Donald Trump’s Incendiary Language

Exclusive: Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is taking a P.R. pounding for a sloppy Second Amendment reference interpreted as calling for Hillary Clinton’s assassination, but what was his intent, asks Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

Donald Trump’s strange comment about “Second Amendment people” somehow stopping gun-control initiatives of a Hillary Clinton presidency has earned him condemnation for supposedly suggesting the assassination of his Democratic rival. And his inarticulate half sentence surely could be interpreted that way, which is alarming enough.

But I saw the phrase somewhat differently, that Trump – in his shock-jock style – was suggesting that Americans with AR-15s slung over their shoulders and with Glocks open-carried on their hips would respond to any new gun-control measures by mounting an armed insurrection against the hated “Guv-mint.”

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

Such militant fantasies pervade the American Right (and some areas of the American Left), with the Second Amendment venerated not because it allows for hunting or even “home defense” but because it fits the vivid imaginations of people who contend that the power of the federal government can only be restrained by killing its agents and representatives.

It is part of the militia-movement folk lore that the Founders enacted the Second Amendment so the American people could rise up against their elected government. Though that is bad history – since the Framers of the Constitution set as their goal “domestic Tranquility” and defined “levying war against” the United States as treason – this false notion that the Framers wanted a violent populace resisting the government has become an article of faith in Trump’s world of political paranoia.

So, when Trump spoke off-the-cuff at a North Carolina rally on Tuesday, it seemed to me that he was referencing the fanciful idea of gun-control opponents waging war on the federal government rather than calling for the assassination of Hillary Clinton. Nevertheless, Trump’s short-hand comment was dangerous regardless of which form of violent action he meant. His campaign’s claim that he was simply talking about political organizing for “gun rights” doesn’t fit with his choice of buzz words.

Trump said, “If she gets to pick her judges [for the Supreme Court], nothing you can do, folks,” adding amid boos from his audience: “Although the Second Amendment people – maybe there is. I don’t know.”

If Trump had simply meant applying political pressure, he could easily have said so, and there would be no reason for the ameliorating line, “I don’t know.” It surely sounded as if he was suggesting that the heavily armed “Second Amendment people” might take up their guns to battle any federal or state restrictions limiting their access to firearms.

This sort of macho rhetoric is common on right-wing talk radio where there has long been talk about oppressive federal agents trampling on American liberties. This rhetoric occasionally spills over to the Left where there remains some romantic belief that a violent revolution is the only way to reorder the society.

But it has been the Republican Party that has coyly courted right-wing extremists since the days of Richard Nixon and his “Southern strategy” which sought to pry working-class whites especially in the unreconstructed South away from the Democratic Party because of its support for civil rights laws that ended segregation. This pandering to the Southern white resistance to racial integration also appealed to many whites in the North, especially when framed as standing up for “liberty.”

This outreach to working- and middle-class whites continued through Ronald Reagan’s portrayal of many blacks as welfare cheats in the 1980s and George H.W. Bush’s highlighting violent black-on-white crime in his 1988 campaign. Then, with the election of Bill Clinton and the rise of right-wing talk radio in the early 1990s, white anger took on an openly militaristic style with armed “militias” forming across the country.

Heated rhetoric about “jack-booted” federal agents gave rise to the likes of Timothy McVeigh who lashed out at the U.S. government by bombing the federal building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, killing 168 people.

Though denying responsibility for such violence, the Republican Party kept on feeding this white anger by insisting that Democratic presidents were “illegitimate,” a theme used against both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, who further angered many on the Right because of the color of his skin, his exotic name, and his Kenyan father’s Islamic religion.

The ‘Birther’ Conspiracy

Donald Trump made his first big splash in the political world by picking up and promoting the “birther” conspiracy theory that held that Obama was born in Kenya (not Hawaii as his birth certificate showed) and thus was supposedly not a “naturally born American” eligible to be President of the United States (though his mother was undeniably an American citizen, making him one too).

Brandishing guns has become a feature of many Tea Party rallies.

