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. 

 

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.