Trump Refuses to Keep This Country Safe from Terrorism

I thought a lot about two things over the weekend.

I thought about the line that disqualifies an otherwise excellent book on left wing terrorism in the 1970s, Days of Rage: “With the possible exception of the Ku Klux Klan,” author Bryan Burrough claimed close to the beginning of the book, “the United States until 1970 had never spawned any kind of true underground movement committed to terrorist acts.” The book, which spends a lot of time talking about left wing political violence in significant part stemmed out of a concern for the rights of African Americans, utterly dismissed (perhaps because it was so widely accepted it could barely be called “underground”?) America’s most persistent terrorist movement as such. The line has haunted me ever since as an example of the kind of blindness even experts have about the centrality of right wing terrorism in American history.

I thought, too, about Charlie Savage’s description in Power Wars of how Scott Brown’s team claimed that his polling showed he won the 2010 special election to replace Ted Kennedy chiefly because of perceptions of how Obama responded to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s failed Christmas Eve bombing, because Brown attacked Obama for wanting to give terrorists due process. Once Republicans learned that, they doubled down, encouraging voters to become more afraid.

In a question-and-answer period following his prepared remarks, [Mitch] McConnell candidly acknowledged the political advantage of hammering away at the issue, citing Brown’s victory.

“If this approach of putting these people in U.S. courts doesn’t play in Massachusetts, I don’t know where it sells,” McConnell said, adding: “You can campaign on these issues anywhere in America.”

As Savage describes, that was when Obama started caving on his efforts to adopt a more reasonable approach to terrorism, first reversing Eric Holder’s decision to try the 9/11 defendants in NYC, then launching an 18-month campaign to drone kill Anwar al-Awlaki, and ultimately failing to close Gitmo or hold torturers to account.

Now, as Savage tells it, all that arose solely out of the Abdulmutallab case. He barely covered an event that preceded it, one where Republicans very much set up the Brown lines: when Pete Hoekstra leaked information obtained via FISA collection showing that Nidal Hasan had had communications with Awlaki before his attack on Fort Hood, using it to suggest the Obama Administration should have prevented the Fort Hood attack by adequately analyzing collected communications. Republican efforts to exact a cost from Obama for a more reasonable approach to terrorism (which included demanding that Obama call Hasan’s attack on a military target, terrorism) actually preceded the Abdulmutallab attack, and it was far more deliberate than made out.

The point is, though, that it had the short term desired effect of breaking the Democratic super majority in the Senate and the longer term effect of making Obama reactive on terrorism, rather than proactive (even through the time, in 2013, when Massachusetts was successfully attacked at the Boston Marathon and polls showed people actually didn’t want any more limits on civil liberties). Republicans deliberately and successfully forced a president who wanted to be something other than a War on Terror President to instead be just that.

And now, 8 years after Mitch McConnell gleefully said Republicans should run on hard nose accountability for terrorist attacks everywhere, Republicans are whining that Democrats are treating Trump’s actions in advance of and in the wake of serial right wing terrorist attacks last week as a political issue.

In the wake of last week’s terrorist attacks, we have returned to a discussion we always have after such things, why we call Islamic terrorism terror, but call the targeting of black churches and Jewish synagogues hate crimes and the attempted assassination of Democratic figures bomb attacks. Popehat wrote a worthy lawsplainer, from the viewpoint of a former prosecutor, why domestic terrorists don’t get (immediately) labeled as terrorist attacks. 9/11 Commission staffer Daniel Byman acknowledged that while we don’t have the same legal structure for pursuing domestic terrorist as we do terrorism with a foreign nexus, for the Pittsburgh case, at least, we should probably use the T-word.

I’ve talked about why it is important to call domestic terrorism terrorism here: First, because not doing so results in an equal protection problem, where Muslims are more likely to be targeted in a sting because the FBI has greater access to the communications of still-innocent people with suspect people overseas. And, because calling something terrorism conceives of the possibility of a supporting network, and investigating that network might prevent deaths, such as those perpetrated by the networks of Eric Rudolph or Kevin Harpham.

