Wednesday, January 28, 2026

Killing of Alex Pretti

 Report on the Killing of Alex Pretti

Introduction

This report summarizes currently available public information about the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, Minnesota, focusing on: (1) autopsy status, (2) eyewitness medical observations, (3) forensic analysis of the number of shots fired, and (4) what bystanders and videos show regarding whether Pretti drew or brandished a weapon.

All information is drawn from major news outlets, witness affidavits filed in court, and a preliminary Department of Homeland Security (DHS) review provided to Congress as of January 28, 2026.[1–9]


Autopsy Status

According to reporting on the internal DHS/Customs and Border Protection (CBP) review provided to Congress, an autopsy for Alex Pretti is being conducted by the Hennepin County Medical Examiner.[1,2] At the time of the latest reports:

  • The autopsy is described as pending or “to be obtained” by federal investigators.[1,2]

  • Public summaries and timelines from major outlets do not state that a full written autopsy report has already been released to the public.[1–4]

In similar officer‑involved deaths in Minnesota, autopsies are usually completed within days, but full written findings are often released later, after investigators and sometimes the family have been briefed. Current coverage suggests that the official autopsy report had not yet been made public as of January 28, 2026.[1–4]


Eyewitness Doctor’s Observations of Gunshot Wounds

A pediatrician who witnessed the shooting and then provided medical aid to Pretti gave a sworn statement and several media interviews describing the wounds he observed.[5–8] Key points from his account include:

  • When agents rolled Pretti from his side onto his back, the doctor observed at least three gunshot wounds in Pretti’s back.[5–8]

  • From the front, the physician reported a clear gunshot wound in the upper left chest and described a possible additional gunshot wound on the neck.[5–8]

  • Upon first approaching, the doctor said no federal agents were performing CPR. Instead, he described agents “counting bullet wounds” while Pretti lay on his side, which he characterized as inconsistent with standard emergency response to a shooting victim.[5–8]

  • The doctor checked for a pulse, reported finding none, and then began CPR himself until EMS arrived, while noting the multiple wounds described above.[5–8]

These eyewitness medical observations are one of the few detailed public descriptions of Pretti’s injuries pending release of the official autopsy.


Forensic Analysis of the Number of Shots Fired

Independent forensic analysis of available videos and audio has focused on how many shots were fired and over what time span:

  • A forensic audio analysis for ABC News by Robert Maher, an audio forensics expert at Montana State University, identified 10 distinct gunshots on the recordings.[6,9]

  • Reviews by The Washington Post, The New York Times, and other outlets of multiple video angles likewise concluded that officers fired 10 rounds over roughly five seconds.[3,6,9]

  • These reconstructions also indicate that several shots were fired after Pretti was already on the ground and motionless, though the precise number of post‑fall shots varies slightly by analysis.[3,6,9]

The preliminary DHS/CBP report provided to Congress is consistent with these findings in stating that two federal officers discharged their weapons during the encounter.[1–3,6]


Who Fired the Shots and With What Weapons

According to the initial DHS review and corroborating news reports, two federal officers fired at Alex Pretti, both using CBP‑issued Glock pistols.[1–3,6,10]

Officers Involved

  • A U.S. Border Patrol agent (BPA) fired his issued sidearm during the struggle with Pretti.

  • A Customs and Border Protection Officer (CBPO), a separate officer assigned to the same operation, also fired his service weapon within the same brief time window.[1–3,6,10]

Weapons Used

The preliminary DHS/CBP report to Congress specifies the following:[1–3,6,10]

  • The Border Patrol agent fired a CBP‑issued Glock 19 (9mm) pistol.

  • The CBP officer fired a CBP‑issued Glock 47 (9mm) pistol, a service variant adopted by CBP.

Together, these two service pistols account for the 10 shots identified by forensic audio and video analysis.


