By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem instructed “Face The Nation” host Margaret Brennan not to mention ICE agent Jonathan Ross’ name, citing concerns over “doxing” and an alleged rise in death threats against law enforcement. Despite Ross’ name being public, Noem insisted it shouldn’t be repeated, even though Brennan was inquiring about reports of internal bleeding. Noem’s statements followed a controversial incident where Ross fatally shot Renee Good, prompting scrutiny and debate over the use of force. Noem maintained Ross was healing and emphasized the need for law enforcement to carry out their duties safely without media criticism.
Read the original article here
Kristi Noem: Don’t Say ICE Agent Jonathan Ross’ Name? Well, that’s a loaded statement, isn’t it? It seems the core of this conversation revolves around the idea that Kristi Noem, for whatever reason, doesn’t want people mentioning the name of ICE Agent Jonathan Ross. The reasons why are, of course, the big question. It seems pretty clear, though, that this isn’t just about a simple request; it’s about a deeply felt outrage.
The crux of the matter appears to be Jonathan Ross’s alleged involvement in the death of a woman named Renee Good. The comments strongly imply a video of the incident exists, and that’s fueling a lot of anger. There’s an undeniable undercurrent of disbelief that anyone would try to silence the discussion around this, particularly given the seriousness of the allegations. The consistent refrain is, “Jonathan Ross, the murderer?” It’s a rhetorical question, but it highlights the central accusation.
The immediate reaction seems to be defiance. “We shouldn’t say that Jonathan Ross’ name?” is met with a chorus of “Jonathan Ross, Jonathan Ross, Jonathan Ross,” repeated almost like a mantra. This isn’t just about naming someone; it’s about making a point, refusing to be silenced. It’s about insisting on transparency and accountability.
Then, there’s the element of Noem herself. The fact that the story involves Noem adds another layer to this. The comments suggest that she may have inadvertently revealed details about Ross’s involvement, which the public then used to find out the agent’s name. This detail seems to add fuel to the fire, as if she made a mistake and now wants to cover it up, making her a target of further scorn.
The frustration is also directed at the platform itself. The removal of links to “ICE Wiki” information suggests a possible attempt at censorship, leading to increased resentment. This leads to accusations of protecting murderers, pedophiles, and other nefarious characters. The whole situation is deeply frustrating for those who believe they have the right to speak, and see themselves as fighting back against what they perceive as injustice and potential cover-ups.
The tone is often pointed, filled with a sense of righteous anger. The comments aren’t just about Jonathan Ross; they’re about the perceived hypocrisy of those in power. They are deeply suspicious of anyone trying to suppress the truth. There’s a feeling that they’re being told what to think or what to say. It boils down to a question of trust, and the answer is a resounding “no.”
Another point of contention is whether or not the victim, Renee Good, was attempting to kill Jonathan Ross. There is a sense that the accused actions were a direct result of the officer, Jonathan Ross’s, actions. The overall tone is about calling out, not about providing excuses or mitigating circumstances. There is no attempt at sympathy here.
The comments also venture into more general territory, connecting Jonathan Ross to broader themes of corruption and abuse of power. The implication is that this incident is not isolated; it’s a symptom of a larger problem. Donald Trump and Charlie Kirk get mentioned, not because of a direct connection to the Jonathan Ross case, but because of a shared sense of outrage.
The repeated use of “Jonathan Ross” is strategic. It’s a refusal to comply, a form of protest. It’s also a way of ensuring that the name, and the accusations, remain in the public eye. It is an affirmation of the values of truth, freedom of speech, and accountability.
Finally, there’s an interesting juxtaposition, a comparison to the UK TV Broadcaster Jonathan Ross. The idea is that there are two separate individuals with the same name. One is a TV personality who gets bad press, while the other is a man accused of serious criminal behavior.