Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Trump assassination attempt’

Kamala Harris Is Priming Democrats for Violent Resistance If Trump Wins


By: John Daniel Davidson | October 17, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/10/17/kamala-harris-is-priming-democrats-for-violent-resistance-if-trump-wins/

Kamala Harris

Author John Daniel Davidson profile

John Daniel Davidson

Visit on Twitter@johnddavidson

More Articles

By now it’s commonplace to note that Kamala Harris often seems out of her depth, like she’s unsure what to say about policy, or how to explain her past positions, or why she hasn’t already done the things she’s promised to do if she’s elected given that she’s the current vice president.

But on one particular subject she’s been consistent and forceful throughout her campaign. She’s adamant that Donald Trump will destroy America if he’s reelected. And not “destroy” in the sense of enact bad policies, but that he’ll round people up with the military and put them in camps. She talks about this all the time now. At one point during her Wednesday evening interview with Bret Baier on Fox News, she became visibly upset after Baier played a clip of former President Donald Trump calling out the weaponization of government and the endless investigations and lawfare he’s been subjected to.

The vice president, her voice rising in outrage, jabbed her finger at Baier and said, “You and I both know that he has talked about turning the American military on the American people. He has talked about going after people who are engaged in peaceful protest. He has talked about locking people up because they disagree with him.”

At a campaign rally in Pennsylvania this week she told the crowd that former President Donald Trump considers anyone who doesn’t support him to be an enemy of the United States. “He is saying he would use the military to go after them.”

Earlier this week, during an audio town hall with Charlamagne Tha God, Harris claimed without a hint of irony that if Trump is elected, he’ll use the Department of Justice “as a weapon against his political enemies,” adding, “You know who does that? Dictators do that.” At one point during the show, she agreed with a caller who said Trump will lock “anyone who doesn’t look white into camps,” replying, “You’ve hit on a really important point and expressed it I think so well.”

That’s just a sampling from this week, but there are many other recent examples. In the waning weeks of the presidential election, Harris has been deploying increasingly extreme rhetoric about Trump and the dangers he poses to the country. Even before Harris seized the Democratic nomination from President Joe Biden, the idea that Trump is an existential threat to American democracy was the refrain of the Biden campaign. Harris has taken that theme and run with it. The purpose of it isn’t just to scare voters into casting their ballot against the former president, or to provoke some unstable would-be assassin into taking a shot at Trump (although some Democrats no doubt see that as a happy by-product of this Trump-as-dictator rhetoric). Its main purpose is to prime Democrat voters for violent resistance should Trump win in November.

Consider the lopsidedness of the rhetoric between the Trump and Harris campaigns. Trump often makes sweeping (and mostly true) statements about the deep state, about the border and illegal immigration, about crime, about how Harris and the Democrats are destroying the country. But when he uses the phrase “destroying the country,” he’s talking about things like crime, homelessness, drug addiction, rampant inflation and the cost of groceries. These things, he says, are the result of policies Democrats have put in place. If you’re looking for someone to blame, he says, blame Biden and Harris, because all these problems are their fault.

But that’s not what Harris and the Democrats are doing with their rhetoric. They’re not making a case that crime and inflation will be worse under Trump because of his policies. Democrats aren’t really interested in policy. What they’re doing is pushing a narrative that Trump is going to be a fascist dictator if he wins office and use the powers of the presidency to go after ordinary Americans. That’s an extreme and frankly unhinged position with no basis in reality. You don’t say things like that unless you’re hoping to provoke a strong reaction, and the reaction Democrats are hoping to provoke is violent resistance to a second Trump term.

After all, if you really thought that Trump would order the military and the Justice Department to round up you and your family, wouldn’t you do anything to stop him? Wouldn’t you take to the streets to save your country and thwart the rise of a fascist dictatorship? At least two would-be assassins have taken the Democrats’ anti-Trump rhetoric seriously. Harris is hoping that many more people will do so between now and Election Day and respond by rejecting a second Trump term — in the streets, if they must.

