Scene
from Charlottesville, VA — now heading for Portland, OR
(For
peaceful demonstration or violence???)
Big unknown factor this time around
(Concealed guns allowed and encouraged)
More “help” on the way to Portland well-dressed and “armed”
(Note the
message on his back and helmet)
Quick update on the following article as noted in the third photo above and story from The AP here (more police on the way armed and ready).
NY TIMES Op-Ed Columnist, Bret L. Stephens, recently received this voice mail in his office – below is his description of that call and previous ones, too – Stephens writes in this NY Times piece – startling and shocking at the same time.
NY TIMES Op-Ed Columnist, Bret L. Stephens, recently received this voice mail in his office – below is his description of that call and previous ones, too – Stephens writes in this NY Times piece – startling and shocking at the same time.
“The voice, if I had to guess, belongs to that of a white
American male in late middle age. The accent is faintly Southern, the manner
taunting but relaxed. It’s also familiar: I’m pretty sure he’s left a message
on my office number before. But the last voice mail left almost no impression.
Not this time:”
“Hey Bret, what do you think? Do you think the pen is
mightier than the sword, or that the AR is mightier than the pen? I don’t carry
an AR but once we start shooting you f--kers you aren’t going to pop off like
you do now. You’re worthless, the press is the enemy of the United States
people and, you know what, rather than me shoot you, I hope a Mexican and, even
better yet, I hope a n— shoots you in the head, dead.”
“He then repeats the racial slur 10 times in a staccato rhythm,
concluding with the sendoff: “Have a nice day, n— lover.” He doesn’t give his
name. His number is blocked.
Stephens raises
excellent points and conclusion his article:
The call dates from the end of May, right after I had published a column defending
ABC’s firing of Roseanne Barr for a racist tweet. I wrote: “Perhaps the reason
Trump voters are so frequently the subject of caricature, is that they so
frequently conform to type.”
Four weeks later, a gunman
storms into a newsroom in Annapolis, MD and murders five employees of the
Capital Gazette. The alleged killer in the Annapolis shooting does not appear
to have acted from a political motive.
But the message I got in May was the third time I’ve been expressly or implicitly threatened with
violence by someone whose views clearly align with Donald Trump’s.
Otherwise, the only equivalent threat I’ve dealt with in my career involved a
Staten Island man who later went to prison for his ties to Hezbollah.
By now, it almost passes without comment that the president of the United States not only violates the ground rules of his own
meetings with the press, but also misrepresents the substance of the conversation.
By now, it almost passes without comment that the president of the United States not only violates the ground rules of his own
meetings with the press, but also misrepresents the substance of the conversation.
(I note: The key part that helps to explain who Trump
truly is):
Stephens continues re: the July 20 meeting between
Trump and two senior leaders of The Times, publisher A.G. Sulzberger and
editorial page editor James Bennet. As Sulzberger later
described the encounter, he warned the president that “[…] his language was
not just divisive but increasingly dangerous, and that characterizations of the
news media as ‘the enemy of the people’ are contributing to a rise in threats
against journalists and will lead to violence.” Sulzberger’s warning had no
effect.
Nine days after what was supposed to be an off-the-record
meeting, the president tweeted that he and Sulzberger
“spent much time talking about vast amounts of Fake News being put out by the
media & how that Fake News has morphed into phrase ‘Enemy of the People.’
Sad!”
(I
note: With that Trump tweet, he
broke the agreement about the meeting being “off-the-record” which is a routine
Trump technique for the maximum impact to his base of supporters, regardless of
the matter at hand or the issue or question as long as it fits Trump’s agenda
for his aim and goal and no one else’s).
Stephens’ article continues:
Also nearly past comment was the president’s remark, in a follow-on tweet, that
the media were “very unpatriotic for revealing internal deliberations of our
government that could put people’s lives at risk.”
That’s almost funny considering that no media organ has revealed more
such deliberations, with less regard for
consequences, than Trump's beloved WikiLeaks.
That can’t be ignored is presidential behavior that
might best be described as incitement. Maybe Trump supposes that the worst he’s
doing is inciting the people who come to his rallies to give reporters
like CNN’s Jim Acosta the
finger. And maybe he thinks that most journalists, with their relentless
hostility to his personality and policies, richly deserve public scorn.
Key part and Stephens conclusion:
Yet for every 1,000 or so Trump supporters whose contempt for the press rises
only as far as their middle fingers, a few will be people like my caller. Of
that few, how many are ready to take the next fatal step? In the age of the
active shooter, the number isn’t zero.
Should that happen — when that happens — and
journalists are dead because some nut thinks he’s doing the president’s bidding
against the fifth column that is the media, what will Trump’s supporters say?
No, the president is not coyly urging his supporters to murder reporters, like
Henry II trying to rid himself of a turbulent priest.
But neither is he the
child who played with a loaded gun and knew not what he did. Donald Trump’s
more sophisticated defenders have long since mastered the art of pretending
that the only thing that matters with his presidency is what it does, not what
he says.
But not all of the president’s defenders are quite as sophisticated.
Some of them didn’t get the memo about taking Trump seriously but not
literally.
A few hear the phrase “enemy of the people” and are prepared to take
the words to their logical conclusion. Is my caller one of them? I can’t say.
But what should
be clear is this: We are approaching a day when blood on the
newsroom floor will be blood on the president’s hands.
My 2 cents: There
is not much more I can add to this excellent article. Whether anyone agrees or
not with the above assessment, it is factual and facts cannot be disputed nor
can they be replaced by some narrow-minded Trump supporter’s personal views and
ultra-rightwing opinion – but they keep in trying don’t they?
Finally this is
directly related to the above analysis here from The AP re: “Portland, OR
is bracing for what could be another round of violent clashes.
Last and critical
point: Oregon supporters can carry concealed weapons as they demonstrate – here is a state-by-state law data base
on concealed weapon carry (Note: there is no federal law on concealed carry).
Thanks for stopping by.
No comments:
Post a Comment