite answer to the test is not that difficult, at least in my opinion. So an average American may not be able to pass it. I don’t know.

[Jay]

Maybe I’ve been too.

[MCG]

I think if you went through high school in the US, most likely or not, you’re going to pass that test. You know, the hardest question on the test, it may have changed, but I don’t think it has changed. It’s basically there’s a potential of 100 questions and they go to ask you 10 of them. 10 out of the 100, and you have to get 6 out of the 10 correct in order to pass. That’s basically what it is. You don’t know what 10 they’re going to ask you, so you might as well, they gave you some study materials or whatever the case might be. When I was going through it, there was a USCIS app that you can download and practice the questions or whatever the case may be, all 100 of them. So there’s a lot of materials out there that you can work with. The most difficult part of the test, I guess, coaching and coaching can say the most difficult part is when they ask you, Who is your current Senate? So wherever you live, who is your Senate representative? Who is your House representative? And maybe those two. Okay, the reason being, and maybe the third hardest might be who is the Chief Justice? And the reason why they normally ask those three is because those are the ones that are most likely to change because there’s elections, stuff like that, and people sometimes don’t keep up with those things. But the others are basically historical questions that are not going to change. Like, who was the first president? Name a country that borders the US to the north or something like that, or whatever the case may be. And if you can’t say Canada, border the US, you know, or what the case may be, I guess you should be in a country, you know, or they might ask you one of their original states or whatever the case may be. And I think everybody can guess, you know, between what, there were like eight of them or something. Everybody can guess Virginia and New England or whatever the case. I think everybody can guess at least one of those, whatever the case might be. And it acted like, the Pacific Ocean about the Atlantic. These are just geographical questions that I think that anybody can really pass. So I don’t think it’s as difficult as people say. But my point is, is that the politics takes over so much that during Trump’s first term, There was this guy that was doing a YouTube video. He went onto a popular college campus, and he was telling people some things that Obama did, but he was attributing to Trump. And basically, when the guy told them that Trump did this, Trump did this, Trump did this, remember, it’s actually Obama who did those things.

[Jay]

Right, right.

[MCG]

They all disagree. And then when he do the switching rule and say, actually, it was Obama who did these things. All of a sudden, no, they agree with this stuff. They just disagree. And to me…

[Jay]

So it’s not about the policy. It’s not about the issue. It’s about…

[MCG]

Whose side you’re on?

[Jay]

Exactly. And so, again, that makes truth impossible to discover. It makes the facts impossible to ascertain. What good are the facts if you don’t care about them, right? Let’s look at how they’re talking about each other. You know, the Democrats call ICE and Trump and everybody that’s on the right, you know, what Hillary calls the bascular deplorables, they call them Nazi. fascist and fill in the blank of all of the different names that they call it. Gestapo, that I heard the day before yesterday. And on the other side, you have people on the right calling ICE and all of the immigrants and everything, things like domestic terrorists and this, that or the other. That makes communication impossible between these two groups of people. Is ICE truly Nazi? Was Renee Good truly a domestic terrorist? Is that what we’re going with?

[MCG]

Well, here’s because it’s, of course, it’s publicly motivated. Here is Christy. What’s her name? Christy Noom. Christy Noom. Here is Christy Noom, a Noom after the incident happened.

[Kristi Noem]

It was an act of domestic terrorism. What happened was our ICE officers were out in enforcement action. They got stuck in the snow because of the adverse weather that is in Minneapolis. They were attempting to push out their vehicle and a woman attacked them and those surrounding them and attempted to run them over and ram them with her vehicle. An officer of ours acted quickly. and defensively shot to protect himself and the people around him. And my understanding is, is that she was hit and is deceased. We’re continuing to gather more information, but this goes to show the assaults that our ICE officers and our law enforcement are under every single day.

[MCG]

You know.

[Jay]

Well, there she said an act of terrorism. I don’t know if she called Grenade good, an actual domestic terrorist. I wonder if she’s saying the act is, but go ahead.

[MCG]

Well, I guess technically, but I just think she should have avoided using that politically charged term. You know, was it an act of domestic terrorism? I guess it depends on your definition of domestic terrorism. I guess you can say she was terrorizing the people and using her vehicles and did the weapons. But again, that to some degree is judging intent again, which we don’t know what her intention was. So I think she could have cooled the temperature down a little bit by choosing different set of words rather than saying she was a domestic terrorism because she already knew that this is going to be politically charged. Why call her a domestic terrorist or at least saying it was an act of domestic terrorism? You could say she attempted to… hit an ICE officer with her vehicle, and the ICE officer was in fear for his life, and he fired on the shot, and unfortunately, she died. Something a little bit softer rather than saying it was an act of domestic terrorism.

[Jay]

Okay, so here’s where I stand with this, right? I know that everyone is calling on the current administration to cool things down, but if you were the subject of multiple assassination attempts, one of which was successful back in September of Charlie Kirk. The two or three that were aimed at President Trump were not successful, but the attempts were made. And you’re continually using the rhetoric of threat to democracy, Nazi, gestapo, all of these different terms, fascist, Hitler, all of these different things. At what point do you stand up and say, enough is enough? We’re not the ones increasing the temperature. Y’all need to chill out. Because, okay, so according, let me just read from the U.S. Code, the definition of domestic terrorism. This is the U.S. Code, chapter 113, bravo. I guess this is section 5, and then a whole bunch of subsections. The term domestic terrorism means activities that A, involve acts dangerous to human life that are in violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state. B, appear to be intended to either, one, intimidate or coerce a civilian population, two, to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or three, to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping. And C, it occurs primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. You know, I know that we want the administration to say softer words and cool down, but a lot of what we’re seeing from these protesters and a lot of what we’re seeing from left fits that to a T. They are using tactics that are designed to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or some form of coercion. They can’t do coercion, right, because the optics are bad on that. So what they do instead is to gather a whole bunch of people using these Defense 612 apps or whatever they’re doing, using these professional agitators, with the whistles and the verbal abuse and mass groups of people. They call it protesting, but it’s really intimidation in order to get the political or ideological effect that they want, which is leave the immigrants alone, get out of our state, whatever these people are chanting, right? So I guess if you’re holding strictly to the letter of the law, I can see why she said that the act was an act of domestic terrorism. I can see why she said that. Does it help? No, but if someone tried to shoot my ear off or my head off and miss and they got my ear or someone shot me in the neck, I think I would begrudge a little bit of a calling it what it is.