But the government may not call these acts terrorism. That’s true, in part, because DOJ has invented a separate category to criminalize (impose the death penalty on) hateful motives with hate crimes designation. In addition, Jeff Sessions’ DOJ has adopted a deliberate policy of record-keeping to try to claim that the greatest threats come from outside the country, which is paralleled by their thus far unsuccessful attempt to brand the (US-born) MS-13 gang both as a threat sourced from Central American and as a threat to rival ISIS.

Trump’s effort to brand a group of refugees 1,000 miles from the border as a more urgent threat to the country than corruption or climate change or domestic gun violence — an effort which likely had a tie to both Cesar Sayoc’s terrorist attempt and Robert Bowers’ mass killing — is more of the same, an effort to claim that the most critical threats are foreign and anything he deems a threat is therefore un-American, also foreign.

Ultimately, the reason why the government won’t call last week’s attacks terrorism, however, is precisely the reason they should. Call them terror attacks, and the networks of support and enablers get investigated rather than just isolated men treated as lone wolves. Call them terror attacks, and we start to ask what responsibility Lou Dobbs or Steve King or Chris Farrell (or the people who vote for and fund them) — or Donald Trump — have for the attacks, in the same way we held Anwar al-Awlaki responsible for his role in the terrorist attacks that Scott Brown exploited to get elected.

Byman describes correctly how contentious this can be, because those espousing the same policies as terrorists don’t want to be associated with those terrorist acts.

[D]omestic terrorism often has a bigger political impact than jihadi violence. A foreign-based attack brings America together in the face of tragedy. But right-wing (and left-wing) violence is more likely to divide the country. Just this week, for example, 56-year-old Cesar Sayoc reportedly sent explosive packages to CNN, Democratic politicians, and others seen as “enemies” of Trump. Some right-wing voices immediately embraced conspiracy theories rather than recognizing his activities for what it was. Domestic terrorists poke at bigger political wounds than do jihadis, with at least some Americans sympathizing with their cause even as they reject their violent means.

In turn, observers often avoid the word “terrorism” because peaceful proponents of right-wing and left-wing causes don’t want to be lumped together, even by weak association, with terrorists. We can and should recognize that most political groups of all stripes abhor violence. Doing so—while also acknowledging that the groups and individuals who don’t belong in a separate category—will better enable the United States to isolate extremists and cut them off before the next tragedy.

Which is why this post bears the headline, “Trump refuses to keep this country safe from terrorism” rather than Trump fosters terrorism, even if I believe the latter to be the case.

Because until the time those willing to coddle Trump’s racism in the name of tribal loyalty are defeated politically, they will want to pitch questions about what to label Cesar Sayoc and Robert Bowers’ actions as an attack on themselves.

Instead, let’s make it an attack on Donald Trump’s basic competence as President, one the Republicans themselves, from top to bottom, have embraced.

It is the Republican party of Karl Rove and Mitch McConnell and Scott Brown and (Trump Ambassador to the Netherlands) Pete Hoekstra that says a President who won’t keep the country safe from terrorism must be defeated politically. Me, I’d rather deal with all this domestic terrorism by first closely tracking those accused of domestic violence (which would have the effect of preventing non-ideological mass killings along with the ideological mass killings and attempts) and by noting that under George W Bush and Obama, the FBI was actually pretty good at discovering right wing terrorism without the tools they have against Islamic terrorism. I’d rather Democrats run on the fear of losing health insurance or the impact of climate change or gun violence generally.

But not Republicans. Republicans believe that a President who refuses to take a very aggressive approach to terrorism should not be President. So for those Republicans, let’s make this an issue not of the ways Trump’s network fostered actions like we saw last week, but how Trump’s Administration has chosen not to combat terrorism.

47 replies
  1. Trip says:

    I agree that these acts should be called what they are: Domestic Terrorism. I will continue to use the phrase regardless of whether the US gov’t recognizes this officially.

