ICE murder in Minneapolis: Renee Good's killer can and must be prosecuted

Doing nothing is not an option.

Lisa Needham

An Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot and killed Renee Good, age 37, in broad daylight in Minneapolis yesterday.

Despite Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem blathering about how ICE agents are under assault and Donald Trump’s outright fiction that Good ran over the agent and put him in the hospital, anyone with eyes can see it was murder.

There’s video, which is how we all know that DHS and Trump are lying, but seeing someone get murdered by the government is not an easy thing to watch. MPR News posted the footage, but this is just a reminder that you don’t have to subject yourself to the horror to know it is a horror.

What you see on the video it is a federal agent demanding Good get out of the car, at which point she starts driving her SUV forward at about five miles per hour. That’s when an ICE agent near the front of her car fires multiple shots into Good’s vehicle, killing her. In another video — which, again, is really tough to watch — a bystander yells that he’s a physician and asks to render aid, to which the agent responds, “I don’t care.”

So what we have here is a federal law enforcement officer firing into a car at an unarmed person driving away slowly, and then other federal officers refusing to let someone come to her aid.

It’s absolutely terrible and a disgrace to our nation. But can the officer who killed Good ever be held accountable for his actions?

Charges would have to be brought by the state

Let’s dispense with the possibility that ICE or DHS or the Department of Justice would do anything about this. There’s no path to justice that runs through this administration or the federal courts. 

Hell, Trump will probably give the shooter a medal, and would certainly give him a pardon. But is there a path to justice that runs through Minnesota?

Maybe. Sort of.

This isn’t about whether the state could successfully prosecute the shooter, but whether the state could even attempt to do so. The latter question has to be answered before the former. Stephen Miller went on Fox last October to tell ICE officers they couldn’t be touched: “You have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties. And anybody who lays a hand on you or tries to stop or obstruct you is committing a felony.”

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent
was identified as Jonathan Ross by the Star-Tribune

Is this ghoulish little creep — who, it bears mentioning, is not a lawyer — right that ICE officers can do whatever they want?

No. At least not yet. While federal officials enjoy substantial protection from state prosecutions, that isn’t absolute. 

Sure, the fact they have protection at all may be maddening, but it does make some sense within our system of federalism. That’s not to say it’s good or right or moral that such protection exists, but just that it does exist. 

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says that federal law “shall be the supreme law of the land,” meaning that it generally prevails over any conflicting state laws.

That, in turn, forms the basis for Supremacy Clause immunity.

Over 100 years ago, the Supreme Court held in In re Neagle that if a federal officer is performing a duty they were authorized to do by federal law and it was their duty to perform it, and if they did “no more than what was necessary and proper,” they could not be guilty of breaking any state criminal law.

It's all good

Tomaquag benefit concert, January 23

RI and Connecticut join legal challenge to Trump's stoppage of wind project

Federal judge grants RI and CT attorneys general request to join Revolution Wind developers’ lawsuit

By Nancy Lavin, Rhode Island Current

Also, release the Epstein files

Rhode Island and Connecticut attorneys general and the Revolution Wind developers are now taking on the Trump administration under one lawsuit rather than two.

Senior Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Wednesday granted the request made two days earlier by Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha and Connecticut Attorney General William Tong to consolidate their joint complaint with a similar case led by the developers of Rhode Island’s signature offshore wind project.

Neronha’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Thursday.

The decision cements a united front between the two state prosecutors and the international companies — including Danish renewable energy giant Orsted A/S — developing the 704-megawatt wind behemoth south of Rhode Island’s coastline. Despite being fully federally permitted in late 2023 and 87% complete, the 65-turbine project has been at a standstill since Dec. 22, when federal regulators issued a suspension order. 

The stop work order, which also applied to four other offshore wind projects along the East Coast, was met with swift backlash by state and federal officials, environmental advocates and labor leaders who decried the economic and environmental consequences for Rhode Island. Outrage mounted even more because it was the second time Trump’s anti-wind sentiment had forced work to stop on the project. Construction was already halted for a monthlong period starting in August when federal regulators attempted to pause the project under the guise of national security concerns. 

The initial stop work order prompted the two separate lawsuits — one from the AGs, and one from the developers who had already invested $5 billion into the project. Both complaints argued the Trump administration violated constitutional separation of powers, seeking court intervention to allow time-sensitive construction to resume.

On Sept. 22, Lamberth granted the developers’ request for a preliminary injunction, barring the Trump administration from intervening in the project, at least temporarily. Meanwhile, the AGs case has languished, first in Rhode Island and later, in D.C. where it was transferred on Dec. 11.

After the second stop work order, the project developers turned again to the courts, seeking a second preliminary injunction to continue the final stages of on- and offshore building ahead of a mid-2026 operational date. Rather than continue on separate paths, the AGs asked Lamberth to let them join forces with the developers, consolidating the two cases into one.