There’s a precedent for this that Democrats set four years ago. During the BLM riots in the summer of 2020, Harris herself was out in front egging on the rioters, infamously working to raise bail money for those who had been arrested. Of the protests, she said this in a June 2020 interview with Stephen Colbert: “Everyone beware. They’re not gonna stop before Election Day in November, and they’re not gonna stop after Election Day … They’re not gonna let up, and they should not.”

Harris and her fellow Democrats knew that the civic unrest unleashed by BLM and Antifa rioters would damage Trump’s reelection campaign, and they did their utmost to amplify the violence and also justify it by claiming the moral high ground. The protesters and rioters were only reacting to systemic injustice, after all, and as Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “A riot is the language of the unheard.”

All of this only makes sense if you understand that Harris isn’t just a bumbling politician but a left-wing radical, and left-wing radicals have no qualms about using violence as a political weapon. If your goal is to seize and wield political power as part of a revolutionary program to transform America, then who cares if a couple neighborhoods here there get burned to the ground in race riots? Who cares if some young women get raped and killed by illegal immigrants, or a handful of apartment complexes get taken over by criminal alien gangs? Those things on their own might be unpleasant or disturbing, but they’re all in the service of a greater goal, which is the re-shaping of American society. So, it’s all justified.

What Harris and the Democrats are doing with this line about Trump rounding up Americans and putting them in camps is preparing the ground for massive civic unrest in the event of a Trump victory. The purpose of the unrest would be to cripple Trump’s administration before he even takes office, and to disrupt normal life for so many Americans that they will rue the day they ever voted for Trump.

It’s the hecklers veto on steroids, and it’s exactly what Harris is planning for and hoping to provoke if Trump wins.

John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. He is the author of Pagan America: the Decline of Christianity and the Dark Age to Come. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:


“Let’s Hope Today’s Events Inspire Others”: Rutgers Professor Under Fire for Posting on Trump Assassination Attempt

We have been following the controversies surrounding professors commenting on the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump. Some of those responses have ranged from celebrations to spreading bizarre conspiracy theories. The latest controversy concerns Rutgers University Writing Program Assistant Teaching Professor Tracy Budd, who posted a Facebook message saying” Let’s hope today’s events inspire others.” These postings raise difficult questions for universities in balancing free speech rights against statements viewed as endorsing violence.

Professor Budd is engaged in what I called “rage rhetoric” in my new book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.” Indeed, she perfectly embodies the following from the beginning of the book:

“We are living in an age of rage. It permeates every aspect of our society and politics. Rage is liberating, even addictive. It allows us to say and do things that we would ordinarily avoid, even denounce in others. Rage is often found at the farthest extreme of reason. For those who agree with the underlying message, it is righteous and passionate. For those who disagree, it is dangerous and destabilizing.”

Like many on the left, Budd mocked the assassination attempt and seemed to regret that it was not successful. She added, ”They shot his wig. Sad.”

For most of us, the comments are shocking, but shock is a relative concept in an age of rage. Budd, like many, does not appear to view Trump as a human being as much as a symbol or object. He is treated as devoid of human components from feelings to family. It is easier to call for the killing of a caricature than a person.

Budd is obviously part of the radical chic in higher education discussed in my book.  She has worked at the Rutgers University Writing Program for 22 years.

Conservative sites like Campus Reform have noted that her Facebook account features a poster at a protest that reads: “Capitalism will kill us all. Gender is fake. Eat garbage. Be free.” The posting is an example of the difficult questions that arise on social media. This was a comment made outside of the campus as a private person, not as an academic.

Yet, there have been calls for Budd to be fired.

My inclination is always to err on the side of free speech in such circumstances. The university can condemn it, but punishing political speech can place a university on a slippery slope. Moreover, Rutgers is a public university subject to the First Amendment. I do not believe that disciplinary action would be upheld under these circumstances. Rutgers could argue that this is a call for political violence. However, Professor Budd can insist that this is mere hyperbole and bad humor.

My concern is not with allowing Budd’s hateful speech, but the lack of consistency in how universities respond to such controversies.

Many conservative or libertarian professors find themselves suspended or under investigation for controversial tweets or jokes. Conversely, it is comparably rare to see such action against those on the left who use inflammatory language including professors advocating “detonating white people,” denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer,  strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements.

The most analogous case is that of University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. Yet, those extreme statements from the left are rarely subject to cancel campaigns or university actions.