    You may have seen this, if not it’s an interesting read:

    Terror isn’t always a weapon of the weak – it can also support the powerful

    Tolerant authorities
    Potential perpetrators of violence may assume that the new political regime that they perceive to be supportive of their views will be more tolerant of politically motivated violence or illegal acts. These expectations are not without some basis.
    Research I published in 2012 in the journal Security Studies showed that Israeli governments tended to use milder counterterrorism measures when they responded to the violence from groups that were ideologically close to them.
    Similarly, studies focusing on the rise of left- and right-wing terrorism in Italy, and white supremacy groups in the American South, further confirmed that political officials are more reluctant to operate against groups which are located on their side of the political spectrum.

    *Marcy, would you please free-up my comment in moderation? I knew it would be locked up with multiple links, but otherwise it would have required numerous comments to separate them.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      It’s a common tool of the powerful.  J. Edgar loved it.  The CIA was and probably still is addicted to it.  It’s the reverse side of the DoD’s winning hearts and minds.

      What’s more typical of the weak is guerilla warfare, focused on the high and mighty.  No need for the grand statement when the littlest thing upsets them no end, because it reminds them of their dependency and how precarious their position is when it is built on a false foundation.

    • Peterr says:

      If I want to post something with lots of links embedded in it, I generally link to the source, strip the embedded links out of the quote, and then add a note that says “(internal links removed but available at the original)” or something like that. It gives credit where credit is due, but does not get my comment sucked into limbo.

  2. BobCon says:

    I think Gillum on DeSantis is the right phrasing — “the racists believe he’s a racist” — and it goes for Trump on terror in the US.

    The terrorists believe he’s on their side. They believe Fox News. They want a GOP takeover. And they’re killing people to make that hapen.

  3. Trent says:

    How can one overlook or dismiss the right-wing paramilitaries dotting the country?  They are sure as hell terrorist groups by the way they attempt to intimidate the civilian population and get their rocks off by hiding behind black bandannas and camo.  And, what about gun-nut and mass murderer McVeigh who was or would be an active member of one of those?  Burrough has a mote in his eye.

    Weak on terrorism is the right message.  And why are the Dems missing this moment to characterize tariffs as taxes?  Trump raised taxes and the effects are bad for the American people.  Sad.

  4. Fran of the North says:

    VanDerWerff on Vox has an interesting perspective on the reluctance of the CableTV networks to call it ‘Domestic Terrorism’. Money (equals viewership) talks, and one wouldn’t want to give viewers a reason to turn the tube off. But Marcy, your point on the potential ramifications on investigating terrorism networks is spot on. And characterizing Trump as having failed to prosecute the war on terror is perfect.

    The Dems miss the messaging on all sorts of opportunities, because by and large, they operate like a bunch of one-offs. OTOH, the ‘Pubs took a page from the Daley play book and are running a machine.

    How about “Job killing tariffs”? Hammer the point home. It is simple, understandable and hits some of the Trumpiest Trumpsters right in their wallets.

    • BobCon says:

      To their credit, I think the messaging is a lot smarter in individual races. Candidates are hammering away on health care, tax giveaway, and where it’s relevant, tarriffs. The national media is hung up on the usual stupidity, but the actual Democrats who are running are focusing on their own issues.

      Pelosi, to her credit, seems to be reading the tea leaves. She’s not letting the GOP make her an issue, and she’s talking about being a transitional leader. Schumer, on the other hand, is doing his best reading from the Andrew Cuomo book of political mush.

