BIDEN WINS.....THEN WHAT? 

The world revolves around truism. Governments, news networks, and organizations can paint pictures all day long, but in the end, truism is the foundation of day to day life. For decades, the category of, "Silent Majority," has been a topic in US politics. " The silent majority may have had enough..... it appears the silent majority has made a statement." You can think of a dozen different scenarios with the topic of silent majority. It gets used so often, I sometimes think it's meaning has lost its meaning. But, here I am, about to paint a picture of possible ramifications from the infamous, "silent majority," a picture that is a historical truism. 

Enough:

White Shame, White Privilege, the 1 percent, conservative, bigots, racist, bible thumpers, religious fanatics, do they all fall into the category of, " silent majority?" Most of us can think of circumstances where, "silent", probably doesn't fit, but for the most part, the truism stands. For those who are put into these categories, by the way, the other side of this argument gets placed into categories as well, here is another truism. If you get up to go to work, pay your bills, taxes, and you owe money on your car, house, school, medical issues, you most likely don't have time to run out into the street and act like a fool. People who are let us say, responsible, simply can't afford to miss work, perhaps for days on end, just so they can burn trashcans, spray paint buildings, and make posters with misspelled slogans. Here is my main truism. Those who make this country work, any country, they don't have time to act out in the streets. But, and here I go, but.............what happens when they do? 

When the Arab Spring started back in 2011, I began this blog site. I had to be careful back then, given I was still in uniform, but I got the head-nod, and so I began. Go back and look at my very first post on this site and you will see a theme. When the good, hardworking, people finally take to the streets, when they actually risk their jobs, house, cars, bills, the commitment is resolute. Now, this was not the case in Egypt, at least not initially,  but it was in Tunisia, Libya, and Syria. Good, hardworking people felt like they had no choice than to take to the streets. That's a scenario most people in the US, especially the ones that are pushing the silent majority to their limits, truly believes can happen. You see, the side that usually pushes and pushes, and just keeps pushing, never actually predicts when the silent majority will finally declare, "enough!" Ruthless, out of touch governments couldn't predict this breaking point for the Arab Spring, or any other true social uprising. It's been that way for thousands of years, and so, it's a truism in 2020. The people that truly make the US work could be nearing a breaking point, and those pushing them simply don't realize that danger. If I think you are not willing to react then I can push and push and push. It's not until you rise up, swing at me, that I understand I took it too far. It's not until then those in power in the US realize the US Spring is taking place.  

Scenario:

President Trump had the best economy in the history of the United States. More minorities found jobs, more small businesses were able to survive the virus hysteria. President Trump had huge gatherings across the nation. Joe Biden had ten SUV show up to a "drive-in" rally. He spent more time in his basement than on the road. He couldn't go a day without forgetting names, dates, numbers etc...etc. Nov 4th came around, and Joe Biden won the election! 

By May of 2021, the MSM was starting their next attack plan. " President Biden seems to be losing his ability to carry out the duties of the Presidency." By July of 2021, most public appearances with President Biden were limited to waiving from windows or driving by in the "Beast." Meetings were being delegated to VP Harris, and the media was in full attack mode. In Aug of 2021, Congress and the Senate were both discussing the potential need for an Article 25 event. In Oct of 2021, President Biden gave a heartwarming speech to the American people on how he needed to focus on his health and asked the people of the US to support acting President Harris. 

In January of 2022, acting President Harris signed the repeal of the Trump tax cuts. In March of 2022, the new tax code was put into effect. The media began to address the crippled economy after the market responded to the repeal, tax code, and Chinese attack on the dollar as the world's reserve currency. In April of 2022, the US was in the worse economic collapse since 2008. Acting President Harris and the Democratic-held houses enacted the " affordable life Act"; where each person who was unemployed would receive 1800.00 a month and would be excused from the mortgage for up to two years. 