[MCG]

Okay, so based on what you just read, could it technically, by the letter of the law, be domestic terrorism? Yes, I will give you that, but that’s not necessarily my point. My point is she’s dead. Why bother to go and call her a domestic terrorist?

[Jay]

Because she…

[MCG]

My point is that whether that’s true or not, you can soften it because a person has died. So you can simply say, unfortunately, Jonathan Ross was defending himself and the person died. You didn’t have to use true, maybe by the letter of the law, she was doing stuff that can be classified as domestic terrorism. But she could have softened it and say, hey, you know, unfortunately, a mother of three has died because Our Asian was defending himself and she drove her vehicle tourism.

[Jay]

Let me ask you.

[MCG]

So that’s one. She could have toned it down a little bit that way. I’m just talking about leaders lead. Secondly, there’s a fine line in my book, and in my opinion, based on what you just read, concerning domestic tourism and what we consider protests. What is the goal of a protest? The goal of a protest is to influence the administration or your government to change, to make policy changes and do stuff like that. So the goal of the domestic terrorists and the goal of the protesters, you could argue the same. However, the Constitution doesn’t give you the right to use violence and to use intimidation and all this stuff in protest. That’s why the Constitution say in the First Amendment that you peaceably to assemble. So if you’re peaceably assembling, you’re trying to change the government through protest to change whatever is grieving you. Of course, if you cross over into terrorism, when you start using force and violence and all these things, burning stuff. So yes, she could have been a domestic terrorist. I’m just simply saying at that moment, presently, at that time, I don’t think Christy Noam should have mentioned that at all because this was a dead mother. Supposedly in her mind, was protesting and not being a domestic terrorist.

[Jay]

The reason I don’t agree is because, maybe I’m a little black pilled on this, but I’m not entirely sure that there is an off-ramp now. In many, many, many, many, many ways, Charlie was the off-ramp. And so here’s why I say that, because how, let’s look at it from the perspective of Kristi Nauman and the DHS and ICE and all of these border patrol agents and all of them. If it’s always incumbent on you to keep the temperature cool, not to say what things actually are, and your opponent, let’s say, is continually, continually in the media calling you Nazi, gestapo. Well, I’m going to get to that, but go ahead. They are not once have we heard the mayor or the governor say anything about do not interfere with federal agents, do not get in their way, make sure that you’re completely out of the way. No, he keeps saying things like, you have the right to protest. You have this, that or the other. And those guys over there, they’re unprofessional. Get out of our state. They’re Nazi, they’re this, they’re that, right? Continually stoking the flame. letting these people run amok and create havoc in the city. He never once tells them, Don’t interfere with ICE, or with Border Patrol, or whoever’s out on the streets doing the job that the American people elected Donald Trump to do. So he’s soaking the flames, trying to appear like he’s not, but definitely soaking the flames because he has the power to tell his people, Hey, stand down, don’t interfere, don’t obstruct, Be angry, but don’t do anything crazy. Be angry and say not, I guess you could say. But he never does, ever. None of them ever do.

[MCG]

I think the ball is in both courts. I’m disagreeing. I’m not saying that Kristi Noem should never, or she should never refer to Renny Goode as a Democrat historist, if that’s what she truly believes she is. I’m simply saying, at the moment, at the first press conference reporting this, with temperatures being high, I don’t think that’s the right move. That’s all I’m saying here. But also, let’s go to Jacob Frey, or Frey, or whatever his name is.

[Jay]

The mayor.

[MCG]

The mayor of Minneapolis. And then we go to Tim Waltz, the governor of Minnesota. Here’s Jacob Frey. Is it Frey or Frey?

[Jay]

I think it’s Frey.

[MCG]

Okay.

[Jacob Frey CNN Interview]

They are already trying to spin this as an action of self-defense. Having seen the video of myself, I want to tell everybody directly, that is bull . And I have a message for ICE. To ICE, get the out of Minneapolis.

In hindsight, Mr. Mayor, was that the appropriate response?

I stand by exactly what I said. And to be clear, what I was responding to was an immediate conclusion that had been drawn by the federal government where they said, one, The ICE agent was acting in self-defense, and then shortly thereafter saying that the victim was a domestic terrorist. We need to be doing everything possible right now to have a full and fair investigation. And my deep concern is when the conclusion is drawn by the government that’s actually doing the investigation itself, it’s much harder to trust the investigation. We need to make sure that the American people can earn and gain that trust. And yes, I think there’s deep concerns with having exclusively the FBI and not our Bureau of Criminal Apprehension at the state level conducting the investigation itself. This is an entity that has police officers and law enforcement and attorneys, people that have deep experience in investigating cases involving an officer-involved shooting. And by the way, they’ve come to conclusions and investigated cases that have resulted in charges and the lack thereof. And so our pitch is, look, none of us should hide from the facts here. And if we’re not hiding from them, then let’s make sure it’s a full and fair investigation.

[Jay]

What a snake. I’m sorry, go ahead.

[MCG]

My problem here as well is that he’s rightfully saying, Okay, don’t call a domestic terrorist. Don’t come to an immediate conclusion. But he has done the same thing.

[Jay]

Absolutely.

[MCG]

The exact same thing he’s decrying Kristen Noem and President Trump of doing. He has done the same thing. He has come to the conclusion that Rene Goode was innocent and that Rene Goode was murdered. And they come to the immediate conclusion, just like he did, just on the opposite side, that she was a domestic terrorist and Jonathan Ross was innocent. I’m simply saying here, both sides can, one, cool the temperature down, and both guys can say, hey, let the investigation go through. The problem is here is who’s going to police the police? Because you can’t allow Minnesota to investigate this. I quite honestly, you can answer all the federal government to investigate this. So who’s going to investigate it? Nobody. The federal government is doing the investigation, maybe the FBI, but then we already know what’s going to come of it because of, again, politics. And that’s the sad part about all of this. Tim Waltz compare ICE and Trump. This was actually before this happened. But here is Tim Waltz using politically charged terms as we mentioned.