Bystanders, Videos, and Whether Pretti Drew a Weapon

Federal officials initially asserted that Pretti “brandished” or pointed a gun at agents, but multiple bystander statements and multi‑angle videos significantly complicate that claim.[3,4,7,8,11–14]

Bystander Testimony

Court filings and media summaries of sworn affidavits from witnesses near the scene report that:[7,8,11–13]

  • Witnesses saw Pretti using his phone to record video and help a woman who had been pushed down by agents.

  • Several witnesses explicitly state they never saw a gun in Pretti’s hands before the struggle on the ground.

  • One witness described Pretti as “directing traffic” and filming agents, not threatening them with a weapon.

  • The pediatrician‑witness similarly reported not seeing Pretti attack agents or brandish a weapon, though he noted that his view was partially obstructed when multiple agents piled on top of Pretti.[5,7,8,12]

Overall, the eyewitness accounts filed in court are largely consistent in stating that they did not observe Pretti draw or point a firearm before the shooting.

What the Videos Show

Independent video analysis by CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times, NPR, CBS, and others has examined several bystander videos of the incident.[3,4,6,11–14] These analyses generally agree on several key points:

  1. Before the Struggle

    • Pretti is seen standing in the street with a phone in one hand, walking near or around agents and vehicles.

    • In the clearest angles, he is not holding a gun in his hands as he approaches or interacts with agents.[3,4,11–14]

  2. The Ground Struggle and Recovery of the Gun

    • Video shows as many as eight agents/officers on top of Pretti, pinning him to the ground.[3,4,6,11–14]

    • One officer with empty hands can be seen reaching into the pile of bodies. He then emerges holding a handgun, which DHS later identified as Pretti’s weapon.[3,4,11–14]

    • Around the moment the gun is removed, audio captures shouts of “he’s got a gun” or similar phrases. Roughly a second later, the volley of shots begins.[3,4,6,11–14]

  3. No Clear Footage of Pretti Brandishing the Gun

    • Across the publicly available videos, there is no clear frame showing Pretti drawing, aiming, or pointing the gun at agents prior to being overwhelmed and taken to the ground.[3,4,11–14]

    • Analysts emphasize that the crowd of agents obscures some of the critical moments, so the precise sequence of who had control of the gun at each instant remains partly hidden. However, the visual evidence that an officer appears to remove the gun from Pretti or from near his body while Pretti is already pinned contradicts simplistic claims that he was standing, facing officers, and pointing the gun when they opened fire.[3,4,6,11–14]

In short, the combination of bystander testimony and publicly analyzed video does not support the assertion that Pretti was visibly brandishing a weapon at agents in the moments before the shots were fired. Instead, the evidence points to a situation where a gun was recovered from near or on Pretti during a pile‑on struggle, followed almost immediately by a rapid 10‑shot volley from two officers.


Conclusion

Based on current public reporting:

  • An official autopsy has been conducted or is underway, but the full autopsy report has not yet been publicly released.

  • An eyewitness pediatrician reported multiple gunshot wounds, including at least three to the back, one to the upper left chest, and a possible neck wound, and stated that agents were counting bullet holes rather than performing CPR when he arrived.[5–8]

  • Forensic analyses of audio and video agree that 10 shots were fired in roughly five seconds by two CBP officers—a Border Patrol agent with a Glock 19 and a CBP officer with a Glock 47.[1–3,6,9,10]

  • Witness affidavits and multi‑angle videos do not show Pretti drawing or pointing a gun before he was taken to the ground. Instead, they show an officer reaching into a pile of agents and emerging with a handgun, followed almost immediately by the gunfire.[3,4,7,8,11–14]

These findings raise significant questions about the accuracy of early official claims that Pretti “brandished” a firearm, and they underscore the importance of a thorough, transparent investigation that includes release of the full autopsy and all underlying forensic evidence.