  5. NorskieFlamethrower says:

    Thanx Marcy, I think most of us here agree with your exposition about the use of the boogeyman of terror in shutting down real political discourse and forcing consensus through fear. At this moment and for the next 8 days, however, everyone and every special interest with a stake in preserving the very idea of representative government and governance needs to be broadcasting, writing, tweeting, and shouting that the Republican Party is the party of domestic terror and fascism. The DNC, the DCCC , the DSCC, and any “liberal” PACs should begin every political ad with the words “domestic terrorism” and “the Republican party”  and use those terms together over and over again. Turnout is the last hope and even with voter suppression in key states, I believe that as of a week ago there were more new voters and middle class white women mobilized to vote against the fascists to carry a majority in the House and threaten to turn the Senate. After an entire week of domestic terrorism and murder, the newly minted fear needs to be turned to anger in a hurry. No more intellectualizing about process and the rule of law, we should have been using the terms “fascist” and “fascism” to identify the Republican Party at least since 2001 (I’ve been arguing this since the 1960’s). There is no place to hide.

  6. Wm. Boyce says:

    “I’d rather Democrats run on the fear of losing health insurance or the impact of climate change or gun violence generally.”

    I think they have at least caught on that people are terrified of losing their health care coverage – at long last the realization has sunk in.

    That is the issue for this campaign.

    • NorskieFlamethrower says:

      Issues” like healthcare have mobilized and energized folks to reject the ruling cabal, the choices have been made now, it’s baked in. The threat right now is to people who haven’t voted yet and may be frightened away or confused. We are beyond the politics of issues and are at the point of protecting our  most vulnerable forces and if that sounds like rhetoric of war and conflict that is what this is now. This is the last battle of our 158 year civil war.

  7. NorskieFlamethrower says:

    Issues” like healthcare have mobilized and energized folks to reject the ruling cabal, the choices have been made now, it’s baked in. The threat right now is to people who haven’t voted yet and may be frightened away or confused. We are beyond the politics of issues and are at the point of protecting our  most vulnerable forces and if that sounds like rhetoric of war and conflict that is what this is now. This is the last battle of our 158 year civil war.

    • errant aesthete says:

      I completely and wholeheartedly agree with you NF. The issues have been mobilized, the choices made, the certainty established. But this last week has shifted the parameters in nearly incomprehensible ways and it is this mood, this time, this moment we must respond to.

      I too, see the now of this as being far beyond the rhetorical flourishes of our master provocateur-in-chief. The issue now has to be as relevant as these last days leading up to the midterms. Dahlia Lithwick in Slate makes a great case of letting go of “trying to prove causation and instead assess the facts that are plainly in front of our eyes.”

      What needs to be evaluated now and carefully considered is NOT the words, but the actions as a result of those words. That is what you are voting for – the world as you want it to be.

  8. Trip says:

    Marcy, you retweeted that Conway tried to frame the Pittsburgh shooting as really being about “anti-religiosity” writ large.

    Here’s a telling video with Sessions, which demonstrates that religiosity for the GOP is only about political expediency:

    low voter turnout‏Verified account @JordanUhl

    A religious leader just interrupted Jeff Sessions and recited Matthew 25:42—43: “I was hungry and you did not feed me. I was a stranger and you did not welcome me.” He was removed by police. Another religious leader defended him. He was also removed.

    DigitalBridget ‏Verified account @BridgetMarie
    Replying to @JordanUhl

    did Jeff Sessions refer to a religious leader reading Biblical scripture as “an attack.”

    low voter turnout‏Verified account @JordanUhl

    Yes. Yes he did.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      I think that’s Jeff and Don looking at new November polling data.

      They and the entire Cabinet should be working overtime, burning papers, deleting files, sending back traceable ill-gotten gains, correcting their testimony.

        • orionATL says:

          you will look a long time before you find a more verbally deceitful rightwinger with less intellectual integrity – david horowitz is the roger stone of what passes for rightwing intelllectual thinking.

          horowitz is a man with an unmoored moral compass.

          his background is less odd than one might think:

          his perspectives, however, are odd to me:

        • Trip says:

          He swung to polar political extremes. Apparently he felt responsible for the death of Van Patter (Black Panther bookkeeper), which then pushed his trajectory in the opposite direction. His personal guilt became a new strident manifesto. Perhaps, he will eventually recognize his current and ongoing damage.