By March of 2022, many of the global new networks were talking of the radical swing to a socialist / Progressive government the US was now in. In May of 2022, the interest rates began to rise dramatically, thus causing the Harris Administration to intact further, federal mandates and stimulus.  In  April of 2022, unemployment had reached 25 percent. News stories of failed corporations dominated the networks. The new "wealth tax" laws had eliminated  50 percent of the midsize companies in the country. 

Midterm elections say a wave of unemployed demanding the nation take DC back from the "Socialist." Major news networks and social media began to cover daily protest at City Halls and State Capitals. Those who were on the streets of the US were not the college students demanding student loan forgiveness, they were not the social justice protestors demonstrating against Law Enforcement. The protest on the streets were those who the media said at one point in time had been referred to as, " The Silent Majority." 

July of 2022 witnessed a complete economic collapse in Mexico. Violence between groups supported by the combined efforts of the PRI and PAN parties apposed Mexico's President's socialist agenda to the point, Mexico City looked like Aleppo, Syria. Catels violence ruled Mexico outside of Mexico City. The US economic collapse was a crushing blow to Mexico. 

By the end of July of 2022, it was estimated that over 7 million people were attempting to enter the US from Mexico. President Harris ordered the Department of Homeland Security to provide humanitarian aid to anyone attempting to enter the US from Mexico. That act would lead to the largest protest inside the US the nation had ever witnessed. 

In August of 2022, it became clear, "The New Republican Party", as it was called, would win both congress and the Senate, and by a wide margin. President Harris began to give public speeches about the pending attack this turning of events in both houses would create. Her constant drumbeat of, "they will take away your unemployment rights, and leave you in the streets," resonated in the nation's largest cities. By the end of August 2022, the riots in major cities far exceeded anything witnessed in 2020. 

In September of 2022, over 9 million, "displaced citizens of Mexico, as the White House called them, were located along the US border. Borders cities such as El Paso and Laredo were virtually overrun with people fleeing the violence in Mexico. " Displaced Citizens" were relocated by the Department of Homeland Security to over twenty major cities throughout the US. This process resulted in yet another series of violent protests, with many of them resulting in large numbers of wounded and killed. The White House's stance of compassion for the people of Mexico became the event that led to real unrest. 

By the End of September 2022, the US was engulfed in a social division that had become violent. The US economy was in a recognized depression and the issue of illegal immigration had become a flashpoint throughout the nation. The US was crippled both economically and socially. The nation's enemies would soon launch strategic operations to make the scenario even worse. 

Summary:

If this scenario sounds unrealistic, please explain to me how. If you say, " Col. It will be much worse than the picture you have painted," then I might agree with you. The US stands on the edge of a cliff, a cliff that will not shrink in size just because of an election cycle after Biden would win. You hear some very smart people saying, there is no returning from this,". You know what, they may be right! 

In 21 days, we will know if you should start calling me Nostradamus! 

 

US - MEXICO DRUG WARS

WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD? 

In my daily quest to review all things Mexico, I came upon this article. 

https://www.crisisgroup.org/latin-america-caribbean/mexico/time-end-lethal-limbo-us-mexican-drug-wars

It has been my experience DC is surrounded by shadowy "Groups", most focused on working into national programs/policies/strategies. Now, before I go much further, I admit, I don't know this group. When I read their background, I more clearly understood the theme of this article. It deals with the overall stability of Mexico and how it might impact the US, so, if you know me, you understand why I took an interest. So, here I go. Let me take a stab at what this group is suggesting be done to solve the crisis that we both agree is becoming.....Mexico. By the way. This is not a hatchet job. Several points I will go over, I happen to agree with. Here is how I will do this. The words in italic are taking directly from the article. My comments will come after each area of interest. In the end, it's a very well written article. 

Yet that campaign featured no meaningful discussion about how Mexico’s stubborn rates of lethal conflict are in reality a U.S.-Mexican co-production, fuelled by the very tactics that the U.S. has exported to fight the “war on drugs”. Nor, to date, has the 2020 presidential contest between Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden.