[Tim Walz]

Donald Trump’s modern-day Descapo is scooping folks up off the streets. They’re in unmarked vans, wearing masks, being shipped off to foreign torture dungeons.

[Jay]

What an incredible thing to say.

[MCG]

Again. you’re talking about the president of the United States or their gossip or whatever the case may be no they are executing legal arrests on people who break our laws

[Jay]

you may not like it but those are the laws fight it in the courts exactly or change the law

[MCG]

you come into the country illegally You have broken US laws. No matter whether you’re peaceful, no matter whether you don’t have any criminal record, quote unquote, you have broken the law. And as I said, if they’re going to arrest someone who has been accused of the worst of the worst and they meet someone who just crossed the border, they’re going to take that person too because that person break the law. They came in the country illegally. Plus, again, I’m an immigrant. I’ve spent thousands of dollars to be in this country legally and also thousands of dollars finally to get my US citizen. It’s very unfair for someone like me to watch millions of people crossing the border and come here and get more benefits than I have that I got when I was in the country legally. So I think I suppose, no, but is she a domestic terrorist? I would go ahead and said, no, both sides can calm this down rather than saying, hey, this, this, this, that, whatever the case may be. Both sides are being, want to use a stronger word, but being stupid about this thing. I think both of them can calm the temperature down. Both of them can say, hey, you know what? I know you have your jurisdiction. I have my jurisdiction. How can I work together? Rather than agitating the people, coaxing the people on, using politically charged words. Because when you call someone a domestic terrorist, you’re inciting your base. When you call someone a gestapo, you’re inciting your base. Because if they’re gestapo, a Nazi, Well, why not block the street?

[Jay]

Well, that’s exactly the point. That’s why they are reacting the way that they are. That’s why the protesters are reacting the way that they are.

[MCG]

If they’re domestic terrorists, why not shoot them? That’s my point. So both sides can calm it down by not using these charged words.

[Jay]

Okay, you’re saying both sides should calm it down. Do we really believe realistically that the left is going to calm down? Let’s call it the left collectively. Do we really believe that they’re going to calm things down? They’ve already tried to assassinate. They’ve already assassinated people.

[MCG]

Well, I’m not going to put Charlie Kirk assassination on…

[Jay]

This is a continuum. It’s a gradient. Okay. We’re not going to put the assassination of Charlie Kirk on the left, even though a person on the left did it and pretty much everyone on the left, minus a few people that have the obligatory, oh, we have to condemn this. We’re celebrating it. Okay.

[MCG]

Look, I don’t remember the episode we did in Charlie Kirk. I think it was like 212 or something. That was Charlie Kirk that we did. Yes, the left celebrate Charlie Kirk’s death. Yes. Again, I want to be careful here as well. There’s one person who allegedly was responsible for Charlie Kirk’s death. Let’s put Charlie Kirk death on him. Was he politically motivated? Most likely. Did Tim Waltz or Chuck Schumer or one of these or Nancy Pelosi ordered him to do that? We don’t have any evidence of that. I just want to be careful here that we don’t sweep it too broad of a brush of saying Charlie Kirk debt was on them. Was Charlie Kirk debt politically motivated? Yes, but it was politically motivated through one person as far as we know now. Now, if you want to get all the conspiracy theories, maybe you can go listen to Candice Owens. But for now, let’s leave it the way it is rather than say it is on.

[Jay]

I’m not saying that Charlie came to me in a dream, and I’m not saying Israel did it. What I’m saying is, the political leaders on the left know that they are fomenting and encouraging and creating the ecosystem that is conducive to violence, that’s conducive to the temperature, the political temperature increasing in this country. They have done absolutely nothing to hold themselves accountable or to pull themselves back from the ledge.

[MCG]

And I’m saying that the right have done the same thing too.

[Jay]

I’m not saying they have it. All I’m saying is, I only see bodies piling up on one side of the aisle. And it’s not the left side.

[MCG]

That’s an argument you can make, but then they will point to… George Floyd, they would point to Renee Good. They would point to the nurse that was just shot recently after Renee Good. And they say, well, we see bodies piling up too. So I guess my point is here.

[Jay]

So if we saw it from their perspective, we would see that they feel the same way that we feel. I’m not even going to do that. Not even we. Right. I’m saying.

[MCG]

I don’t have a political home. not a Republican. I’m not a Democrat. Quite honestly, I will be glad if there’s a of course, there are more than two political parties in the U.S., but there’s two main ones. I would be happy to see a third strong party because both of them annoy me. But my point is that, yes, both sides can make an argument. But what Jacob Fry said, what Tim Walz said, what Kristin Holm said, and even what President Trump said, I think was off base. It wasn’t the the best statement to make after a mother of three died regardless of what she was doing and is that the best statement to make after someone defended their life by Tim Walz and all this stuff both sides can calm this down and both sides are not doing it both sides are leaning into their base which is what irks me the most anyways you’re listening to the movie virus podcast we’re talking about Renee good a soul for whom Christ died we’ll be right back

[Jay]

Are you looking for a consistent and reliable place to get all your Christian materials? Try ChristianBook.com. Started from humble beginnings in 1978, ChristianBook.com now offers a wide range of books, CDs, DVDs, homeschooling, and church supplies, plus more. So whether you are a parent, a homeschooler, a pastor, or a layperson, ChristianBook.com can be a one-stop shop for all your needs. needs, click the link in the description section below and check out the vast array of Christian materials christianbook.com has to offer. Okay, so let me ask this. Both sides need to calm down and chill out. That would require, so for the left to chill out, ICE would have to completely stop all of their operations. For the right to chill out, Well, a lot would have to happen. Let’s just leave. Let’s just leave it there because there’s a lot wrong with the country. But for the right to chill out, a lot would have to happen. So if ICE is in the cities carrying out deportation operations because that’s what the American people voted the administration in to do, why does ICE not have legal standing? to do what they’re doing in the states? Do they have legal standing to do what they’re doing in the states? Because, of course, you have federal law enforcement, but you also have states’ rights.