          In a widely distributed 2000 pamphlet called The Art of Political War, praised by Karl Rove and endorsed by 35 state Republican party chairmen, Horowitz wrote: “In political warfare you do not fight just to prevail in an argument, but to destroy the enemy’s fighting ability. ~Tablet Magazine May 2, 2012.

          This article is from July 2000:

          To regain the political initiative, says Horowitz, Republicans must overturn the public perception that they are coldhearted and beholden to the rich: “‘Tax breaks for the wealthy on the backs of the poor.’ This is the Democrat sound-bite that defines Republicans as mean-spirited fat cats and enemies of the poor. What is the Republican chant? There is none.” He proposes his own mantra: taxes for bureaucrats out of the pockets of the people. Republicans, in his view, must aggressively depict their opponents in starkly different terms: “Democrats label Republicans right-wing. But Republicans have no label to pin on Democrats to fight back.” Horowitz to the rescue: “Here, then, is a label for Democrats: Leftists. The Democrat Party is a party of the Left.” …Horowitz argues that the Republican Party must, through a massive legislative push for school vouchers, reposition itself as “champions of working Americans and minorities,” the “party of the underdog.” The Art of Political War appears to be having an impact: A recent letter from the head of the Missouri Republican Party reported that Horowitz’s suggestions proved decisive in a recent Congressional election in the state’s 32nd District: “We prevailed,” she wrote, “by implementing ‘political war’ a la Horowitz.”

          The “populist” Republican plan has been in the works for that long, at least. Trump’s handlers clearly scripted his campaign rhetoric. But the GOP did enact Tax cuts for the fat cats, which doesn’t seem to be helping anyone but them.

          And Bill Clinton’s (Reagan-ish) shift to the right was apparently the catalyst for the GOP shift toward the radical right. How else do you compete with centrist?

          (The Art of Political War) argues that the Republicans have been utterly vanquished by a President who has mastered the art of triangulation. In the public’s mind, Horowitz writes, “the Clinton Democrat Party is now the party of economic vibrancy, anti-crime laws, welfare reform laws, budget surpluses and free trade. That’s what the American people want.”~The Nation

        • orionATL says:

          thanks, trip. i don’t know how you come up with some of this info (at one time i thought you must surely be a research librarian :) ), but it is always interesting.

          i forgot to mention, as i try to do whenever horowitz comes up, that “trump’s brain”, aka stephen miller, became a horowitz acolyte when he was still in high school. from horowitz miller moved up to the offices of the esteemed senator j. beauguard sessions, one of the first and strongest trump republicans, and thence, upon inauguration, to the exaulted position of trump’s brain.

  9. Bay State Librul says:

    A dark day indeed when Massachusetts voted for Brownie. Luckily, it didn’t last that long.

    Btw, Brownie hides out in New Hampshire these days.

    • BobCon says:

      It speaks to the complacency that followed Obama’s win in 2008. For reasons I never understood, beyond whatever psychological forces you might impute, he never tried to sell the sense of urgency needed in the teeth of the worst recession since the 1930s, and the party accepted his take.

      • orionATL says:

        well, for starters he was a banker’s grandson. what would you expect :)

        obama was focused, by geithner i believe, on keeping the banking system stable. this is sensible ER (as in emergency room) economic policy since panic/recessions/depressions get their initial impetus from a critical loss of confidence in the banking system, which depends at base entirely on trust.

        but as you suggest there is a lot more to recovery than keeping the banks from folding. very specifically, demand must be bolstered. that is the essential job of government in any economic hard times. on this issue the congressional republicans were quite willing to let the economy slide and millions of americans loss their jobs and/or homes to keep obama from being re-elected in 2012. this was part of senator mcconnell’s long game.

        but obama himself failed as a political leader,

        – to loudly and persistently call their republicans on their game, which to me demonstrated a lack of political aptitude,

        – to prosecute bankers by having doj file charges and conduct discovery on specific banks and major officials (obama chief-of-staff rahm emanuel leaned hard on attorney general eric holder when holder tried to initiate),

        – to establish and use extensively a program and policy that would protect homeowners who stood to lose their homes. instead, obama and geithner sat on the little used and useless HAMP program, leaving many millions to lose their homes, a loss of dwelling and equity from which many have not yet recovered a decade later:

    • Ruth says:

      Scott Brown is actually serving as ambassador to New Zealand. Living on the same street as him, I take a special interest in the scumbag. I also take great delight in leaving my dog’s sh*t in his trash can every chance I get, although admittedly someone from the family gave me permission to do so.