Brandishing guns has become a feature of many Tea Party rallies.

The racism of that myth was hard to miss (especially after many conservatives saw nothing wrong with right-wing and light-skinned Sen. Ted Cruz running for president though he actually was born outside the United States, in Canada, to an American mother and a Cuban father).

Despite the growing ugliness of U.S. politics, Republicans continued to see political value in delegitimizing and demonizing Democratic presidents. The rise of the Tea Party in 2009 cemented the GOP bond to this idea that “real America” was under assault by people of color and “politically correct” advocates of multiculturalism.

Pandering to this angry crowd, the Republican congressional establishment sought to block virtually every initiative proposed by Obama, most notably a health-insurance program modeled after a plan first developed by the conservative Heritage Foundation.

But GOP leaders weren’t as fluent in the language of this seething Republican base as Donald Trump was. Trump had mastered the sharp-edged lingo from his experience in “reality TV” and from his frequent appearances on shock-jock and conspiratorial radio shows. Trump knew the code words and the appeal of hyperbole.

The wealthy real-estate mogul understood that these Tea Party types liked their red meat served very rare and were accustomed to the style of Rush Limbaugh, with his locker-room conservatism; Howard Stern, with his lewd rants; and Alex Jones, with his dark world of conspiracy theories.

In large part, that was why Trump was able to outmaneuver the Republican establishment which favored more tepid language to create greater deniability if someone called them on their implicit racism and bigotry.

So, it is not surprising that Trump would slip back into this rhetoric – with its macho fantasies about going to war with a corrupt “guv-mint” – when he speaks extemporaneously to his adoring audiences. There is a video-game unreality to this posturing, a pretense of masculine toughness but it’s mostly empty bravado.

Though most of his followers surely get the theatrics of his violent references, there is the real possibility that – by seeming to invite violence as the way to protect “gun rights” – Trump is encouraging some unbalanced individual to take matters into his or her own hands.

After all, some gun zealots believe the mythical sanctity of the Second Amendment must be defended at all costs, much as Benjamin Netanyahu’s campaign rhetoric in 1995 about Israel’s sacred right to Palestinian lands contributed to a young Zionist extremist assassinating Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

Words do have consequences and politicians should be held accountable for their intemperate remarks. Yet, my impression on Tuesday was that Trump was running off at the mouth, much as he regularly did in making himself popular on talk-radio shows.

The fact, however, that Trump can’t seem to turn off that side of his personality and control his mouth is arguably disqualifying for someone who aspires to be President of the United States.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

image_pdfimage_print

94 comments for “Donald Trump’s Incendiary Language

  1. chollie
    August 15, 2016 at 17:30

    The absurdity of those defending Trump’s remarks is ineffable. Trump appeals to his supporters through purely emotional techniques. He is not prone to employ logic for the precise reason that logic does not much impact on his supporter. Of this, Trump is well aware. He cannot appeal to his mass of supporters through logic. In fact, no politician can any longer. Even Hillary Clinton has almost completely dispensed with the use of logic. Trump has no use for logic. One cannot logically defend comments tossed carelessly into the arena of public discourse with the intent to arouse the emotions of one’s supporters. This is a double standard. Trump apologists can’t have it both ways. In authoring this comment I have come to realize the true error of people who I once considered intelligent, yet who support Trump. Trump’s game is incomprehensible to them.

  2. Brian
    August 12, 2016 at 13:59

    He’ll check himself before he wrecks himself. I’m just worried the Libertarians are gonna give the election to Clinton with this new shady political system they’re working on behind the scenes. Be smart Herman Cain… Let it go

  3. Rick Jones
    August 12, 2016 at 13:41

    Very few Americans realize that the Bill of Rights only limited the national government and until the 14th amendment was used to make specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. Thus, until he 1830s, many states prohibited Jews, Catholics, and atheists from holding office. In 1876, by a vote of 9 to 0, in Cruikshank v. U.S. The Supreme Court said the second amendment had no applicablity to the states. The court explicitly said that they’re right to bear arms was only protected from Federal intrusion, not from state action. At that time an individual enjoyed almost all of their rights at the pleasure of the state in which they resided.