"Fulled by the very tactics that the US has exported to fight the 'war on drugs". That is a statement I have some level of agreement with. Has  US policy towards Mexico's "issues" been flawed? Yes, and that's been true for over 100 years. Here is the problem. The constant struggle should be, just how much "guidance/support" does the US have the right to give Mexico? Is there a history between the two nations? Yes. Is that history all good? No. Is there a level of, " Don't tell us what we should be doing" in Mexico? If you have ever worked with those battling the violence in Mexico, you know the answer. I'm always looking for the underlying theme of, " It's our fault". Should we be supportive of our geographic neighbors? How could we not be? Should we understand the "history" that had taken place between the two nations? I would hope we do. My point is this, although the US has played its relationship with Mexico badly, in the end, the responsibility to keep the people of Mexico safe belongs to the Mexican government. Short answer. Don't look for the," It's your fault we are like this" approach. Mexico's government must take ownership of failure. Blame...there is enough to go around for everyone. 

Having a neighbor affected by conflict and instability entails major consequences for the U.S, with the biggest being Mexico’s growing displacement crisis. In 2020 Mexican nationals have replaced Central Americans as the largest group apprehended while aiming to cross into the U.S. 

Is the stability of Mexico a potential crisis for the US? Absolutely. A failed, think Serbia / Albania / event in Mexico would lead to a border crisis that would make what is currently taking place look like a flash mob. Would the flow of Mexican Nationals slow if Mexico was stable? Yes. Here is the problem, my opinion. Mexico City has never wanted those who may rise up against the corrupt government to stay in Mexico. Think of the flow of migration from Mexico in terms of letting steam off the pressure cooker. " You think things are bad for you hear...leave". Think I'm wrong? My knowledge of this concept exceeds simple interviews and drinks at dinner. Until Mexico City truly wants it's poor to stay home, the concept of immigration/mass migration will not go away. 

Washington and Mexico City can try to manage the flow of people by locking the border down even more tightly, but that is hardly an acceptable solution from a humanitarian perspective

Here we go. The politically charged issue of "border security". In the end, what is the primary responsibility of both the US and the Mexcian government?  The Security of its people. In a perfect world, the US would strive to help Mexico's government solve all of its problems; unemployment, social injustice, security etc....etc. Here is the problem. As a CIA briefer once said, " You need to plan for our failure". Yes, from a humanistic standpoint, trapping people inside a faltering environment is wrong, but in a world where over 3 BILLION people are in a daily struggle, what is the limit to letting more people into the lifeboat called The United States? At what point does the US government place priority on its own society's security? My answer, from the beginning. I understand the "Humanitarian" aspect, but the US can only do so much, and no one does more than the US does. 

Recurrent threats by President Trump and other high-level U.S. government officials to sanction Mexico economically if it does not “demonstrate its commitment to dismantle the cartels” push Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador to further increase the country’s dependence on the armed forces in public security matters, in spite of campaign promises to do just the opposite.

 I fully recognize the power of economic pressure. I also understand that AMLO's stance of, "Hugs not bullets", was ill-timed. Was his progressive, passivist approach appealing to the Mexican people? Yes, it's why he was elected. The problem was one he should have understood. The concept of starting from a position the cartels wound not accept, without making them believe AMLO's choice was the best option they would receive, well, it only insured the concept's failure. You cannot simply walk away from a battlefield and expect to issue, "terms!" In addition, let me come back to a point I just made. There is only one reason the US would issue "threats" to Mexico. Who is ultimately responsible for the failures taking place? If the Justice system is broken, if the concept of law enforcement is ineffective, and finally, if the nation's political leaders are corrupt, who is to blame? The US? That's an excuse the people of Mexico do not accept. Threats come after others can no longer accept the failed processes of those tasked with leadership. 