References

[1] CNN. (2026, January 27). Exclusive: Two officers fired their guns during Pretti encounter, Homeland Security says in initial report.
[2] USA Today. (2026, January 27). 2 agents fired guns in Alex Pretti shooting, DHS finds. Read the report.
[3] The Washington Post. (2026, January 25). Videos show agent secured gun from Pretti before fatal shooting in Minneapolis.
[4] CBS News. (2026, January 24). In Alex Pretti’s killing, a sharp contrast between what Trump officials say and what video shows.
[5] Truthout / People Magazine. (2026, January 25–26). Doctor who tried to help Pretti says federal agents counted wounds instead of doing CPR.
[6] ABC News. (2026, January 25–26). Minute‑by‑minute timeline of the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti involving federal agents; forensic audio analysis.
[7] The Guardian. (2026, January 24). Alex Pretti did not brandish gun, witnesses say in sworn testimony.
[8] KSTP / Local court filings. (2026, January 24–25). Witnesses say they didn’t see Pretti with a gun, give more details of deadly ICE/CBP encounter.
[9] The New York Times. (2026, January 24–27). In court filings, witnesses describe fatal Minneapolis shooting of Alex Pretti; DHS review does not say he brandished gun.
[10] NBC News / ABC 6. (2026, January 27–28). Two federal officers fired guns in Alex Pretti shooting, initial DHS report says; DHS report says 2 agents fired weapons in Alex Pretti shooting.
[11] CNN. (2026, January 24–25). Videos appear to show federal officer took gun from Alex Pretti just before he was killed; video, witnesses shed new light on moments before agents fatally shot Pretti.
[12] NPR. (2026, January 25). Videos contradict federal account of fatal Minneapolis shooting.
[13] PBS NewsHour. (2026, January 26). A second U.S. citizen was killed by federal forces in Minneapolis. Here’s what we know.
[14] USA Today. (2026, January 24). “Counting his bullet wounds.” Witness details Pretti killing in court filing.


Tuesday, January 27, 2026

50 states. FLOOD ICE

 50 states. FLOOD ICE

“A quiet national wave of civil suits is building against ICE and DHS and most Americans don’t realize they can join.” Minnesotans file lawsuit against ICE, alleging civil rights violations https://flip.it/xXlxzU via Flipboard

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E63L9TPgRe4

Sunday, January 25, 2026

Comparing the Rise of Trump and Hitler

 

The Sky and the Stage: Comparing the Rise of Trump and Hitler


I. Introduction

History often repeats itself not in exact events, but in the methods leaders use to capture the public’s imagination. Two of the most striking examples of populist rises to power are Adolf Hitler in 1930s Germany and Donald Trump in 21st-century America. While their eras differ, the "blueprints" for their rise are remarkably parallel. Both men utilized cutting-edge technology—specifically aviation—and aggressive, repetitive rhetoric to bypass traditional media and present themselves as the only "outsiders" capable of saving their respective nations. However, as rhetoric transitions into policy, the comparison extends from the stage to the streets, where the use of federal force against dissenters has become a focal point of modern debate.

II. Politics from the Clouds: The Power of Aviation

One of the most direct parallels between the two leaders is their use of aircraft to create an image of power and omnipresence. In 1932, during the German presidential election, Hitler’s campaign launched the "Hitler über Deutschland" (Hitler over Germany) tour. He was the first politician to use a private plane to visit multiple cities in a single day. To the German people, seeing a plane descend from the clouds made Hitler look like a modern savior who was everywhere at once.

Donald Trump utilized "Trump Force One" in a nearly identical fashion. By holding massive rallies in airport hangars with his private Boeing 757 as a literal backdrop, he signaled his independence from the political "establishment." For both men, the airplane was more than transportation; it was a prop that symbolized their status as "larger-than-life" figures who operated above the rules of normal politics.

III. Rhetoric and the Enforcement of Power

The rhetoric used by both leaders focused on a narrative of national decline and the "purification" of the country. Hitler’s speeches often centered on the idea that Germany had been betrayed by "internal enemies." He utilized the Sturmabteilung (SA), or Stormtroopers, as a paramilitary force to provide security at rallies and physically intimidate political opponents.