    Gun rights were greatly expanded in 2008 and 2010 by the Heller and McDonald decisions respectively. These activist decisions used the 14th amendment to take power from the duly elected bodies of the states and localities and create brand-new rights for individuals.
    So,in spite of the worries of the NRA, the second amendment has more power today than at any previous time in US history. And the aforementioned decisions we’re never labeled “activist” because of the constituencies they served.

  4. Abe
    August 11, 2016 at 15:12

    As if on cue, Trumps latest “incendiary” vomit coincides with three new reports on Hillary Clinton released by the Clinton-hounding conservative group, Judicial Watch:

    Judicial Watch Uncovers New Batch of Hillary Clinton Emails (9 August 2016)
    https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-uncovers-new-batch-hillary-clinton-emails/

    The New Tammany Hall: New York in the Age of Corruption (9 August 2016)
    http://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/new-tammany-hall-new-york-age-corruption/

    Judicial Watch: New Documents Show Top Clinton Aide Alerted On Email Inquiry (10 August 2016)
    http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-documents-show-top-clinton-aide-alerted-email-inquiry/

    Initiated near the beginning of the Clinton Administration in 1994, Judicial Watch describes itself as “a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.”

    Larry Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch, was incensed after FBI Director James Comey announced that the agency would not recommend that prosecutors press charges against Hillary Clinton for misuse of email at the State Department. Klayman stated, “This thing has been rigged from the start, Donald Trump is absolutely right, I said it long before Donald Trump”.

    In July 2016, Klayman said, “if we want justice, we the American people are going to have to rise up.” Echoing Trumps recent remarks, Klayman elaborated: “our forefathers rose up against King George III. Frankly, he was a better ruler than either Hillary Clinton would be or Barack Obama or Bill Clinton or, for that matter, some of the Republicans. And we’re going to have to take our country back and it’s going to have to be done in a peaceful way with civil disobedience. We can no longer rely on the courts.”

  5. August 11, 2016 at 14:04

    Hello Robert Parry. Trump’s so-called incendiary language is a small issue compared with the threat of war with Russia under Hillary Clinton. Trump seeks peace and friendship with Russia, while Hillary is pushing for confrontation. That Trump supports the second amendment is hardly important at this critical juncture. The right to bear arms has been around for a long time, with minor negative consequences compared to what might ensue in a direct conflict with Russia.

    I ask you to overlook these minor potential drawbacks in Trump’s public image and policy platform and be more supportive of his campaign, for the sake of peace and reason in US-Russian relations.

    Geopolitical analyst Finian Cunningham brilliantly nails Hillary as an “Exemplar of Neo-Fascism”:

    https://quemadoinstitute.org/2016/08/08/hillary-exemplar-of-neo-fascism-trump-an-anathema-to-pentagon-cia-finian-cunningham/

  6. Robby
    August 11, 2016 at 14:00

    This once proud, independent new source has now turned into just another pro-Hillary outlet. Articles on the site either are openly pro-Hillary, or in this case take the flimsy-est of evidence to do a smear job on Trump. At least elections are useful for seeing where people and groups really stand.

    • Rikhard Ravindra Tanskanen
      August 16, 2016 at 15:12

      No it hasn’t. It’s just as anti-Hilary as ever. It criticizes Trump and Hillary.

  7. Johnny
    August 11, 2016 at 13:55

    Really …. exactly what words in there do you see as a ‘threat’? At this point, its more that NPR and the pro-Clinton media that have spun this as a threat. But, thanks for the quote that show that Trump is only a ‘thread’ to the concept of coherent speaking in the English language.

  8. Abe
    August 11, 2016 at 13:54

    “What’s interesting here is that the worse candidate, in his inchoate and apparently mindless way, is stumbling down a road that could lead to peace. The more experienced candidate appears to remain determinedly committed to a course that leads inevitably, sooner or later, to a nuclear confrontation. No wonder Russians are saying, according to USA Today, that Trump’s ‘rude jokes and fun is like a fresh breeze’ and that Trump would be more likely than Clinton to improve U.S.-Russian relations.