[MCG]

Well, first of all, let’s say this, ICE, which is the US Immigration and Custom Enforcement. They are federal law enforcement officers. That mean they have the power to arrest. And of course, they mostly focus on enforcing federal law or federal immigration law. So they specialize in immigration and custom laws. But first and foremost, they’re federal law enforcement officers. If you break federal law, a federal officer, whether they’re ICE, FBI, or whoever else, US Marshal, Secret Service, and the list go on and on, they can arrest you. They’re federal law enforcement officers. No, they may not able to pull you over for speeding and stuff like that because those laws are managed by the state. But they can arrest you. And that’s true whether you’re a citizen or not. I think one of the narratives that surrounded all of this was the fact that Renee Goode was a US citizen. They keep on emphasizing she’s a US citizen. She’s a US citizen. Even many of the videos you watch during these protests and stuff like that, folks will be doing nonsense. What are they trying to agitate or blowing a whistle or going into the face of a ICE agent? And the typical defense is, oh, I’m a U.S. citizen. Like, well, you can’t arrest me because I’m a U.S. citizen. know they’ll federal law enforcement officers. If you break federal law and impeding them is breaking federal law, they can arrest you. Absolutely. I don’t know where this narrative come from. And I think one other thing is, at least I think one other thing on the left where they do these things is I’m like, why not educate your folks on these things? Because it’s clear to me that they believe, at least some of them believe, that ICE cannot arrest them if they so happen to be U.S. citizens.

[Jay]

Yeah, I think that’s by design that they don’t inform them.

[MCG]

ICE is powerless over U.S. citizen. And I’m like, no, they’re law enforcement officers.

[Jay]

Absolutely.

[MCG]

And if they’re law enforcement officers, they should be given the same respect just like any other law enforcement officer, at least in my book. And they can arrest you as long as they have jurisdiction over the law that you’re breaking. And that’s federal law.

[Jay]

Yeah, I think when you said, why don’t you inform your people? I think that’s by design. They do it on purpose. Again, we hear Mayor Fry and Governor Walz constantly talking about the atrocities that ICE are committing in our streets and describing their activities as the modern day Gestapo. That’s intentional to inflame the people of Minneapolis, the people of Minnesota, and it doesn’t do anything to inform people about what ICE can actually do. I have this article pulled up here from military.com, published January of 2020, Common, there’s misinformation about what ICE can and can’t do, and it’s widespread online, and it’s causing people to react in a way that unnecessarily escalates the situation that could end in severe, or I’m sorry, serious injury or death. It says here that common themes, this is what people think that ICE can’t do. They believe that ICE cannot arrest people without a judicial warrant, they can’t pull over vehicles, or they can’t touch U.S. citizens at all. All of these claims are incorrect, and the people that are putting this information out, they misstate. they misrepresent federal statutes, they misunderstand the constitutional limits, and they risk encouraging behavior, as I said before, that could escalate into serious injury or death. So ICE is a federal law enforcement agency, just like you said, within the DHS. Its enforcement powers come primarily from the Immigration and Nationality Act, which is codified in Title 8 of the U.S. Code. Congress granted those powers in U.S. Code 1357, and that’s the code that they’re continually misrepresenting online. The statute authorizes immigration officers to interrogate any person believed to be an alien about their right to be in the U.S. and to arrest an alien without a judicial warrant when the officer has reason to believe that the individual is in violation of immigration law and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. So critically, the statute also authorizes ICE officers to make arrests for offenses against the U.S. code against the United States committed in their presence, regardless of whether or not the suspect is a citizen or not. So if they’re conducting their activity, their investigation, their arrest, or whatever, and you come in as a U.S. citizen protesting and blocking the street with your vehicle or attacking officers or doing any sort of impeding, just like you said, MCG, they have the right to arrest you. They have the authority to arrest you, whether you’re a citizen or not. And that’s the point that’s often being omitted in online discussions. ICE officers, the article continues, are federal law enforcement officers. So when a U.S. citizen commits a federal crime in their presence that includes crimes related to immigration, such as harboring, impeding, transporting, conspiring, and all the different things that the protesters are doing, ICE has the authority to arrest that citizen. If they have the authority to arrest that citizen, they also have the authority to detain that citizen. In other words, if they tell you to get out of the car, get out of the car. The article continued, this includes conducting, I just said, interfering with immigration enforcement itself, such as, again, obstruction, false statements, or assault on a federal officer. And I think a lot of people misunderstand what assault on a federal officer is. They think that they can… put their bodies in the way. Oh, hey, hey, I’m not touching you. I’m not touching you. Those things can be considered obstructing or impeding. And in some cases, it can be assault because they’ve had had things thrown at them, snowballs with rocks in them, glass bottles, spitting on them, getting in their way, blowing the wind. All of the different things that people are doing that they think is not breaking the law is actually breaking the law. And no one in the leadership in Minneapolis or in Minnesota altogether, it goes all the way up to the governor, no one is putting that information out there. I say it again, whenever they have all of these press conferences about, oh, ICE did this, ICE did that, they never, ever, ever, ever, ever tell their citizens, hey, this is what the law says. You can’t do this or that or the other. All they ever say is, we encourage you to be peaceful, we encourage you to be peaceful, because that’s a vague and nebulous term that could mean thing to anyone, and they, the politicians, can always say, hey, we told them to be peaceful. They just went off and did it on their own. We told them to be peaceful. That’s a serious dereliction of duty. That’s a serious opportunity that they’ve missed in order to back off, calm things down, as you mentioned that they should do. I think it’s unrealistic at this point to expect that they would back down and calm things down. They’re ideologically driven, and they’re Machiavellan in the sense that all of these protests serve a particular purpose. We know that that’s the case because when Obama was talking about immigration, there wasn’t a pip or a squeak from the Democratic side because it suited them at that point. But now there’s someone in the office that they don’t like, and so…

[MCG]

Well, two things here. Well, I could have found Cliff of Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton and others saying the same thing. Even Kamala Harris, when she went to South America or Central America, she said the same thing.

[Jay]

But she convincingly told people don’t come.

[MCG]

She told them not to come. But there’s two things. Whatever you would not do to your local police department because you know they will arrest you or whatever the case may be. The same respect should be thrown to ICE.

[Jay]

Absolutely.