Why bird flu is so dangerous

Fever-Proof Bird Flu Variant Could Fuel the Next Pandemic

By University of Cambridge

Bird flu viruses present a significant risk to humans because they can continue replicating at temperatures higher than a typical fever. Fever is one of the body’s main tools for slowing or stopping viral infections, yet research led by the universities of Cambridge and Glasgow shows that avian flu strains can keep multiplying even when the body reaches temperatures that normally hinder viruses.

In a study published in Science, the researchers identified a gene that strongly influences how sensitive a flu virus is to heat. During the major pandemics of 1957 and 1968, this gene moved into human flu viruses, and the resulting strains were able to spread efficiently.

Rhode Island Senator Reed talks about U.S. military actions in Venezuela

Question: "When you described Maduro as a lawless president who profits from his position as President, doesn’t that also describe President Trump at this point?"

Steve Ahlquist 

United States Senator Jack Reed started his press conference with a plea to Rhode Islanders to give blood:

Senator Reed: We’re here at the Rhode Island Blood Center, and it’s National Blood Donor Month, so I want to urge all Rhode Islanders to come and donate blood. I also want to thank Rhode Island, because in the wake of the Brown tragedy, there was an incredible outpouring of individual Rhode Islanders giving blood to help those who were injured. It demonstrates Rhode Island’s community vitality. The officials here told me we have a higher donation rate than most places in the country, and that contributes to Rhode Island. So let me salute everyone who donates and the wonderful people here at the Rhode Island Blood Center.

Turning to Venezuela

Senator Reed: First, you have to commend the incredible courage and skill of the men and women of the armed forces who conducted a well-conceived and courageously executed operation. There’s no question about that. You also have to recognize, and no one should have any illusions, that Nicolás Maduro was a despicable figure. He had been governing Venezuela without regard for the law and liberties. He probably was also profiting directly and indirectly from some of the drug dealers, so there’s nothing admirable about the gentleman that I could find. But we need to understand what this means on a larger scale.

It was very clear, when President Trump spoke Saturday, that in his mind, this wasn’t about drugs. To many American families who have suffered through drugs, that’s a very important topic, and they’re very concerned about drugs. Trump indicated that he is essentially taking over a government, regime change, taking over the country, taking their natural resources, oil principally, for the benefit of the big oil companies that are going in right now. This whole campaign, which started with attacks on small vessels bearing cocaine, which also has legal issues, has transformed and now been revealed to be Trump’s desire to not only take over a country, which is illegal, but to extract its precious resources. That’s not appropriate. It’s not legal either - under international or United States law.

It sets a very dangerous precedent for people like Russian President Vladimir Putin, who can now ask, “Why are they complaining about my attack in Ukraine? They do it themselves.”

The Chinese, I’m sure, are very interested in what’s happening in Venezuela because they have their eyes on Taiwan. We’re looking at a situation that is upending the international order established after World War II, following significant suffering by Americans and their victory in the war. We created an international order with a primary rule: you cannot use force against another sovereign nation. That’s Article 24 of the U.N. Charter, and that article was totally ignored.

In domestic law, Congress has the authority to declare war. This looks very much like a war-like effort, and Congress was not consulted. Congress has not been informed of many operational details. In fact, under the law, the Secretary of Defense, Peter Hegseth, is required to issue us execute orders (ex-ords) for all these operations: all the boat strikes and everything else. He’s refused to do that, even though it’s the law.

You have an administration that repeatedly defies the law, destabilizes international relations, and whose efforts will lead to a very complicated situation. You have the President, on one hand, saying he’s going to occupy Venezuela. You have Secretary of State Marco Rubio trying to walk it back, saying, “Oh no, we’re going to cooperate with them.”

We’ve seen this story before. There was a great military triumph in Iraq under George W. Bush. Twenty years later, we were still trying to extricate ourselves from what turned out to be a major geopolitical mistake that cost the lives of many service members. We have to be conscious of that now.

For weeks now, I’ve been telling everyone in the administration, the real question is, “What are you going to do when you win? Mr. President, what are you going to do? Are you going to occupy? Are you going to cooperate? Are you going to send troops in again, as he threatened last Saturday?” We’re in a very precarious situation, one that demonstrates the Trump Administration’s disregard not only for international law but also for the laws of the United States. It’s now time for Congress to step up and make sure that what is done in the future is both legal and in the best interest of the United States - not just for a weekend of headlines, but for the future of the country.

McKee caves in and will not block protests in the Capitol rotunda

State agrees to allow access to State House rotunda by protesters before the 2026 “State of the State” address

From an ACLU of Rhode Island press release in SteveAhlquist.news

In an important preliminary victory for First Amendment rights and the role of the Capitol building as a quintessential forum for free speech activity, state officials have agreed to keep most of the first floor and rotunda at the Rhode Island State House open for use by the public, including those engaged in peaceful protest, immediately before, and during, Governor Daniel McKee’s upcoming annual “State of the State” address scheduled for January 13, 2026, at 7 pm. The decision to keep the rotunda open was in response to a lawsuit filed earlier this year by attorneys for the ACLU of RI on behalf of activists who were intentionally denied access to the rotunda for a rally and threatened with arrest before last January’s annual gubernatorial address.