    “And even less wonder that a former CIA director and deputy director is castigating Trump and endorsing Clinton. The CIA has such a wonderful record of alerting the President to bin Laden, affirming WMDs in Iraq, promising the success of the Ukrainian coup, and preventing the rise of the Islamic State, among its peak accomplishments. Michael Morrell, CIA 1980-2013, published an August 5 Op-Ed in The New York Times headlined: ‘I ran the C.I.A. Now I’m endorsing Hillary Clinton.’ That’s a mixed notice well calculated to exacerbate cognitive dissonance, or in more colloquial terms: That’s a joke, right?”

    Ukraine, Instability, and the US Election – No Way Out?
    By William Boardman
    http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/38477-ukraine-instability-and-the-us-election-no-way-out

  9. Abe
    August 11, 2016 at 13:31

    Speaking of pre-election incendiary attacks, how ’bout all the neocon and liberal interventionist sponsored Nazi high jinks in Ukraine:

    “Ukraine’s strengthening ties with various terrorist groups, including even ISIS, isn’t much of a secret to anyone, since Ukrainian security services openly admitted at the end of last year that they were providing safe heavens for ISIS militants when they need rest, medical assistance or documents to cross borders.

    “Looking at the mild reaction in Washington to these events, one can’t help having the impression that the US decided to transform Ukraine in a sort of Afghanistan, while replacing Al-Qaeda it officially supported back in the Cold War days, with Nazi fighters today. Therefore, Kiev is actively encouraged to embark on various campaigns of state-sponsored terrorism which can possibly lead to more disastrous consequences. We all remember how well US support for Al-Qaeda ended for Washington, with thousands of Americans dying during the 9/11 attacks. But the damage that the fascists in Ukraine can inflict on Europe is yet to be witnessed, yet it’s unlikely that it would be any less damage than has already been done by Al-Qaeda or ISIS, especially if we are to take into consideration the dire economic situation in Ukraine which may push certain members of the local population toward smuggling weapons or launching terrorist attacks in exchange for even a moderate financial reward.”

    Ukraine Makes State Sponsored Terrorism an Integral Part of its Foreign Policy
    By Martin Berger
    http://journal-neo.org/2016/08/11/ukraine-makes-state-terrorism-an-integral-part-of-its-foreign-policy/

  10. August 11, 2016 at 11:39

    Trump is just a blowhard who doesn’t monitor what comes out of his mouth.

    This is very good for Clinton. Makes her looks almost presidential.

  11. sanford sklansky
    August 11, 2016 at 11:36

    I was going to suggest everyone look for Lawrence O’Donnell’s opening segment from last night’s show. He talked about Rabin’s assassination. As LOD said words matter. And it only takes one person to misinterpret Trumps words.

  12. John
    August 11, 2016 at 10:40

    Remember this USA citizens…..

    While the elite of the world divide the spoils of the military conflicts they started

    The citizen will be busy burying their dead children

    A quote recently released by Henry Kissinger ;

    “Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy”

  13. hyperbola
    August 11, 2016 at 10:35

    I am sick and tired of these phony issues cooked up by “our” media (95% of which is owned by a sect that is dubiously American).

    Lets start counting real deaths and bodies instead of invented “threats” useful for propaganda by the usual shills.

    Consortium News seems to be just another “gatekeeper” operation.

    One has to look elsewhere to find useful analysis.

    Hillary Stuffs Entire U.S. Ruling Class Into Her Big, Nasty Tent
    http://blackagendareport.com/hillary_big_nasty_tent

    …… The whole damn ruling class is now ensconced in the Democratic Party – the most dramatic effect of the breakdown of the duopoly system set off by Donald Trump’s white nationalist, anti-“free” trade revolt in the Republican ranks. I predict the Clinton ticket will outspend Trump by five to one, by far the widest margin in modern U.S. election history — that is, since the dawn of the television age. However, Trump’s historic defeat will not demobilize the 30 percent or so of the white population that makes up his core support: the angry white nationalists. They will find political expression, either through continued dominance of the Republican Party, or in alternative venues.