Faculty and students often have little tolerance for even jokes from conservatives as they do alleged jokes by liberals like Budd.

For example, conservative North Carolina professor Dr. Mike Adams faced calls for termination for years with investigations and cancel campaigns. He repeatedly had to go to court to defend his right to continue to teach. He was then again targeted after an inflammatory tweet. He was done. Under pressure from the university, he agreed to resign with a settlement. Four years ago this month, Adams went home just days before his final day as a professor. He then committed suicide.

What are often portrayed as harmless jokes from the left are treated as threats from the right. That is the long reality of rage rhetoric; it is either righteous or dangerous depending on your perspective.

Category:

Education, Political

Tagged with:

 Michael Matranga Op-ed: Trump assassination attempt: 3 key questions the Secret Service must answer


By Michael Matranga Fox News | Published July 22, 2024 4:00am EDT

Read more at https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-assassination-attempt-3-key-questions-secret-service-must-answer

The American people are more than a week out from the attempted assassination of President Donald Trump in Butler, Pa. We have few – if any – answers as to why it was allowed to occur. As a former Secret Service agent, I have three crucial questions that we need answers to right away. 

1. Who Was Responsible for Securing the Building? 

There was catastrophic failure in defining and communicating who was responsible for posting and holding the building where the shooter, Thomas Matthew Crooks, accessed the rooftop and fired at President Trump and rally attendees from on Saturday, July 13th.  

SECRET SERVICE DIRECTOR KIMBERLY CHEATLE REACTS TO INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF TRUMP ASSASSINATION PLOT

The way the Secret Service primarily defines and designates responsibility is through a series of events commonly known as the “7 Phases of Site Advance.” All agents are trained in this process prior to graduating from the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Glynco, Georgia.

Video

We assess potential weaknesses and points of interest where a threat could emerge. We need to ask how the information or specific assignments regarding the duties of the Butler Township Police Department became unclear.

Simply put, the United States Secret Service is a Dual Mission Agency. It’s both investigative and protective. Though the Investigative Mission was the original purpose of the agency’s formation in 1865, in 1901 after the assassination of President William McKinley, the United States Secret Service began protecting America’s presidents, vice presidents and other heads of state.  

Video

Over the last decade, the United States Secret Service (USSS) has been under a tremendous manpower strain due to limited resources. Numerous appeals to increase the budget for recruitment and to advance the agency’s technological capabilities have not been fruitful.

WHO WAS THOMAS MATTHEW CROOKS? WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT TRUMP’S ATTEMPTED ASSASSIN

Many of these requests have been denied by the Department of Homeland Security and Congress. If granted, an increase was minimal to an already anemic budget.  Combined with the high demand for additional details to be stood up at the request of current and past administrations, it has wreaked havoc on the agency and put additional strain on the obligation to keep protectees safe. 

Video

The last three administrations have all added additional protectees to the responsibility of the agency and the men and women of the United States Secret Service. Yet, there remains a tremendous strain on manpower, hence the need for the agency to rely so heavily on the local authorities to fill the gaps.

I am confident what the American people will see as the investigation unfolds is that the “rooftop” in question was addressed as a concern by the Counter Sniper & Counter Assault Team who are responsible for the tactical advance. With that said, due to manpower restraints, the outer perimeter posts are primarily manned by local counterparts. Though the agency cannot function without their cooperation, the reality is that policing and security are not the same – one is primarily reactive and the other proactive and preventative.  

FIRST CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRAT CALLS FOR SECRET SERVICE DIRECTOR TO RESIGN OVER TRUMP ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT

By using primarily reactive local counterpart units, there has always been a disconnect about why we in the security industry, especially the United States Secret Service, do things which those in the reactive industry normally carry out. For instance, standing on the roof of a building in the hot sun for hours to ensure the integrity of the site before, during and shortly after one of the agency’s protective visits.

Video

For the shooter in Butler, Pa. to fall through the cracks is beyond me. We need to know who made the call for the local counterparts to remain inside the building rather than on top of the roof. If the directive to be on top of the building was given by the agency, then why, prior to taking the stage or arriving at the site once the site posts were manned and the site was secured, was a correction not made? 

