I am NOT a republican and I am NOT a supporter of Donald Trump in any way.
But there are two points that interest me about how the media is dealing with the issues the Donald is bringing up in his most incompetent way of doing it: one, the way the term “terrorist” is being re-defined for us since 9/11; and two, how, in my view, our leaders and the MSM are stealthily leading us to accept limits on who can or can’t run for president based on the old un-American moral/political standards. WAIT! Don’t go away!
Don’t dismiss this yet! It was on your fears of another 9/11 that the until-then-impossible-to happen happened: you let them bomb your moral values to smithereens and accepted torture as an open US policy, as discussed later. Now the sky is their limit to what they can get you to accept surreptitiously against your own interests.
As, I guess, we all know, the significance of 9/11 is in the fact that the attack happened at home, not on some far-away American embassy or war ship. Any changes you make on your way of thinking about issues of war and politics, and any changes to your laws based on fear of another 9/11, will impact the rest of the relations, political and otherwise, of citizens among themselves and with their government here at home.
In my view, Trump is a useful fool for those trying to change our way of life, and I’m not referring to ISIS.The time is ripe for the winds of fascism to blow your mind again. The shameful Un-American witch hunt episode is coming back.
The one thing we should all keep in mind is that, once we open a door in politics and law, we can’t close it again for many years ahead.
Who is a Terrorist? Please Do Clarify
OK, we all know Trump’s personality, but, putting that and all other negative feelings he arouses in many of us aside, take a moment to scrutinize his words.
What he said, why and when actually matters in this juncture of our political life. Interestingly enough, he made his statement about Muslims entering the US (in the words of the NY Times):
a day after President Obama gave a rare Oval Office address to discuss fears of terrorism after the attacks in Paris and in San Bernardino, Calif. — a speech Republicans criticized as insufficiently reassuring.
It so happens that the republicans were not the only ones who found Obama’s speech “insufficiently reassuring”. Sure, they are politicians fighting for the presidency, which blunts their “criticism”, or it should have. But the MSM didn’t report on whether the rest of us, the citizens down here, felt reassured by Obama’ speech.
Trump, however, did something out of the norm, the MSM media norm, i.e.: he responded as citizens were reacting, and with a concrete proposal. I explain.
Trump said that his proposal was not meant to be permanent but “temporary” because, and this is key,:
“Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life,” Mr. Trump wrote in a statement.
Trump addressed the elephant in the room: Obama’ speech failed to calm many citizens in any of the two-halves of our political circle (republicans or democrats) because there is no clarity about who is a terrorist. Trump has the same problem must citizens have: we can feel the problem of lack of clarity but it’s difficult to name it because it is covered with so much politics that it becomes invisible. The problem that even Trump couldn’t put the finger on is that the term “terrorist” is being manipulated, under cover of fear, to get you used to it being applied to yourselves, to Americans who dissent.
Obama started his speech denying that the San Bernardino incident was a terrorist attack by ISIS. He clarified later in the speech that it was a terrorist attack, but by Americans on Americans. That’s why his focus was on gun control and why it felt as a scolding of Americans for being racists. And Trump reacted to that, not consciously, of course, with his “Until we are able to determine and understand this problem…”, the problem of Are we being attack because we are at war or because we are disgruntled people? How do we tell the difference, do we have to wait months until the government makes a determination in each case? It’s just ridiculous.
Again, I’m not defending gun-toting racists, nor the right to carry an arsenal of weapons in your back pocket. Those are topics for a different post.
The point here is that this administration and the MSM know that the public is against the war in the Middle East and that the justification for it is, at best, confusing if not outright immoral. Yes, Obama’ speech didn’t clarify anything, it was a scolding of Americans for being intolerant. And that is what Trump was referring to, in his Trump-ist way: that the speech left us more confused with the way it played with the term ‘terrorist’. More on that later.
The Moral SWAT Team: You Can’t Run, You Are Un-American
What viable solutions has anyone, democrat or republican, presented against the Donald’s request for “clarification” on the issue of who really is our enemy here, who are the “terrorists” here: racists Americans or ISIS? Nothing, except a cacophony of moral condemnation and this mantra:
“What was proposed yesterday is not what this party stands for and, more importantly, it’s not what this country stands for.”
What does America stands for? That’s the ‘Un-American’ argument, a political argument covered in moral trappings. The idea of returning to the days of the un-American witch hunt should give pause to every American.
The democrats have taken a step towards reviving that Un-American argument, and that’s what make this thing weird:
“The fact is that what Donald Trump said yesterday disqualifies him from serving as president, and for Republican candidates for president to stand by their pledge to support Mr. Trump, that in and of itself is disqualifying,” Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, told reporters at his daily briefing.
If you open that door again, you won’t be able to close this time.
The Lab Test
I propose that the MSM is taking a page from Mark Zuckerberg’s crass FB psy op on the American public, after all, the public clearly has no will to get angry when they are being openly manipulated. This is how I see it.
As I said before, ever since 9/11, our political ‘leaders’ have been testing how far they can push the public to voluntarily rescind their rights and their moral beliefs in exchange for the promise of keeping them safe at home.
They have taken this nation far enough already.
First, Americans easily accepted Chenney’s open torture policy. Many of us have known for a long time that our government practices torture and trains other nations’ police to torture their own citizens, but all along it was been done in ‘secret’. Only those who wanted to know the truth knew it. For the rest, there was “You can’t handle the truth.” But Chenney went to Congress and openly and vehemently made the case for torturing as a policy to keep the Americans safe. The public heard ‘safe‘ and quickly, quietly and mindlessly consented to have their moral beliefs bombed out to smithereens.
Americans have also rescinded political rights. It was soon after 9/11 that our Congress, riding the wave of opportunity that is fear, tested for the first time the public’s willingness to themselves be labeled by the government as ‘terrorist’. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act of 2006. was the first law, after 9/11, that labeled Americans dissenting at home as terrorists. You can read the interesting history behind that law here.
The point is that the fear of war-time terrorism, of being attack by foreigners with whom we are at war, was transformed into a political tool to limit your ability to dissent at home. And now, when the karma of our war policies come to manifest at home, our leaders focus on Americans as terrorists.
Today, Obama, the MSM and both parties (in other words, the powers that be and they represent) have joined in the task of convincing you that when they use the word ‘terrorist’ you should understand “you”.
And if you agree that X should not run for office because he or she is un-american, that will spread to the rest of society. If you behave in ways that anyone decide is unamerican, you are cooked.
This post will be revised for grammatical errors later.
Your comments are welcome.