Compounding the problem is pervasive impunity. Fewer than one in ten murders get resolved in the justice system – and the line between state officials and the criminals they are supposed to rein in is not only thin but occasionally non-existent.

As I stated earlier, this editorial has many statements I totally agree with. This is one of them. I was one criticism of this comment. I would change the word, "occasionally", too, "often." Perhaps, I would say, "all too often." Finally, with all the talk of Justice Reforms for Mexico, one fact stands in the way. The corrupt political leaders who are tasked with making these reforms take place will do everything in their power to keep them from having an impact on the criminals who pay for their inaction. It seems even AMLO's brother falls into this category. 

With their predatory “fiefdoms” spreading out over Mexico, groups use territorial control as a means of squeezing revenue out of whatever commodity is locally available, chiefly through extortion. The expansion of their business portfolio into licit commodities and crops increases the criminals’ power over people and politics – and bolsters their ability to fend off crackdowns.

This one is easy. The author is spot on! This reality also completely destroys the ageless argument of, "If we would just legalize these drugs, the violence would go away." The systemic corruption in Mexico may have once been based on the illegal drug trade, but the owners of that trade have adapted. Like any good business model, they have come to realize the value of diversification of industry. Here is another issue that is often not factored into the argument. The lost revenue from this diversification movement is offset by the profit margins that pay government leaders, at all levels, to look the other way. As the international business world continues to label Mexico as a bad place to invest, the people taking the payoff money simply talk a good battle, and then do nothing. What part of Mexico's "real" financial balance is based upon corruption? Can Mexico's banking system survive a true stoppage of illegal activity? 

Michoacán is emblematic. This state was dominated by a single criminal organization until, in 2014, the federal government sent in its troops. With help from other illegal armed groups, the army succeeded in breaking up the once-dominant organization, arresting one of its top leaders, and killing the other.

I pulled this statement out for one reason. It addresses, indirectly, the issue of Autodefensas. Without going into too much detail, I will state I was deeply involved in the "observations" of these Self-Defense Forces. Why did I pay attention to them? It was and still is, in my opinion the formation of these groups provided the US with a measurable indicator of Mexico's stability. Jose Manuel Mireles; the man that I, at one time, believed could have been the next Pancho Villa. Sound crazy? You have no idea. I will tell you this. There was a moment in time when the Government of Mexico feared the Autodefensas movement more than feared the damage of the cartels. That's a story for another day. By the way, Mexico City tried to kill the good Doctor, more than once. Now? Well now, he works for AMLO? Oh..... how the worm turns. 

In 2006, there were six criminal conglomerates fighting it out in a handful of regions. In 2019, the number reached 198, according to a Crisis Group analysis of online citizen journalists’ websites called “narco-blogs”. 

Do I believe there are 198 groups in Mexico that have the capability to impact governmental operations? No. When I hear someone address the issue of,  chopping off the head of the snake, it gives me flashbacks to the disastrous decisions made in Iraq and Lybia. So, this is a point I do agree with the Author. The DC leadership that jumped on board with the same mindset that gave us the disaster of destroying the Bath Party in Iraq, well, they let someone apply, "one size fits all," mentality. Taking out the heads of major cartels did not lead to 198 functional smaller cartels, but it did lead to lost unity of effort. Mexico's ability to focus on a few major cartels was more than challenging, but when small subsets began to pop up, all expectations of progress were lost. The cartel network is still run by major groups, CJNG, etc.. The smaller operations are nothing more than proxies of the major groups and should not be counted as real players. Are they violent? Yes. Are they independent? No. 

Officials will thus need to understand not just the armed groups that are fighting but also the politicians and business people who are aligned with them and the resources they are all fighting over.

I agreed with this approach, with one caveat. The very "Officials" the Author is speaking of are the ones that are part of the problem. My point? Again, the issue of corruption is systemic. Finding enough of these, " officials", who are willing to take on the majority of the nation's leadership, that's the challenge. By the way. That level of corruption is not limited to just Mexico.  