  10. Ollie says:

    Reichstag fire

    “WH press sec Sanders declines to rule out suspension of habeas corpus in effort to repel “invasion” at America’s”

    VOTE VOTE VOTE.  I fear there is nothing else……….

    Thanks Marcy!

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Yep, Reichstag fire, the classic false flag op, blaming the opposition for what you are and most want to do.  Sanders’ declining to rule out suspension of habeas corpus is off the charts crazy.  She is selling Trump’s manufactured crisis in order to win an election.  I guess that way, they won’t have to rebuild the building after they burn it down.

      If at least one house changes hands this November, Trump will become more vulnerable than he has ever been, what with the possibility of oversight, release of his tax returns to that house, significantly greater support for Mueller, etc.  I would not put it past him to gin up a war – especially one as outrageously lopsided as a supposed invasion of immigrants and asylum seekers, in order to stay in power.  It’s what Trump does, only now, he has a bigger canvas than he’s ever had.

  11. orionATL says:

    a friend told us something  sunday that i cannot get out of my mind.  each synagogue she knows where we live has, and has had for years, its own private security. when you think about it that is nor surprising given events in our local history. but i had not thought about it; i had no reason to think about it. it would never occur to me that a methodist, baptist, or presbyterian church i or any of my family was in would be the target of a shooting or bombing. even before pittsburg, one family member had become so worried she argued with her children that her grandchildren should not wear the star.

    this is not the country i grew up in.

    but it is the country i grew up in.

    it’s just that the politically  legitimized violence we allowed against annointed minorities (blacks, indians, jews, catholics, mormons, and immigrants of varying nationalities over time) has been hidden, and until recently has remained hidden, from our histories,  from our media, and  from our unwise myths about ourselves as a nation.

    rosemont, florida, as only of many possible examples:

    knowing my family’s methodist church needed quietly to quietly hire security to protect its members –  unthinkable.

    • Palli says:

      Yet there have been dead kids in Birmingham and plenty of burnt-out black churches to make you think it could occur

      • Trip says:

        Just last week:
        ‘Whites don’t shoot whites’: 2 black people shot dead in Kentucky
        Prosecutors say shooting that left two African Americans dead in the US state is being probed as possible hate crime.
        Before entering the Kroger supermarket in a suburb of Louisville, Kentucky, on Wednesday, Bush attempted to break into a nearby predominantly African American church, police said.
        After failing to enter the church, Bush entered the supermarket and shot dead 69-year-old Maurice Stallard, according to police, before killing 67-year-old Vickie Jones in the car park.
        Local media reported that Stallard’s 12-year-old grandson witnessed his killing.

        “Possible” hate crime.

      • orionATL says:

        palli –

        i don’t think i need to be explicit about the irony with most of the readers of this weblog. would you like some help?

  12. Allison Holland says:

    i was so apprehensive going to the beto rally today and for once, grateful for the police presence especially the bomb sniffing dog.  it was so crowded that beto decided to come into the hallway to say something to those of us who didnt get there early enough to get a seat. he talked about unity not about hate or fear. he stood around us on a chair he had just grabbed and as he spoke i felt how happy it was to be one without anger. without hate. in the end i think that is the voice that will destroy the darkness and verbal terrorism of the republicans. cruz will probably win. fox news runs in every public setting. its everywhere and so many feel comfy joining others with their fear that they forget what it feels like not to hate and condemn.  but i dont think beto will be done if he does lose. he is here for the long hall. domestic terrorism by the far right is very scary. but i would rather die once than a thousand times like cruz. he dies every day. its why he has no soul

    • NorskieFlamethrower says:

      This kid gets it!!! That is SOOOOO good to hear. Texas is gunna be where this all comes down. I’m old enough to remember 1963 when our entire future changed and I ended up in Vietnam a couple a years later so I’m still not confident. Is Michelle Obama still comin’ down there this week?