[MCG]

Because they’re law enforcement officers. And secondly, again, most Americans don’t know this because they’ve never been through the system. But I have been through the system. And I’ve got numerous letters from USCIS, which is the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. That’s where you get your benefit from. And usually they will send you a card. Most of us know the green card, but there are many other cards. They have the EAD, authorization to work, and all these other stuff that they will send you. And in that letter, they always, every step that I’ve been through, and I’ve gone from student to OPT, H-1B, EAD or authorization to work and everything. Every time they send you that letter, they said that you need to keep this card on you at all

[Jay]

times.

[MCG]

All times. All times because an ICE agent can come up on you anytime and demand for you to prove that you are legal in the country. But in that letter, they’re making sure that they mention that they need to have this letter at all time. Meaning an ICE agent doesn’t have to have evidence of crime being committed by you to demand that you prove that you’re a U.S. citizen.

[Jay]

But that’s Nazi. That’s Gestapo. That’s racist. You asked me for my papers. That’s racist.

[MCG]

And when I came to the country talking about most part, most of that time goes on to Obama. And those were the stipulations. Quite honestly, even now I’m a U.S. citizen, I still carry a passport card in my wallet. I no longer have to prove that I’m a U.S. citizen, or whatever the case may be, because the process is over. I already put my hand over my heart and pledge allegiance to the U.S.

[Jay]

You’re saying that you were proud to be an American?

[MCG]

No, I didn’t sing that song. I didn’t sing the song, but I did pledge. But whatever the case may be, those are the immigration laws that if you’re not a citizen of this country, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Officer can demand of you at any time, at any place that you produce documents to prove that you’re legal in the country. And that’s why USCIS always mentioned that this card should be carried at all times.

[Jay]

When immigrants come into this country legally, they’re rolling the die. They’re taking a risk at any point. ICE can track them down, deport them. They know this. They know they’re taking a risk coming in here illegally. I’ve heard of immigrants who’ve come into this country illegally, left family behind. Those family members, something happens to the family member, and they can’t go to the funeral, let’s say. They can’t go to their family member’s funeral because if they leave the country, they have no way to get back in legally. We know, and they know, that when they come into the States illegally, it’s a gamble. Maybe I’ll get caught, maybe I won’t. That doesn’t mean that we should lack compassion, but it does mean that we identify and call it what it is. They’ve broken the law.

[MCG]

Right.

[Jay]

And someone has to be the adult in the room, stand on business, and say, this is the law, you have broken it, this is the repercussion, this is the consequence. Everyone is talking about, oh, due process, due process. The due process for an illegal alien is… Show me your papers. Are you legal? No? Okay, get out. That is the due process that we owe to an illegal immigrant. Now, if you’re talking about a permanent resident or a student or on a student visa or something along those lines, that’s a different story. But someone in the country illegally, that is the only due process required. The media and the politicians that are continuing this nonsense are responsible. I’ll give an example. Earlier I mentioned the case of a little boy who was detained by ICE because his father abandoned him when he saw ICE and ran away.

[MCG]

He wasn’t detained by ICE, he was taken into ICE care.

[Jay]

Oh, but according to them, he was detained, right? According to the news, he was detained by awful ICE. And what they also said in the article, article literally said, verbatim said, an emergency ruling was sought out by lawyers or whatever for this particular case. The judge issued, I guess it’s a ruling or an order to stand down, but instead ICE flew the father out to whatever detention center that they’ve got in Texas somewhere, getting ready to deport the guy, right? That’s what the article says, the MSN, or what do they call themselves, not MSNow, whatever they call themselves, that’s what the article says, right? What they don’t tell the people reading the article, what they don’t tell the public is that within 4 to 8 hours, The guy was caught, flown to the detention center in Texas. He fled and abandoned the kid. The mother wouldn’t take the kid because she wouldn’t open the door because she didn’t want to interact with ICE, probably because she was illegal too. And he was flown to Texas in order to get him all packaged and shipped to be deported, right? And that happened in the afternoon. I forget the time. It was after noon. It was probably around maybe 3:00 or 4:00 when that happened. They didn’t get the order from the judge until 9:30 that evening, right? But when they wrote the article, oh, instead of complying with the judge or following the judge’s ruling, ICE deported him instead, or ICE flew him out of the state instead. Now, that’s just an outright lie. For what other purpose would you write that lie if not to inflame everyone and excite the general population against ICE? or against whatever the administration has in order to enforce immigration law and customs. The Bible describes this in Proverbs chapter 6, verses 16 through 19. These six things doth the Lord hate, yea, seven are an abomination unto him, a proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies and he that soweth discord among brethren. Does that not describe the entire media apparatus and the rhetoric that we see coming from politicians today and the professional agitators and protesters that are acting on their behalf?

[MCG]

Yep. Let me ask this. Did the officer have any legal or moral standing to shoot, do you think? I know we kind of talk about this a little bit, but let’s dive into it. What moral or legal standing did he have to shoot or did he have any?

[Jay]

I think he had legal standing. to shoot. Officers can defend themselves if they feel that their lives are in danger, just like any U.S. citizen does. Well, I guess it depends on where you live, but generally you have the right to defend yourself, right? He saw the vehicle lurching forward. The wheels were spinning. He heard the vehicle rev up. Had to be revving up because the tires were spinning. What was he supposed to think? I think in this situation, as tragic as it is, as much as we wish that they had taken different roads, made different choices, he was within the legal right to defend himself. The argument that’s happening online that I’ve seen was that he may have been justified with the first shot, But the follow-up shots, the two shots afterward that were shot in through the driver window, were not legal. They were not moral. They were not authorized because he was out of imminent danger and she was no longer a threat to him. And those were the killing shots. So the argument was that the first shot was okay, the second and third shots were not.

[MCG]

I’m going to get into that, but I just think that, anyways, I think a lot of people that’s saying that me have never fired a gun. I’ll leave that there. Yep, So what is legal moral? I think legally, I would have said definitely he had a legal standing to shoot, because we have seen this over and over again with police officers. I mentioned… Akia Young already and the police officer involved there. You know, so we have seen that situation that most of the time police officers going to walk on situation like that. I also mentioned Sonia Massey, where that officer was convicted and in my opinion, rightfully so. So officers are not always get away with shooting, but in a situation where you can clearly show that there was a deadly threat, they had a right to shoot. I also say this, the same law that protect police officers is the same law that protect you

[Jay]

Yes.