“On January 13, 2026, at 6 pm, the People’s State of the State will be held in the Rotunda,” said Harrison Tuttle in response. 

Boycott CBS

Distraction, anyone?

Trump expounds on NATO, peace and his greatness. WTF?

Trump, on his Truth Social, today: 

So give us Greenland and shut up.

Ninth Rhode Island Food System Summit to be held Jan. 13 at URI

Rhode Island 2026 food summit aims to meet the moment

Kristen Curry

The University of Rhode Island is hosting its 2026 Rhode Island Food System Summit — the first time since the pandemic to gather in person as a statewide community of leaders, innovators, and changemakers. Organizers say this year’s summit at the URI campus is more than a meeting; it is a powerful act of coming together to “meet the moment” in building a resilient, equitable food future.

On Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2026, starting at 9 a.m., the free event will bring state government, academic, business, and community partners together in person for URI’s ninth Rhode Island Food System Summit to discuss ways to build the state’s food future. This year’s program expands on what has been a virtual program in recent years with a day’s worth of events and activities in URI’s DeChristofaro Center for Biotechnology and Life Sciences, 120 Flagg Road, Kingston.

This year’s keynote speaker, Melissa Cherney, new CEO of the Rhode Island Community Food Bank, embodies the theme as she steps into leadership at one of the state’s most vital institutions, guiding Rhode Island toward a new era of food security and justice.

Your Dinner Might Be Fueling Climate Change

Between food waste and impacts of agriculture, it's about one-third of our carbon footprint

By University of British Columbia

For many people, the holidays often bring plenty of indulgent meals, followed by guilt and firm New Year’s resolutions to eat better.

A new study from the University of British Columbia suggests that moderation should not be limited to one season. The research found that 44 percent of people worldwide would need to change what they eat if global warming is to be held below 2 °C.

The study was led by Dr. Juan Diego Martinez during his doctoral work at UBC’s Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability. He explains what the research revealed and outlines practical diet changes that could help reduce climate risks.

What did you find?

The analysis shows that about half of the global population, and at least 90 percent of Canadians, would need to adjust their diets to avoid the most severe levels of planetary warming. Martinez notes that this estimate is cautious because the study relied on data from 2012. Since that time, both greenhouse gas emissions and the global population have continued to grow. Projections for 2050 indicate that roughly 90 percent of people will need to eat differently.

The researchers examined data from 112 countries, representing 99 percent of food-related greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. Each country’s population was divided into 10 income groups. The team then calculated a food emissions budget for each person by combining emissions from food consumption, global food production, and supply chains. These totals were compared with the maximum emissions the planet can sustain if warming is to stay below 2 °C.

Fake Science Is Growing Faster Than Legitimate Research

That's where Trump's "science" is going

By Northwestern University

Organized scientific fraud is becoming increasingly common, ranging from fabricated research to the buying and selling of authorship and citations, according to a new study from Northwestern University.

The researchers conducted an in-depth examination of scientific misconduct by pairing large-scale analyses of published research with detailed case studies. While discussions of research fraud often center on individual wrongdoing, the Northwestern team identified complex international networks made up of people and organizations that deliberately coordinate efforts to compromise the academic publishing system.

The problem is so widespread that the publication of fraudulent science is outpacing the growth rate of legitimate scientific publications. The authors say this trend should alert the scientific community to the urgency of the situation and prompt action before public trust in science is seriously damaged.

The study was published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

One of the biggest lies yet about immigration

Stephen Miller's new bullshit about immigrants

Robert Reich

Trump’s Chief Bigot, Stephen Miller, said on Fox News this month that immigrants to the United States bring problems that extend through generations.

“With a lot of these immigrant groups, not only is the first generation unsuccessful,” Miller claimed. “You see persistent issues in every subsequent generation. So you see consistent high rates of welfare use, consistent high rates of criminal activity, consistent failures to assimilate.”

In fact, the data show just the opposite. The children and grandchildren and great grandchildren of most immigrants are models of upward mobility in America.

In a new paper, Princeton’s Leah Boustan, Stanford’s Ran Abramitzky, Elisa Jácome of Princeton, and Santiago Pérez of UC Davis, used millions of father-son pairs spanning more than a century of U.S. history to show that immigrants today are no slower to move into the middle class than immigrants were a century ago.

In fact, no matter when their parents came to the U.S. or what country they came from, children of immigrants have higher rates of upward mobility than their U.S.-born peers.

Stephen Miller’s great great grandfather, Wolf-Leib Glosser, was born in a dirt-floor shack in the village of Antopol, a shtetl in what is now Belarus.

For much the same reasons my great grandparents came to America — vicious pogroms that threatened his life — Wolf-Leib came to Ellis Island on January 7, 1903, with $8 in his pockets. Though fluent in Polish, Russian and Yiddish, he understood no English.

Wolf-Leib’s son, Nathan, soon followed, and they raised enough money through peddling and toiling in sweatshops to buy passage to America for the rest of their family, in 1906 — including young Sam Glosser, Stephen Miller’s great grandfather.

Yard sale