    • Ollie says:

      I so agree w/you Allison.  Domestic terrorism …….unfettered hatred………It is coming to a head it feels like.  Thank you so much for your comment!

  13. gmoke says:

    It’s not terrorism if the killers are killing those whom Republicans don’t believe are fully people, namely anyone who is not a full Trmpian Republican.

    Unfortunately, that’s where the Republican Party is now.

    • cat herder says:

      It seems Republicans are now embracing that which they once denounced with fire and fury: “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

      But it’s only ‘moral relativism’ when Democrats do it, so at least the Rs are being consistently inconsistent.

  14. Rusharuse says:

    Pull troops from the border and re-deploy at churches, schools, niteclubs, outdoor concerts, media outlets, 7/11s, cetera . . Just an idea! 🙈🙉🙊

    • cat herder says:

      Maybe they could round up all the marginalized peoples who are under threat and place ’em in secure locations. Tall fences, barbed wire, lots of heavily armed soldiers, dogs… nice and safe inside from anybody who might want to do bad things to them.

  15. pseudonymous in nc says:

    This is a really important post. Writers like David Neiwert have spent lots of time covering the militia movements and other long-standing elements of the far right, but that touches a lot of nerves. Especially when those networks intersect with the Republican party — there’s a continuity between the Bundy mob’s theft of public land and Ryan Zinke’s mission at Interior — and especially with law enforcement. “Some of those that work forces / are the same that burn crosses.”

    Eric Rudolph didn’t survive for five years in the far west of NC without a support network. Nobody was charged. Dylann Roof was not a lone psychopath. Nobody looked too hard at his support network.

  16. Jenny says:

    A maniacal administration.

    Albert Einstein said, “Stay away from negative people.  They have a problem for every solution.”

  17. e.a.f. says:

    good article.

    A Canadian, living in Canada, yes some of us live  elsewhere, when I looked at the recent events the first thing which went through my mind was terrorism by American terrorists, living in the U.S.A.   People were threatened by death due to the pipe bombs, 11 Americans of the Jewish faith were murdered, and two African Americans murdered.  That’s a lot of death in the U.S.A.   However, then there are all the shootings in the U.S.A. each and every day which kill people.  it runs into the tens of thousands and its just ignored except by the victims and their families.  Tens of thousands killed by drunk drivers and things just keep going.  Tens of thousands who die due to a lack of health care.  The U.S.A.’s high infant mortality rate.   Much of this is preventable.  The political/racist killings of the past week might not have been preventable in the opinion of some, but when dtrump mentioned he was a “nationalist” and then 11 people in a Synagogue were murdered, it didn’t surprise me.

    I look at the U.S.A. and wonder how many Americans will come to Canada when the real shit hits the fan, because based on what my Mother told us, when we were children, about what went on in Europe prior and during WW II we haven’t seen anything yet.  Not to mention what went on in Cambodia.  people think it can’t happen in the U.S.A., well read some history.

    People have to live with the government they elect or some times die because of it.

  18. Tommy D Cosmology says:

    Absolutely! They are horrible when it comes to national security for the same reason they are horrible at everything else: they have shitty values and shitty intentions that lead to shitty policies (or just neglect) and shitty outcomes:
    The environment.
    9/11 (how many times did Condi say “they’re gonna do something with planes”?)
    The Iraq War. (The war of greed and prejudice)
    The Great Recession.
    Gun Violence.
    Hate Crimes.
    Drug policy.
    The economy.

    Their moral foundations are weak because they do not exercise empathy.

    But they do not care. So use their own words against them. They are weak on terrorism. We are not safe with them in charge.

    I don’t know what will work. There’s only about 10% that are persuadable in my opinion.

Comments are closed.