The Night DHS Terror Came To Portland
When I wrote of how the seeds of Trumpism were watered by President George W. Bush in an article posted on June 4 on medium.com, I never dreamed I would be reading accounts of unidentified soldiers, on American soil, detaining American citizens without cause or provocation. But, folks, this is what is happening in Portland, Oregon.
The Night DHS Terror Came To Portland
According to a story by Oregon Public Broadcasting (“Federal Law Enforcement Use Unmarked Vehicles To Grab Protesters Off Portland Streets”), in the early morning hours of July 15, “people in camouflage were driving around the area [near Mark O. Hatfield Federal Courthouse and Multnomah County Justice Center] in unmarked minivans grabbing people off the street.”
How did we get here?
Again, the answer can be found in the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
During the era of George W. Bush, we as Americans were conditioned to believe that detention, indefinite retention, and torture was just fine, necessary even, to combat the ever-present threat of terrorism.
After all, these were terrorists. Criminals. They had no rights. Heck, they weren’t even human. These were animals. Foreign devils. Savages hell-bent on destroying the American way of life. The Constitution didn’t apply.
And anyone who suggested otherwise, be it the “international” community, the sissy democratic socialists of Western Europe, or bleeding heart liberals in America, were ignorant. Worse, they were traitors in league with the terrorists themselves.
Somewhere along the line, terrorist was replaced with liberal, criminal for progressive, and enabler with Democratic governors, senators and representatives. And foreign animal was exchanged for anyone who was black or brown.
“If you’re not with us, then you’re with the terrorist.”
Trial without jury became accepted, torture was just fine; all in the name of “national security.” Whatever the administration did, was in the name of the protection of all Americans, and don’t you dare question it.
A blind faith. And if you did question the method or motives of the Bush Administration, or neo and ultraconservatives who surrounded him, you ran the risk of being labelled a terrorist ourselves.
The seeds that were sown by Nixon and Reagan, the belief in “small government” – except when it comes to suppressing “terrorists” and “criminals” – was watered under the complacent presidency of George W. Bush.
We accept “Trumpism,” because we’ve been conditioned to do so as part of our patriotic duty. A “duty” that has at last, come to terrible fruition.
by Tiffany Elliott
“What I’m saying is that I will tell you at the time. I’ll keep you in suspense. OK?”
As many have been reasonably speculating, it was confirmed today, from the horse’s (asses’) mouth, that Donald Trump, is not certain whether he plans to voluntarily leave the White House on January 20, 2021 if November’s election results find that he lost the election. Trump once again raised the false trope of a “rigged election” on the basis of possible (and fictitious) voter fraud associated with mail in ballots.
Appearing on “Fox News Sunday”, with veteran telejournalist Chris Wallace, the (impeached) president struck a very discordant note that leaves a question mark hanging in the air as to whether our traditional orderly process of peaceful transition of power will be observed by Trump.
CHRIS WALLACE: In general, not talking about November, are you a good loser?
TRUMP: I’m not a good loser. I don’t like to lose. I don’t lose too often. I don’t like to lose.
WALLACE: But are you gracious?
TRUMP: You don’t know until you see. It depends. I think mail-in voting is going to rig the election. I really do.
WALLACE: Are you suggesting that you might not accept the results of the election?
TRUMP: No. I have to see. Look, Hillary Clinton asked me the same thing.
WALLACE: No, I asked you the same thing at the debate.
WALLACE: There is a tradition in this country — in fact, one of the prides of this country — is the peaceful transition of power and that no matter how hard-fought a campaign is, that at the end of the campaign that the loser concedes to the winner. Not saying that you’re necessarily going to be the loser or the winner, but that the loser concedes to the winner and that the country comes together in part for the good of the country. Are you saying you’re not prepared now to commit to that principle?
TRUMP: What I’m saying is that I will tell you at the time. I’ll keep you in suspense. OK?
WALLACE: But can you give a, can you give a direct answer you will accept the election?
TRUMP: I have to see. Look, you – I have to see. No, I’m not going to just say yes. I’m not going to say no, and I didn’t last time either.
There is an incredible amount of lying, gross distortions, misrepresentations of facts and ugly hyperbole that proceeded from the lips of Donald Trump in that interview and we’ll be looking at more of it and breaking it down tomorrow, but for now, it is remarkable and deeply unnerving that Trump refuses to straight up pledge that he will obey our most bedrock of traditions and the very legal basis of our democracy if he loses the election.