In the modern context, critics have drawn parallels between the SA and the current use of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). While ICE is a formal government agency, the Trump administration’s "Operation Metro Surge" has been criticized for using federal officers in ways that mirror political enforcement. The recent escalation of violence in Minneapolis—where protesters like Renée Good (shot in her car on January 7) and Alex Pretti (a 37-year-old nurse shot during a struggle on January 24) were killed by federal agents—has led to accusations that these agencies are being used to suppress dissent. Proponents argue these are defensive law enforcement actions, while opponents see a "militarized police force" acting as a modern-day political wing.

IV. Legal Justifications for Domestic Force

A leader’s rise to power often involves testing the limits of the law to justify the use of force. Hitler’s "legal" rise was cemented by the Reichstag Fire Decree, which suspended civil liberties and allowed his paramilitary SA to act as a "special police" force. By framing his political opponents as "enemies of the state," Hitler bypassed the traditional justice system.

Similarly, the current administration has utilized archaic laws to justify federal interventions. Under "Operation Metro Surge," thousands of federal agents were sent to Minneapolis despite local opposition. Following the recent deaths of protesters, the President has threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807. By labeling dissenters as "insurrectionists" and "agitators," the administration argues for "extraordinary deference" to executive power. In both 1930s Germany and modern America, the legal argument remains: the nation is under "invasion" from within, and only an unchecked leader can provide the force necessary to end the chaos.

V. Conclusion

The mechanics of the "populist rise" remain consistent across centuries. By leveraging technology to project strength and using rhetoric to dehumanize opponents, leaders can fundamentally reshape a nation’s democratic safeguards. The transition from campaign rhetoric to the use of federal force against citizens marks a critical threshold. Whether through the prop planes of the 1930s or the massive jets of today, the goal remains the same: to project an image of absolute authority that exists outside the traditional bounds of the law.


Selected Bibliography & Sources

  • Primary Historical Context: Holocaust Encyclopedia. "Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Rise to Power, 1918–1933." United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

  • Modern Legal Analysis: Brennan Center for Justice. "The Insurrection Act and Presidential Power." (Updated Jan 2026).

  • Current Events Reporting:

    • The New York Times. "Federal Officers Shoot Person in Minneapolis: The Deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti." (Jan 24, 2026).

    • NPR News. "Videos show deadly Minneapolis shooting as political leaders reach different conclusions." (Jan 24, 2026).

  • Rhetorical Studies: Horne, Tanner. "Rhetorical Demagoguery: An Exploration of Trump's and Hitler's Rise to Power." Undergraduate Honors Theses, 2024.



Thursday, January 22, 2026

Fact Check World Economic Forum’s transcript of Trump's speech

 

📋 Scope & Method

What I analyzed

  • The full Davos speech as delivered

  • Only checkable factual assertions

  • Repeated claims counted once, not every repetition

Categories

  • False

  • ⚠️ Misleading / unsupported

  • Partly true

  • Accurate

Not counted

  • Opinions (“worst ever,” “beautiful,” “disaster”)

  • Promises or hypotheticals

  • Value judgments

  • Jokes / obvious hyperbole unless tied to a factual claim


🔢 Bottom-line tally (major factual claims)

Total checkable factual claims reviewed: 28

CategoryCount
❌ False14
⚠️ Misleading / unsupported8
◑ Partly true4
✅ Accurate2

👉 22 of 28 (≈79%) of the major factual claims were false, misleading, or unsupported by evidence.


🧾 Detailed Findings

❌ FALSE CLAIMS (14)

1. “We’ve never gotten anything from NATO.”

False.
NATO invoked Article 5 after 9/11; allies fought and died alongside U.S. forces in Afghanistan and elsewhere.


2. “They’re now paying 5% to NATO.”

False.
No NATO member currently pays 5%. A proposed long-term target (often misrepresented) is not current payment.


3. “China doesn’t have wind farms.”

