From: atropos@mac.com   
      
   On Feb 10, 2026 at 9:20:52 PM PST, "Dimensional Traveler"    
   wrote:   
      
   > On 2/10/2026 6:26 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >>  Dimensional Traveler   wrote:   
   >>>  On 2/10/2026 12:50 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >>>>  BTR1701   wrote:   
   >>>>>  On Sep 20, 2025 at 7:49:59 PM PDT, "Rhino"    
   >>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>  California Gov. Nuisance has signed a bill banning law enforcement,   
   >>>>>>  including ICE agents from wearing masks as they perform their duties.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> https://globalnews.ca/news/11438455/california-face-mask-ban   
   law-enforcement/   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>  As BTR1701 predicted recently, this is going to make it a lot easier   
   for   
   >>>>>>  "activists" to identify, harass, and even kill ICE agents and their   
   >>>>>>  families. Apparently, some of that has already happened. Newsom is   
   >>>>>>  almost literally painted targets on the backs of those who are only   
   >>>>>>  enforcing the laws.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>  I think it is particularly telling that the law *doesn't* stop   
   criminals   
   >>>>>>  and "activists" (yes, I'm repeating myself there) from wearing masks   
   >>>>>>  while they carry out THEIR activities. Apparently, it is "unsafe" for   
   >>>>>>  ICE agents to keep their anonymity but perfectly fine for criminals to   
   >>>>>>  do so.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>  And this guy is the frontrunner for the presidential nomination for the   
   >>>>>>  Democrats in 2028! Nonsense like this should be a compelling argument   
   to   
   >>>>>>  disqualify Newsom entirely!!!   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>  As expected (and contrary to the claims of that brilliant legal mind   
   >>>>>  "super70s" here on RAT), a federal court has blocked Newsom's mask   
   >>>  ban for law   
   >>>>>  enforcement.   
   >>>>   
   >>>  The reason being because as written it would have only applied to   
   >>>  city/county law enforcement and Federal law enforcement but not state   
   >>>  law enforcement.  So it was discriminatory.  The judge also made if   
   >>>  crystal clear that was the ONLY real reason for blocking that part.   
   >>>   
   >>>  The other part, that the judge upheld, was the requirement to have   
   >>>  visible identification including names and/or badge numbers.  Which,   
   >>>  again as written, DID apply to all levels of law enforcement.   
   >>   
   >>  My error. I said he upheld bodycams.   
   >   
   > Ice Barbie claims...   
      
   I actually think the moniker "ICE Barbie" is pretty funny, but I will point   
   out that when people were calling Alexandria Occasional-Cortex "Communist   
   Barbie", we were all sternly admonished how misogynist that was.   
      
   I guess like everything else, it's only okay when Democrats do it.   
      
   > that BWC's are being issued to all ICE/CBP personnel,   
   > starting with Minneapolis.  Whether or not they will actually be used or   
   > anyone outside those agencies will see the video is another story.   
   >   
   > And there probably is another lawsuit, or multiple other lawsuits,   
   > regarding BWCs anyways.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)