By Matt Underwood The core of the matter centers around the former ICE chief’s assessment that the statement made by Governor Noem regarding the Minneapolis shooting was “incredibly irresponsible”. It’s a phrase that, in this context, barely scratches the surface of the gravity of the situation. The sentiment among many is that it veers far beyond irresponsibility, approaching something more akin to deliberate malice and evil. The refusal of the administration to acknowledge errors, even in the face of glaring evidence, speaks volumes about its priorities and how it operates.
The situation in Minneapolis raises serious questions about the role of ICE and its actions, particularly the enforcement of minor border violations far from the actual border. The deployment of ill-trained individuals into communities, armed and potentially dangerous, fuels a climate of fear and raises concerns about the safety of citizens. The call for criminal charges against the leadership, including those responsible for the statements made, reflects a deep-seated anger and frustration at what many perceive as a gross abuse of power.
The assessments of the statements by those in the administration, including Noem, are viewed by many as outright falsehoods. The public can view videos of the event. The implication is that these statements were crafted not to provide clarity or truth, but to propagate a specific narrative, even if it meant distorting the reality of what occurred. Some believe this calculated propaganda could be used to create fear. This situation is reminiscent of an environment where state-controlled media is the norm.
The response to the shooting has spurred accusations of a blatant disregard for truth, with the rhetoric used echoing a level of deception that is frankly frightening. The fact that the media coverage seems to have asked the viewers to draw their own conclusions about whether the statements and what was viewed by everyone else with their own eyes matches up reveals how much truth is valued.
The underlying concern is that there is a systematic campaign to demonize anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the administration’s specific viewpoint. This narrative is an attempt to justify any violence against the population. The fact that the administration does not appear to care about the truth, and the ongoing lies, is the most terrifying part of the situation. This administration’s behavior should be compared to a terrorist organization.
The calls for accountability, the demand for charges and the underlying sentiment is that the language around this should not be soft. Instead, the situation is a matter of a full-blown murder. They are exclusively talking to their die hard supporters and they do not care how many people they kill.
The suggestion that the administration is “moving to ‘naked, open-ended threats'” is a critical point. The administration doesn’t even need to pretend to uphold values or standards anymore. They are speaking to their base and the rhetoric being used demonstrates a complete lack of concern for the truth, for the law, or for the safety and well-being of the population.