[MCG]

In a defensive situation, this is not special to police officers. Now, the way it is, I don’t know if enforced or practiced is the right word, in court may be a little bit different. Because if I’m running towards someone that I know can do me harm, the law might look at it a little bit differently than if a police officer is running towards someone who can do him harm and shoot because the person… attempt to do them harm because we have commissioned police officers to go and do all violence for us. My goal in a defensive situation is to break contact, is to no longer be in the harm’s way. A police goal is to actually make contact and detain the person. So the law kind of give police a little bit more leeway in terms of defensive action. But it’s the same law that protects the police officer will protect me if I had to defend myself. So yes, I think legally Jonathan Ross had the standards issued. Morally, at least in my mind, it’s all about intention. If I were in his position, I probably would have shoot two. Probably. But again, I’m looking at it from a civilian point of view with no police background or anything. I probably would have shoot two if a vehicle coming at me. But quite honestly, I think most people who are not police officers will probably get out of the way first. we probably put all the effort in getting out of the way. Because I’m assuming that Jonathan was open carrying on his side like most officers do. Most civilians conceal carry. It takes a little bit longer to draw and get ready to shoot than if you’re open carrying. So… Especially if you’re constant carrier, especially if it’s under your clothing and whatever the case may be, to clear your cover garment and present the weapon. Take a little bit longer than if you have to just pull it out from your side on an open carrier, holster, whatever the case may be. So probably I would most likely get out of the way, but putting myself in the same shoe as Jonathan, I probably would have shoot through. But I can’t say I’m 100% sure that he had full moral standing because I don’t know what was going to her mind exactly what intention a big part here. But someone much wider than me described the situation this way. Lawful, but awful. And this is where I did this. I think this was most likely lawful, but it was an awful situation on both sides. So morally is a little bit fuzzy for me, but he’s not going to go into the morality court. He’s going to go to the court of law. Right. He’s not going to go into court of morals, court of law. And the law is to me a little bit of checks are not just below morality because you can be legal, but immoral. And there’s many examples of especially politicians out there who may be just in the moral area of the law, but we can point to many immoral activities from them.

[Jay]

Well, ultimately, it doesn’t matter, right? Because like you said earlier, Minneapolis or Minnesota shouldn’t be investigating this. Neither should the federal officers be investigating this because of the ideology that we talked about before. And even if they did investigate it, on what level would he be charged? Federally? Would he have to be investigating according to federal law or the law in Minneapolis or in Minnesota?

[MCG]

Yeah.

[Jay]

Is it states or is it federal?

[MCG]

Well, it can be both, but here’s the thing. Judging from the officer in Takaya Young shooting and the fact that he walked free, and I think the officer in Takaya young shooting should walk free and have walk free. I think that’s good. But I think it would be difficult for him to be persecuted and convicted on this. Jonathan Ross, that is. I’m 100% sure that he’s not going to be charged federally.

[Jay]

Yeah.

[MCG]

100% sure. At least for now. Let me say that. For now, I am 50% that he will be charged by the state or locally. and that’s because I think that if he’s charged locally or by the state then 24 US Code Section a comes into play and the state a civil action or criminal prosecution that is commenced in a state court and that is against or directed to any of the following may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending That’s the law. But once it gets to federal court, it’s most likely going to be dismissed, or at least most likely.

[Jay]

So he goes through the ringer locally, but once it gets up to the district, it’s going to be dismissed anyway.

[MCG]

The state or locally, they can charge him for murder, whatever they want to charge him with. He can then raise 24 U.S. Code Section A saying, hey, I’m an agent of the federal government. I want this case to be moved to the federal courts. And once it gets there, who’s going to have some kind of sway. Right, President Trump, Kristi Noem, who knows who’s going to have some kind of sway. So they’re going to say, hey, we’re not going to prosecute this. Now, I’m not quite sure how this works. I was listening to some lawyers and they were saying, okay, the federal prosecution is going to take over. The other lawyers said, no, the state prosecution is actually going to be doing the prosecution in federal court. So I don’t know which one is going to be. But I want to believe that once you get to federal court, that it will get dismissed somehow. So is the federal government going to bring their own charges? I’m 100% sure for now they’re not going to do it. Is the state going to do it? I’m 50% on that, that they might or they might not. But even if they do at this point, I think that they can erase 24 years code Section 8, it get dismissed. But this is what I think is really going to happen, and this is what Jonathan Ross’ lawyers probably have in mind and have told him, guess what? 2028 is only three years away. Well, two years we in 2026, but three years until we have a new president and it’s not going to be President Trump. We don’t know who he’s going to be. If the Republicans lose the White House in 2028 and in 2029, when the new president is squawning as a Democrat, they can now either bring federal or state charges and get Jonathan Ross and have a favorable government that That probably would not dismiss the case.

[Jay]

How can they do that if it will have already been dismissed?

[MCG]

They can just wait to charge him. They can literally wait three years to charge him.

[Jay]

Why would the administration wait?

[MCG]

I’m talking about the state of Minnesota.

[Jay]

Oh.

[MCG]

They can literally wait three years to charge him. Remember, Takia Young case was just dismissed either late 2025 or early 2026, and that was three years or so after the incident. The Constitution says you’re entitled to a speedy child.

[Jay]

I was about to ask about a speedy trial as well.

[MCG]

But who knows what speedy means? I have no idea what speedy means in the Constitution because there are people who have been waiting for their court cases for years.

[Jay]

So if he goes through locally, they can drag their feet.

[MCG]

That’s what I’m saying. They can even file charges against him and basically drag their feet and see what happens in 2020. I don’t know. I’m not a lawyer, but I’m thinking that’s a possibility that they can, because I don’t think there’s a statue of limitation on murder, at least in Minnesota. I don’t think there is maybe some state they have, but I don’t think in Minnesota there’s a statue of limitation. So basically they can say, oh, President Trump is no longer there. We have a favorable administration.

[Jay]

Get him now.