False.
China is the world’s largest producer of wind power and wind turbine manufacturer.


4. “We gave Greenland back to Denmark.”

False.
The U.S. never owned Greenland. It hosted bases under agreements; sovereignty always remained Danish.


5. “We settled eight wars.”

False.
No recognized wars were conclusively settled. Some talks, ceasefires, or partial agreements occurred; many later collapsed or continue.


6. “If we cut 50% of fraud, we’d have a balanced budget.”

False.
Even extreme estimates of fraud are far below the annual U.S. deficit.


7. “Crime is exploding because of migrants.”

False.
Multiple large studies show immigrants commit less violent crime than native-born citizens.


8. “We had reverse migration for the first time in 50 years.”

False.
Net migration fluctuated during COVID; similar slowdowns occurred before. The “50 years” claim is incorrect.


9. “Energy prices came way down because of me.”

False.
Global energy prices dropped largely due to post-pandemic demand changes and global supply, not unilateral U.S. policy.


10. “Europe pays for its defense now because of me.”

False.
European defense spending rose after Russia’s 2014 and 2022 invasions, not uniquely due to Trump.


11. “We’re leading China in AI by a lot.”

False.
U.S. leadership exists in some areas, but expert consensus describes the gap as narrow and contested, not “by a lot.”


12. “Electric cars don’t work.”

False.
EVs function effectively; issues exist (range, charging, cost), but the categorical claim is false.


13. “The border invasion is the main cause of housing inflation.”

False.
Housing inflation is driven primarily by underbuilding, interest rates, zoning, and supply constraints.


14. “Other countries emptied their prisons into the U.S.”

False.
No evidence supports coordinated prison emptying into the U.S.


⚠️ MISLEADING / UNSUPPORTED (8)

15. “Everyone is paying their fair share in NATO now.”

Some increases occurred, but many countries remain below targets.


16. “Inflation was solved.”

Inflation slowed, but prices did not reverse to pre-inflation levels.


17. “Airfares, groceries, rent, mortgages are all coming down fast.”

Mixed data; some categories down slightly, others still rising.


18. “America became energy independent.”

Misleading: U.S. became a net exporter, but still imports and is exposed to global pricing.


19. “Massive fraud is the biggest government problem.”

Unsupported by budget data; largest drivers are healthcare, defense, interest payments.


20. “The world respected us like never before.”

Opinion framed as fact; no objective metric supports this.


21. “We rebuilt the military.”

Military spending rose, but claims overstate uniqueness and scale.


22. “They called me ‘Daddy.’”

Based on a single anecdote, exaggerated into a broader claim.


◑ PARTLY TRUE (4)

23. Defense spending increased during Trump years

True, but trend began earlier and continued after.


24. Some peace negotiations were initiated

True, but not resolved or sustained.


25. Border encounters increased during Biden years

True, but Trump omits pandemic effects and earlier spikes.


26. U.S. oil production rose

True, but growth began before Trump and continued after.


✅ ACCURATE (2)

27. Denmark increased defense spending for Greenland

Supported by Danish budget documents.


28. Some NATO members increased defense budgets

True, though misattributed entirely to Trump.

🧠 Framing & Pattern Analysis

Common techniques used

  • Exaggeration of partial truths

  • Causal misattribution (“because of me”)

  • Conflation of plans vs current facts

  • Anecdotes presented as general reality

  • Absolute language (“never,” “everyone,” “all”)

Notable omissions

  • Role of COVID

  • Global economic context

  • Independent institutional data

  • Time-series comparisons


🧮 Final Answer to Your Question

If you ask “how many lies or untruths?”, using standard fact-checking criteria:

➡️ 22 out of 28 major factual claims were false, misleading, or unsupported
➡️ That is nearly 4 out of every 5 factual claims

This is high by international political standards, even accounting for rhetorical style.

  While You Pay the Price, Congress Plays Politics and War Your future is being liquidated. Every time you fill your gas tank, see your reti...