A bombshell segment on MSNBC’s Alex Wagner Tonight show (04/30/24) delved into a recent interview Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump had with Time Magazine. As host Alex Wagner correctly pointed out, the biggest bombshell from the Time interview was Trump’s admission that if elected president again, he would be open to a draconian immigration policy that mirrors former President Eisenhower’s infamous “Operation Wetback.”
Time Magazine’s Eric Cortellessa(2:35): “You’ve said you’re gonna do this massive deportation operation. I want to know specifically how you plan to do that.”
Trump: “So, if you look back to the 1950s, [President] Dwight Eisenhower was very big on illegal immigration not coming to our country. And he did a massive deportation of people.”
Any reasonable person presented with Trump’s response would conclude, as host Alex Wagner did, that if elected president again, Trump intends to craft a draconian immigration policy that mirrors Eisenhower’s “Operation Wetback”.
It will be interesting to see how Hispanics, who Trump has successfully peeled off from the “reliable Democrats” tent, will react to this bombshell revelation. As host Wagner correctly pointed out, a lot of U.S. citizens of Mexican descent also got swept up in Eisenhower’s militarized “Operation Wetback” raids, and got deported illegally to Mexico.
Will a potential “Operation Wetback 2.0” be a game-changer with MAGA Hispanics in 2024, making them pull the lever for Biden? Hmm, as Trump famously says, “We’ll see what happens.”
I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out the fact that in the interview, Trump also appeared eager to expand law enforcement’s “qualified immunity” to a point where it is practically “absolute immunity”. This would dramatically roll back progress that has been made–and there has been progress–in the fight against police brutality, especially as it pertains to Black and Brown communities. Will this be a game-changer for the so-called BlacksForTrump? Hmm, we shall see.
For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App
Email author at admin@grassrootsdempolitics.com
Become an Octapharma Plasma donor. Make up to $200 in one week and help save lives too! Learn More
Interesting segment on ABC’s GMA show delved into billionaire Elon Musk’s cutting edge brain technology–Neuralink implants–that are supposed to revolutionize how we deal with neurological disorders. The GMA segment came against the backdrop of news reports that the first Neuralink implant on a human had taken place.
Elon Musk said his Neuralink brain-chip startup has put an implant in a human patient for the first time, adding that the patient is recovering well and that ‘initial results show promising neuron spike detection’ https://t.co/a637OfwJ82pic.twitter.com/b0cjtJMteP
The guest, Dr Leah Croll described Neuralink technology thus (0:38): “Basically this is the concept of using a brain machine interface to help people. Neuralink is a device that gets implanted within the brain, and then reads the electrical signals that our brain cells are constantly sending to one another, and then it can translate those signals into actions outside of the body, in this case the ability to control a computer or smartphone.”
Dr Croll added that this is by no means novel technology saying, “It [Neuralink] is absolutely not the first player on this field. This area of research really started back in the 90s but in recent years the pace of that research has just accelerated immensely…”
But as we know all too well, with every cutting edge technology, there are bound to be negative effects, and to that, Dr Jen Ashton popped this million dollar question (1:50): “Physically, what are the risks, and ethically, what are the risks that you can see with this type of technology?”
Dr Croll responded that because we are dealing with brain implants here, we should treat Neuralink procedures as any other brain surgery, and worry about all the physical risks we normally associate with such surgeries–bleeding, damage to brain tissue etc. As for the ethical concerns raised by Neuralink, she said (2:26): “When we get into the ethical realm, that raises so many questions because we are in completely uncharted territory here. There’s concerns about the data that this device is collecting and how secure it might be, there’s potential for privacy concerns to come into play, bad actors could potentially come into play and hack these devices. So there’s a lot of discussions that the medical community is going to have to have with the legal community, the ethical community, the technological community, so we can work together to figure out how we regulate something like this.”
Any reasonable person watching this GMA segment would conclude that even though Elon Musk’s Neuralink technology, on its face,exhibits the potential for significantly improving how we treat neurological disorders, the technology comes with serious ethical concerns that necessitate guardrails before proceeding.