Mexico’s government also has to invest more, with the support of the U.S. and other international partners, in social and economic programs that can divert vulnerable young people who might be drawn into the armed groups. Likewise, it should step up efforts to provide youngsters with ways out of armed groups through demobilization programs. 

This statement is right out of the AMLO playbook. Options. Giving the youth of Mexico options sounds good in a briefing or a campaign, but in reality, that's a different story. Here is my point. If an international investment is a key to solving Mexico's problems than the path AMLO is taking is counterproductive. As long as international investment firms warn of Mexico's stance towards private business, the author's vision for solving the problems of Mexico cannot take place. Mexico can't have a leader who is anti-private business and then ask for "International partners" to help solve the nation's problems. Now, given AMLO's stance towards CELAC, perhaps the "International Parters" he is looking for are not from Western nations? Is Beijing Mexico's problem solver? I bet not. 

Concentrating resources and efforts on regional intervention plans that have been devised on the basis of a close study of local conflict dynamics would be a better way to make progress, even if the gains appear on the surface more limited.

" Local conflict dynamics?" I'm sorry, but this gives me the impression of an academic response to a violent, complex social status, all taking place in a nation infected with corruption. Again, regional intervention only takes place, truly takes place, in Mexico City. It's the last line of defense, and the Hinterlands of Mexico, everywhere outside of Mexico City, are on their own. Sound a little dramatic? Well, I'm sorry, but to many in Mexico attempting to save the nation, it's an opinion I heard over and over again. The bottom line; Mexico has to have a strong foundation, a clean foundation to start from. Without that, this concept of localized impact is doomed to failure. In short, Mexico is a dam with so many leaks, local plugging simply won't work. 

They might also be deployed to deter brazen criminal aggression against those local populations whose data show to be most vulnerable to displacement and other abuses.

Okay, here comes a topic near and dear to my heart. Unless Mexico has an untarnished military and civilian law enforcement network, it is impossible to get the overall corruption under control. Who does a patriotic military leader turn to for support? What is the level of true trust in Mexico? Time and time again, I come to the same conclusion. Mexico is a far more complex crisis than most people realize. I remember the day the message came across. SEDENA was being sent into the streets of Mexico. They were going to carry out the duties of law enforcement.  The Mexican military was a force completely unprepared to assume such a mission was going to be the lifeline of Mexico. The concept failed, and some of us knew it would from day one. 

The U.S. government, in championing, designing, financing, and in effect, imposing the war on drugs on its neighbor, hoped it could purge the country of the corrosive social, political and economic impact of the narcotics trade and bring greater stability to the region. 

Is part of this statement accurate? Yes. Is it the US's fault Mexico is teetering on disaster? No, at least not initially. If the US simply walked away from the war on drugs, would the corruption and violence in Mexico go away? No. Is the concept of a bad plan worse than no plan? Usually, yes! Is the real issue the US doesn't really care about, or is it a matter of bad planning? From day one, I have advocated for a new, strategic vision for the Americas. It's the endstate of my pending book, " The War of the Americas". Mexico is leaning towards failure, and that failure would be a crisis for the US, unlike anything DC has faced in decades. I fully understand the desire for non-aggression groups to provide governments "options", but in the end, the issue that consumes Mexico is more complex than even this group comprehends. Let me say something I use to get in a lot of trouble for. I'm growing more and more concerned, Mexico is heading for another revolution. AMLO's impact on that threat is something that needs to be studied carefully. 

    

ANTIFA. 

"ITS AN IDEA, NOT AN ORGANIZATION"

A person is trying to become the next President of the United States. In the processing of doing so, he makes a statement that gives everyone, if they are paying attention, a glimpse of what this candidate may accomplish. " ANTIFA is an idea, not an organization!" that was the statement made by Joe Biden. Two days ago, I once again addressed the issue of ANTIFA, but it's clear to see the topic is not going away anytime soon. 