[MCG]

Let’s get charged against Jonathan Ross. Three years, four years down the road, he’s not going to be dismissed. That’s what I believe is most likely to happen. than anything now. Right now, I think everything’s going to cool down. Of course, we had another nurse being shot in Minnesota again. We might have to do another episode on that one, but I think that’s what’s going to happen. Because right now on the current administration, I’m 100% sure he’s not going to be charged. State-wise, they probably… will. But I think even if they charge him, they’re going to try to jog this all long enough that Kristi Noem, President Trump, of course, if J.D. Vance or whoever else win the Republican win the White House again, they probably would have to just decide they’re going to dismiss it. But if they don’t, you hear it here first. Jonathan Ross is going to be persecuted under the new administration. But the question I have, which is more important here, who is to be blamed for Rene Nicole Goodette?

[Jay]

I have a laundry list.

[MCG]

Go ahead. I have a launch list too, but go ahead.

[Jay]

Okay, so Renee Good is responsible for Renee Good’s death. I might be strong to say this, but in my humble opinion, Tim Walls, Mayor Fry, is it Fry or Frey? I thought we’ve been asking that throughout the entire podcast.

[MCG]

It doesn’t matter.

[Jay]

All of these professional agitators, all of these protesters, all of the liberal talking heads on YouTube, all of them, I would put some responsibility on them as well. Yes, Jonathan Ross pulled the trigger. So technically, he was responsible for ending her life. But I think it was self-defense. So I don’t even know if I would put that on him. But he was technically the one who pulled the trigger and ended her life. So we’ll have to put a smidgen of blame on him as well there. For any politician continuing with their inflammatory rhetoric, all of them responsible. That’s my laundry list so far. What about you?

[MCG]

Okay.

[Jay]

Her, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, her so-called wife as well. has bear some responsibility as well, encouraging her, inciting her, telling her to drive off and to break the law and to refuse to comply. So Rebecca Good, her partner, I’m not even calling that a wife. That’s not even a marriage, but Becca Good, there’s responsibility there as well.

[MCG]

All right. So I have many of the same lists that you have. I have a long list, but ultimately, of course, Renee is to be blamed. I’m going to play a clip of already a former father-in-law, because I think she has been married three times. First two times was with a man, and third time, quote-unquote, she was married to a woman. But he is already a former father-in-law.

[CNN Interviews Renee’s Former Father-in-law]

Nothing about charges or anything like that. Just an investigation into what happened in terms of the ICE agents’ actions. But they were, according to the prosecutors resigning today, pressuring them to investigate Renee’s actions and Becca, her wife’s actions. How do you feel about all that?

Well, you know, I’m not blaming anybody. I mean, it’s a hard situation all the way around. It’s hard for the, you know, for everybody involved. I mean, the OSS agent, you know, at first I didn’t see the footage where, you know, he was actually, you know, he was actually being ran. I mean, I seen the bump of the car hitting, you know, hitting his legs. And so in a, you know, in a flashlight that, it’s hard to say how you would react. from my understanding that he had been through that before, maybe dragged or something. And so, you know, like I said, it’s just it’s just a hard situation for everybody. You know, Becca, you know, she’s a great person as well. I mean, you know, I don’t have any enemies. I love everybody. And that’s what the Bible tells us. Love our neighbors as we love ourselves. But, you know, I think there’s some bad choices. And the word says, for the wrath of God will come upon the children of disobedience. And, you know, it’s, I don’t blame us. I don’t blame Rebecca. I don’t blame Renee. I just, you know, I just wish that, you know, if we’re walking in the Spirit of God, I don’t think she would have been there. That’s the way I look at it.

[MCG]

So I think ultimately, reading between the lines, what he’s saying, Renee Good is responsible for her own debt. So anyways, I blame Renee Good, and I think her former father-in-law agreed with me. I also blame Rebecca Good or whatever her last name is, Renee’s so-called wife, because she said, and I quote, I made her come down here. It’s my fault. So I blame Rebecca. I also blame state and local police in Minnesota and Minneapolis.

[Jay]

They were told to stand down.

[MCG]

It’s not even that the fact that we’re told to stand down. This is absolutely nonsense. You have ICE going to execute legal arrest, and you have unrest in the streets, and there’s no local police doing any sort of crowd control and nothing. Regardless of how you feel about this, local police should have been there to assist their five, 10 ICE agents that are there doing their stuff. Local police should be there. And I blame the The state police and the local police in Minneapolis for not being there, not helping out their fellow men in blue, regardless of what you may think, coral control, and even… assisting in detainee and blocking off streets so people can’t come down that street because police activities on the street. I blame the local and state police.

[Jay]

Weren’t they given orders by the police chief and the governor? Probably. And the, to come down, I think they ordered.

[MCG]

Yeah, they get orders from the government. So that’s why, again, I blame Tim Walz.

[Jay]

The police chief is compromised too. We hear him speak. He’s compromised too.

[MCG]

Well, he get orders from the political head. So I’m saying here, I blame Tim Walz and I blame Jacob Fry.

[Jay]

Oh, Chad GPT says it’s fray. So we know it’s official. It’s fray.

[MCG]

Jacob Frey, whatever his name is, the mayor and the governor of Minneapolis as well, because they’re the one who could have had the police down there, regardless of how the police may have feel or felt about ICE there. So I blame Renee, I blame Renee. Rebecca, her quote unquote wife, I blame the state of local police. I blame Tim Waltz. I blame Jacob Fry. I blame the major political parties, the DNC and the RNC. And to a lesser degree, I also blame Trump and Christy Noam, because I think they could have cooled the temperature down. I think both sides could have cooled the temperature down, and none of them are doing that at the moment.

[Jay]

I think you’re absolutely right. I think that they could have, Trump, the administration, really could have put their foot down, maybe even enact the insurrection act, do something to bring this under control. But they’re letting it drag on and on and on. So yeah, I definitely put some blame at the feet of this administration as well.

[MCG]

Here’s a transaction Christian on. Do a weekly or maybe twice per week press conference where you show mug chats of the perps who are being arrested for that week, state their crime, state what they have done, and why that ice went off them. You know that sheriff in Florida?

[Jay]

I was just thinking of him.

[MCG]

Sheriff George, Grady Jud, whatever his name is.