DONALD TRUMP’S SECRET SERVICE PROTECTION UNDER INVESTIGATION FOLLOWING ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT

2) Why was President Trump allowed to take the stage at the time he did? 

We must not assume, based on media reports, that the Secret Service and Butler Township police had information prior to President Trump taking the stage in Pennsylvania that Crooks was a person of interest, based upon media reports.

Based upon the writing captured in the online gaming platform he used to describe his “premiere” being on July 13, we can’t assume that anyone would know what his intentions were due to the vagueness of his post. 

TRUMP TELLS JESSE WATTERS THAT HE WAS NOT WARNED ABOUT GUNMAN, DESPITE REPORTS

We must ask how the information was processed by local authorities within his parents’ jurisdiction and if that information was relayed to Butler Township and subsequently to the Secret Service. 

Video

Based upon my knowledge, skills, training, and professional experience, that statement alone from the parents would not constitute a threat. We must wait until there is a full investigation to be able to determine if the communications sequence of events is thoroughly examined to determine where the failure was and who is responsible.

Crooks appears to have impulsively put together a hasty plan within the 24–36 hours prior to the event. The USSS, for almost 3 decades, has conducted extensive research on these events and commonly refer to this as “pre-attack planning.” According to reports, his parents notified authorities he was missing and potentially had ill intentions towards former President Trump. This is what we commonly refer to as leakage. 

There are now videos that have surfaced showing Crooks conducting what appears to be a site survey or reconnaissance. My question is: If the parents reported him to authorities and expressed his potential target as being President Trump, was that information relayed from the receiving agency to the Butler Township Police and further the protective detail? 

Video

ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT ON TRUMP AT PENNSYLVANIA RALLY LEAVES 2 HURT, 2 DEAD, INCLUDING SHOOTER

Speaking from experience, it is common to have reports of an unknown suspicious person at protective sites. All efforts are made to locate the individual by the designated Counter Surveillance Team. If located, those individuals will be interviewed by the designated Protective Intelligence Team to determine their intentions. However, if the information were relayed and the authorities had an unknown suspicious person on the ground and there was an imminent threat, I believe the following questions would be appropriate to ask those in charge:

* Why the rush to get the president on stage? 

* Why not delay?

Protective assignments 101 would dictate that you would hold off on having the person you are assigned to protect with protecting be put in a potentially life-threatening position. 

SECRET SERVICE RESPONDS TO REPORT THEY ‘REPEATEDLY’ DENIED REQUESTS TO TRUMP SECURITY DETAIL IN THE PAST

The truth is that it would have taken little effort to take a tactical pause, assess the situation, locate the person of interest and prevent what the American people haven’t seen in 43 years – an assassination attempt on a president. 

Video

3. When will USSS Chief Kimberly Cheatle speak to the American people? 

According to reports, the United States Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle will provide testimony before a Senate Panel this coming week to answer these questions. 

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

As a former agent, I know the agency has a “One Voice Policy,” which I agree with. However, this is a historic event. I, former colleagues, and others currently serving in the agency feel her lack of transparency and decision not to speak to the American people was a failure. We deserve better. 

To the men and women of the United States Secret Service, keep doing what you are doing. This is not a reflection of you but instead a reflection of failed policies, failed leadership, divisive politics, failed political appointments on numerous levels and those within the agency in higher leadership roles. 

Video

Some may have forgotten that it is you who breathe that breathes life into the agency. It is you that makes it happen on a day-to-day basis. Stay strong, lean on each other, band together and keep your head on a swivel. 

This country needs you, the silent protectors, the ones who sacrifice births, first steps, weekends, holidays and other precious moments that we, as Americans, take for granted daily. You are the men and women in the arena.

We need answers as to who knew what and when. My hope is that Director Cheatle can provide some insights for the American people and the men and women of the Secret Service. 

Michael Matranga is a former United States Secret Service Agent assigned to the Special Operations Division, Counter Assault Team & Presidential Protective Division. He currently serves as the owner & CEO of M6 Global Defense, a consulting firm dedicated to protecting America’s children and workplaces.

Category:

Crime, Political

Tagged with:

Tag Cloud