Who are they:

A great deal of investigative work has been done on this question, but let me give you a different slant. Let me tell you who they are through my perspective. ANTIFA is a weapon. ANTIFA is a proxy fighter made up of willing followers. ANTIFA is just one set of pawns on a much larger chessboard. ANTIFA is a societal tool in a battle for power. 

An argument, a very weak one, passed by those who quietly support ANTIFA's actions, goes something like this. " These actions are a result of the President's divisive actions. Trump is the reason these people are so upset." At face value, it's an argument some are buying into. The whole "divisive" attack is a major tool in the campaign of the candidate who stated ANTIFA is an "idea." Here is the problem with that approach. History recorded history. 

https://youtu.be/3XDifMd781Y

This is a clip showing the massive riots and protests of the G8 summit in 2001. Watch the video, and you will see a symbol, a very familiar symbol. It's the symbol of the Anarchist movement. It's the Symbol of ANTIFA. So how is ANTIFA an "idea" brought on by the actions of President Trump? Answer? It's not. By the way. When was the last time you saw an anarchist protest/riot in Beijing / Tehran / Caracas? 

Who owns the Weapon:

If you follow the whole ANTIFA story, you hear a recurring theme that is absolutely spot on. " Follow the money." How did they get from one  G7 / 8 summit to another? Airfare is a prohibitive issue for the downtrodden. These people who protested the Capitalist elites, where did their travel and meal money come from? I've asked this same question about the actions of ANTIFA, and I'm not the only one. 

Enemies don't fund "ideas." They support actions formulated on the perception an "idea" may be worth weaponizing. I've said this before, but think of the 60s. Think about the 60s, and Central America and an organization called the KGB. " Ideas" fall into concepts like going to Mars. ANTIFA is not an "idea." ANTIFA is a weapon, but who owns the weapon? Who is funding it? 

Hide the trail:

Back in the Cold War, when the KGB was doing everything it could to slow the progress of the West, progress the USSR knew would lead to economic ruin for the Communist illusion, it was easy too, "follow the money." In 2020, finding a legally accepted path for funds flowing worldwide is a challenging and time-consuming operation. The world of electronic transfers, NGO's, duel purpose shell companies / LLC / 5013cs / has made providing hard evidence a difficult objective. Now, does that mean it can't be done? No. Has the US found how ANTIFA is being supported? Most likely. Are they doing something about it? That question goes back to my post from two days ago. Here is another way to look at the issue. Is the US doing something about the support to ANTIFA covertly or overtly? Interestingly enough, the supporting parties may know the real answer. Funny how funds can just disappear in the world of cyber warfare:) ANTIFA is being supported, and everyone knows it, well, except for one US political party. 

Why the denial:

Why would Joe Biden make a statement like, " ANTIFA is an idea."  This time, the common opinion seems to be the best answer. The protest and riots are taking place in large cities that have been controlled by Bidens' party for decades. Isn't denial the only option he and his party has? Does he know the truth? Yes. How? Because he was the VP for eight years, and that means he saw the briefings. So Biden deliberately lied? What choice did he have?  ANTIFA and, for that matter, BLM are tools, tools being leveraged and supported by the enemies of the US. Now, you might ask, " what enemy?" The Russians? I did mention the KGB, but that was a historical reference. The enemy I place the blame on is the one President Trump has doing battle with since the day he showed up in the White House. 

China:
Let me repeat a position I took a few weeks ago. What is the best, and perhaps the safest way to defeat the US military? How do you gain world dominance without a world war? What is the engine of the US military might? The nation's economy. What is the best way to achieve an objective? You need to have several options. What are the two triggers for economic decay in the US? The US dollar standard as the world's reserve currency and social decay inside the nation. What is the goal of ANTIFA? Does that goal fit one of Beijing's options? " The Enemy of My Enemy!" Why would Beijing not support social upheaval in the US? 