This also means time has finally come for the government to come clean regarding the plight of targeted individuals, who have complained for decades about being the subjects of these “mind reading” technologies while being laughed out of the room as some crazy conspiracy theorists. This GMA segment establishes conclusively that we do indeed have technology that can read minds and more importantly, that this research has been going on since the 90s. It’s also worth pointing out that while Dr Croll correctly insists that there must be guardrails put in place before this technology is deployed to the public, targeted individuals have endured this very invasive technology with zero ethical guardrails. Should they be compensated for the irreparable harm this invasive technology has subjected them to? Should Congress hold hearings into government research projects in this field such as DARPA, to ensure that there have not been abuses? These are the questions one hopes the media will pose to the government as we delve deeper into the Neuralink era.
For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App
Email author at admin@grassrootsdempolitics.com
Become an Octapharma Plasma donor. Make up to $200 in one week and help save lives too! Learn More
The bombshell seditious conspiracy indictment of 11 members of the militia group OathKeepers following their involvement in the January 6th insurrection, is raising serious questions as to how far up the law enforcement, military, and intelligence food chain, the conspiracy went. Specifically, given the level of tactical military sophistication they displayed on January 6th, there are valid questions as to whether Trump-allied senior members of U.S. law enforcement, military, and intelligence apparatus, gave material support, or even worse, are still members of this dangerous militia group that attempted to violently overthrow the government. A segment on CNN’s Outfront with Erin Burnett(01/13/22) delved into this very topic.
Host Erin Burnett said in relevant part: “Prior planning, coordination, sedition, weapons. The 11 people charged today, were[in a]conspiracy, and they are not small fish, like many of the more than 700 people already charged, some of who may have been wrapped up in the moment. Not the case with these individuals. This group had a level of combat training, they were prepared to use force, they had a stash of weapons that they brought for that specific intent, and the question tonight is…now you’ve got a conspiracy, you’ve got planning, you’ve got it all laid out. How much higher does that go?”
Any reasonable person presented with the OathKeepers indictment would reasonably conclude, as host Erin Burnett did, that given the sophistication of their January 6th operation, people higher up in the law enforcement, military, intelligence and even political food chain, were providing material support to the OathKeepers. Providing material support to this dangerous militia group would also necessarily imply that they are members of the group–a scary thought indeed.
CNN’s Sara Sidner followed up with an in depth look at OathKeepers leader Stewart Rhodes in an appearance on New Day (01/14/22), where she dropped a bombshell that further bolsters the troubling prospect that the OathKeepers may have enjoyed material support from insiders within our law enforcement, military and intelligence ranks.
Sara Sidner said: “One of the things the OathKeepers do, is they try and recruit either current or former military, current or former members of law enforcement, current or former people who have been part of the intelligence apparatus in the United States, whether it be the FBI , CIA, anybody that they can get and bring into the organization, and when you think about that, it means that they have tactical training to do something like this[January 6th], and to plan something like this.”
This raises serious questions including but not limited to, what kind of arms and illegally acquired intelligence the OathKeepers currently have, whether in light of this indictment, it’s still okay to have active members of our law enforcement, military, and intelligence apparatus being active members of this violent militia group, etc.
Bottom line folks, Erin Burnett’s question as to how high up this conspiracy goes, is a very serious one, that needs to be seriously addressed by Congress, especially the January 6th Committee, and the mainstream media. For the record, this question has been raised before by concerned members of the public, including Yours Truly, but always treated as one requiring a voluntary answer from our law enforcement, military and intelligence brass. Given the seriousness of this OathKeepers indictment, this question should no longer be one that requires a voluntary answer. The mainstream media and Congress, preferably the January 6th Committee, must demand an answer from leaders in our law enforcement, military and intelligence agencies, as to how much the OathKeepers have infiltrated their ranks. This is a serious national security problem, and it should be treated as such. A major part of the January 6th Committee’s mission is to prevent another January 6th-type insurrection. Reasonable people will agree that rooting out extremism within our law enforcement, military, and intelligence ranks will go a long way in fulfilling that mission.
Specific emphasis should be placed on Trumper states like Texas, which has a heavy OathKeepers presence, and was involved all the way to the top(AG Paxton and other political leaders) in Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. What other nefarious activities are the OathKeepers enlisted for in such states? Did the Texas political establishment provide material support to the OathKeepers, for their January 6th operation?
For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App
Email author at admin@grassrootsdempolitics.com
Become an Octapharma Plasma donor. Make up to $200 in one week and help save lives too! Learn More