[Jay]

Yep, I was just thinking.

[MCG]

Whenever he made a big arrest, he go on TV and he put the mug chat on TV and here is this not so smart guy and he did this and he was this one, he did this. Get in front of the narrative.

[Jay]

Right.

[MCG]

So when you make an arrest of the worst of the worst, get on TV. Say, this is one guy, he’s being charged for sexual molestation and murder, and he came into our country illegally, and this one has been trafficking drugs and children. Get ahead of the narrative because the only narrative we’re hearing is when something wrong happened. Like Renee Goode, like this nurse that was recently shot as well. Oh, I shot someone else.

[Jay]

And they take it and they run with.

[MCG]

It in front of the narrative and show the good work that they’re doing. So people can say, oh, we understand why you’re doing it now. You can’t just make the assumption that everybody know why you’re doing it. So I think they should get ahead of this and do something like Sheriff Judge, you know. But ultimately, I guess the ultimate question here is, was Renee Nicole Good a soul for which Christ died?

[Jay]

We can come down hard on Renee Good and say that she was responsible for her death, that she made poor decisions that led to a fatal outcome for her. And I hope that doesn’t come across as heartless careless, unloving. That’s not the intent. She is absolutely a soul that Christ died for. And it’s infuriating to me that to the state and local officials, she’s nothing more than a pawn in their political game, what do they call it, useful idiot, that they can use to create pressure for the political outcome that they want. They could talk about all the time how she was a mother, how she was a friend, how she was loved, how she was this, how she was that. But at the end of the day, you did nothing in your power to help her see that the path that she’s on is the wrong one. You didn’t explain the lawful authority ICE has in your state. You didn’t explain that she should not be impeding or obstructing. Her life was nothing to you, and it’s lost to eternity now. Well, I don’t have any reason to believe that she was a born-again believer. I see no indication of that. But more than likely, Renee Good has gone into eternity without Christ. And every single day this continues, more people will go into eternity without Christ. Now there comes a point where you need to quit drinking the Kool-Aid and believing everything you hear on social media and allowing it to rile you up. I understand that. There comes a point where you’re responsible for your own deception. I understand that. But she’s still very much a soul for whom Christ died. And she has everyone in her ear and her entire world is filled with people lying to her as she was lying to herself. And it’s resulted in her death. And that’s a tragedy.

[MCG]

Yeah, definitely. Was she a soul for whom Christ died? Absolutely. Yes. Luke 19, verse 10, for the Son of man is to come to seek and to save that which was lost. First John 2 and verse 2. And he is a propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also the sins of the whole world. So Renee was a soul for whom Christ died. I don’t know if she made a decision to put her faith and trust in Christ, but she was definitely a soul for whom he died. Not for only a soul for whom he died, but a soul for whom he loved. He loved so much, the Bible declare in John 3:16, For God so loved the world, for God so loved Renee, that he gave his only begotten Son, that if Renee had put her faith in him, she would not perish, but have everlasting life. The Bible declare in Hebrews chapter 9 and verse 27, And as he’s appointed unto man once to die, but after this, the judgment. That is sobering. We all have an appointment with death. And whether we get in is not based on what we have done, but whether we know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Renee, good work of fighting for immigrants, and I know she saw that as good work because she was willing to give her life for it. The good work of her fighting for immigrants or fighting for them to stay in the US, or whatever the case may be, it’s not good enough to get her into heaven. My good works is not good enough to get me to heaven. It’s what Jesus Christ have done. is the fact that one day that I repent of my sin and trust Christ as my Savior. As Jay said, we don’t know if Renee has done that or did that in her life, but none of us are gonna get in there because we fight for human rights and we take care of the earth and whatever else case. We get in because we pay off faith in Jesus Christ. The Bible declares in Romans 3.23, For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Include Renee, that includes me. But the Bible also declare in Romans 5:12, Wherefore as by one man sin enter into the world, and death by sin, and so death passeth upon all men, for all have sinned. Romans 3:10, As is written, there is none righteous, no, not one. And Isaiah 64:6 even declare that all our righteousness are as filthy rags. Sin has consequences, actions have consequences. Renee, actions may have led to her demise. Our sins can lead to our demise. One day, we’re going to have to face the maker. One day, we’re going to have to die according to the scriptures. And after that, we’re going to meet our maker. The Bible says, for the wages of sin is death. But the good news is, but the gift of God is eternal life to Jesus Christ, our Lord. I’m glad that God did not leave us hopeless. So far, it is we are sinners. We’re going to die. God didn’t leave us hopeless he’s declaring Romans 5:8 but God commended his love towards us in that while we were yet Sinners Christ died for us while we were let filthy while we were having actions that may lead to our debt Christ died for us Jesus paid a debt that we could never pay he He satisfied the Father’s requirement. The Bible is declared in Isaiah 53 verse 11, speaking of Jesus, that he said, he, which means God the Father, shall see the travail of his soul, that’s Jesus, and shall be satisfied. What satisfied the Father was the butchering of his own son for us. So then how can we escape this judgment? Romans 10 verse 9 to 13 that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and shall believe in thine heart a God has raised him from the dead thou shalt be saved for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation for the scripture said whosoever shall believe on him shall not be ashamed for there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek for the same Lord over all is which unto all that call upon him for whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. And once we have made a decision to put our faith and trust in Jesus Christ, the Bible then declares in Romans eight, verse one and two, there is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit. For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus had made me free from the law of sin and death. My plea in all of this, regardless of which side of the political act you lie on, Regardless, whether you think Jonathan Ross is a murderer or he was defending himself or written it good, it was good and peacefully protest, regardless of what side of the aisle you’re at, have you put your faith in trust in Jesus Christ? If not, would you trust him today?

[Jay]

Hey, thanks so much for listening to the Removing Barriers podcast. Did you know that you could find us on Twitter, Gab, Parler, Facebook, and Reddit? Go to removingbarriers.net/contact and like and follow us on social media. Removing Barriers, a clear view of the cross.

[MCG]

Thank you for listening. To get a hold of us, to support this podcast, or to learn more about removing barriers, go to removingbarriers.net. This has been the Removing Barriers podcast. We attempted to remove barriers so that we all can have a clear view of the cross.