If Joe Biden wins the election on November 3rd, will his stance towards China and ANTIFA change? Who would Beijing rather deal with, Biden or Trump? Leaving the politics out of this post, let me make something obvious. ANTIFA is NOT just an " idea." ANTIFA is one of many weapons being leveraged against the future of this nation. ANTIFA is an issue that requires a clear commitment and vision. The growing divide in the US is the fertile soil needed for the next level of social crisis. 

 

ANTIFA

WHY IT DOES FIT THE MODEL OF TERRORISM

Back in October of 2019, I posted this blog on the topic of ANTIFA. It was not my only comment on this group, but this particular post had a rather disturbing point. "Why is the U.S. government so reluctant to move on ANTIFA?"

http://coldansviewpoint.blogspot.com/search?q=ANTIFA+AND+THE+STATE+OF+DENIAL

Unless you have been under a rock, you know full well how the topic of ANTIFA has changed since October of 2019. It's for that reason I have decided to go back and try to address the question I posted last year. Why?

Rand:

https://www.rand.org/multimedia/video/2020/08/11/the-consequences-of-designating-antifa-as-a-terrorist-organization.html

If you have followed me over the years, you know my opinion of RAND Corp. Some of RAND's staff, such as the author of this article, give sound logic in their presentations. Some do not. When I read this particular piece, I couldn't help but think about my question from last year. Why? In my post from October of 2019, I ended by asking, "Is the government scared to truly move on ANTIFA?" Reluctance was based upon fear of making things worse; that was my theory. Well, this RAND release seems to give my theory a great deal of validity. According to Ms. Williams, ANTIFA doesn't fit the model of FTO, Foreign Terrorist Organization."

Antifa does not clearly meet the definition of the F, the T, or the O—it is primarily domestic, it is unclear whether their acts of violence rise to crimes of terrorism, and it is a loosely oriented movement.".

Her words. By the way, I love it when analytical work is done and the word, "cleary" is incorporated. If you want to stake your opinion to a topic, then use the word, "clearly." It's akin to saying, "look….. I know better than you."

If ANTIFA doesn't "fit" the FTO model, then what model do we look for? We are told we can't go down the path of FTO designation, an opinion I do not support. What about Domestic Terrorism? Why would anyone argue against a Domestic Terrorism status for ANTIFA? Well, it only took me reading the rest of the RAND story to figure out the answer. Fear! Just as I had warned about last year. Fear of making things worse.

"In particular, designating Antifa without the facts could cultivate a conspiracy theory that Antifa was "set up" by white supremacist groups in league with the government. This plays into a dangerous narrative that could both be leveraged by left-wing extremists to garner recruits and which could fuel further violence."

 

When I read this part of the report, I again got stuck on a keyword. "Facts." Without the "facts," a designation of ANTIFA could make things worse. The word "could" was also tossed in there, but then again, it almost always is when dealing in the world of intelligence analytics.

 

The Theme:

 

It's too risky. It could backfire". Those genuinely seem to be the words D.C. wants to hear, but they need validity. They need some well-established organization to give guidance. They need some group that has a reputation for providing, impartial, insert laughter here, analysis. Enter; RAND Corp. D.C. doesn't want the President's statement to the public to actually come true. When President Trump said, "we are going to go after ANTIFA," when he stated, just last week, they would be designated as a terrorist group, that is "clearly" 😊 not the wishes of D.C.  Even the President's F.B.I. Director is against it. Better yet, you can't even get the party in opposition to speak of ANTIFA. "ANTIFA. It's an idea, not an organization!" Biden and his team don't want to talk of the "idea." To the "experts," it's too dangerous. To the F.B.I., it's a distraction. To the Left, it's a weapon they would rather not talk address.

The Definition:

18 U.S.C. 

United States Code, 2009 Edition

Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I - CRIMES

CHAPTER 113B - TERRORISM

Sec. 2331 - Definitions

From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov

 

 

5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that—

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

 

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

 

Can someone please tell me how ANTIFA doesn't fit this definition? Even Ms. Williams stated they did. The problem is, she went on to inform D.C., it might be dangerous. Yes, it might be dangerous, at least to political ambitions. Some might fight the definition. I can think of one political party, in particular, that would absolutely push back at an attack on their proxy fighters.

Summary:

http://coldansviewpoint.blogspot.com/search?q=PRESIDENT+TRUMP++TEST+POSITIVE+AND+THE+LEFT+POUNCES

I posted the above article just two days ago. It has a theme I've addressed time and time again. Just how fractured has the U.S. become? Are we so fractured, so torn, we are going to be unable to unit against a movement that has ties to global enemies? Do you not believe those ties exist? Let me address that realty in my next post.

 

PRESIDENT TRUMP  TEST POSITIVE AND THE LEFT POUNCES.

Enemies plot

So, the US President test positive for China Virus? Yep, that's right. That's what I call it, and if you don't like it, you need to stop reading this post and move on. 

Time and time again, I have posted on the dangers of division, ugly, emotional, and consistent division. Academics will tell you, " Discourse is the cornerstone of Democracy." Historically, that has been somewhat true. The issue has always been, what level of discourse, and how is it interpreted by your enemies? Neville Chamber most likely believed his discussion with Hitler were proof discourse can avoid violence. History tells us how that approach went. Look. It's the 21st century. A time when something happens, anywhere in the world, it's live on social media within minutes, if not seconds. Here is my point. For years, the excuse for a growing level of division in the US has been, " It's just Democracy in action." Here is the reality. Division, even a slight disagreement, can be manipulated into a fractured divide. Has the US been growing more divided? Yes. Is it because of the old response of " Social Injustice!"  No. If you think the US has social injustice, you've not been to the rest of this world. The cracks in the US's social/political/ framework is both a byproduct of the new 21st century, instantaneous communications, and the actions of the nation's enemies. By the way. The US is deep into the game of information/perception warfare itself. Just take a look at Hong Kong. The reality is, the US is growing more divided by its own design and by the actions of others. 

So What? 

Every time I ever finished briefing my Commanding Generals, it always had to end with, " so what?"  So.... So What? What does President Trump testing positive have to do with this post? Easy, you only have to look at the headlines from CNN and MSNBC this morning. They are practically cheering the news of Trump's positive test. Who could possibly pay attention to the Russia Gate pending breakthrough now? Think about it. The President of the most powerful nation in the world, the light in a sea of fear, having a threat to his life cheered by his own media, and not just the media, but a growing percentage of the population. How does that play in the eyes of the US's enemies? How could the US's allies not see this as yet another indication of how unstable the US is becoming? The President is sick, and the MSM and the Left clap with joy! 

Does it really matter?

The President of the United States has tested positive for China Virus. The image of the US becoming more and more fractured intensifies. The US's enemies continue to see larger cracks in the armor. Does it really matter? Is it not more important to focus on Nov 3rd than worry about global perceptions? If you are a fight game fan, I have an analogy for you. What is the most dangerous punch? Yep....the one you don't see coming. The US didn't start World War one or two. Yes, the actions of the US helped set the environment for the 2nd war, but others had a large part in that mistake as well. Here is my point. The US is not only fractured, to a level not seen in years, it's also extremely distracted. Perhaps so distracted, it doesn't see the fatal perception flaws being made by its enemies. Is this nation willing to fight? Would those who hate the President be willing to suddenly stand by him in a real crisis, or would they focus on his temperature and cough? This short post is not a defense of the political mud the US seems stuck in. It's a warning. A warning based on something I spent my military career responding to. The US is in danger, and it's enemies know it. If the people of the US simply focus on the President's health, Russia Gate follow-ups and polls going into November, then the great surprise everyone always talks about in a US election cycle maybe something much ...much different. Unity. It's a dying concept in the US. It's a concept that no nation can survive without.