    “The demons swarming in her entourage are real, proven evils – as is she.”

    It is the Left that has yet to find its footing.

  14. tony
    August 11, 2016 at 10:11

    “….GOP leaders weren’t as fluent in the language of this seething Republican base as Donald Trump was. Trump had mastered the sharp-edged lingo from his experience in “reality TV” and from his frequent appearances on shock-jock and conspiratorial radio shows. Trump knew the code words and the appeal of hyperbole.”

    That is the Trump campaign. However, you cant win the General with only that vote…..

  15. F. G. Sanford
    August 11, 2016 at 09:11

    Stir up Jihadis to change the regime, a strategy fostered a long time ago,
    Some faction of lunacy proffers a dream, the abstract embodiment based on their rights,
    Oligarchic ochlocracy fosters mob rule, a bargain struck touting inclusion’s delights,
    Stability must mean some groups are deprived, the Empire touts a reality show.

    Bosnia went down the same garden path, Clinton had fostered Jihadis there too,
    Democracy promised another bloodbath, and it worked so the Neocons kept it in play,
    The chaos resulting put warlords in charge, authority then finds a motive to stay,
    The NGO players seek Jihadi proxies, atrocious misdeeds then begin to accrue.

    On to Afghanistan, then to Iraq, Assad and Gaddafi appeared in the memo,
    Seven were sovereign, all on the track, in five years each one should succumb to attack,
    Meanwhile the pipeline delusions would grow, giving oil executives reason to frack,
    Bottom line profits must not be infringed, petrodollars now plot the reality show.

    The worsening storm then behooves intervention, prophesy self-edifies in the plan.
    All is explained by high-minded intention, denial of rights fuels the armed opposition,
    They are moderate rebels inspired by morals, diversity sparks their majestic ambitions:
    Beheadings are merely heroic appeals, intended to fortify kinsmen and clan.

    The Empire qualifies innocent victims, they shouldn’t support any evil dictators,
    Following secular government dictums infringes the rights of medieval idealists.
    Chickens inveigle to come home and roost, a theory much favored by skeptical realists,
    Changing regimes might give treason a boost, encouraging homegrown Jihad agitators.

    So watch the unfolding reality show, it’s a clip from the Empire’s psychotic dreams,
    Ignore all the angst about nuclear glow, the Chinese and Russians will gladly comply,
    Self-interested foreign relations don’t matter, deep down, it’s America they deify,
    The touch of a woman is what they prefer, they know she’ll be gentle when changing regimes!

  16. Jason
    August 11, 2016 at 03:01

    At this point, we know Donald is going to take a ‘PR Pounding’ if he says as much as ‘Good Morning’ at breakfast.

    Surely one thing we learned from the rigged and fixed campaign for the nomination against Bernie is that Hillary has the support of a great deal of the major media. They willingly black-out Hillary’s opponents when its convenient to do so, and they slam and attack Hillary’s opponents when its convenient to do so.

    So, its a false argument to make stories on ‘Donald taking a PR pounding’, and that’s really just emphasizing and repeating the same pro-Hillary, pro-war, pro-banker, pro-spying position taken by the Hillary campaign and constantly echo’d about by the Democrat noise machine.

    Here’s an idea, think and write about what’s really going on and ignore what the large amount of pro-Hillary press says is the truth. Because the one thing we can be sure after 30 years of Clintons is that anything said by Hillary or any of her supporters is nothing but a lie.

  17. Joey
    August 11, 2016 at 00:40

    I read only the first three paragraphs, so could be off base here. Could stand no more.
    But, so is the author of the article well off in la la land, according to what I did read.
    “by mounting an armed insurrection against the hated guvmint.”
    “people who contend that the power of the federal government can only be restrained by killing its agents and representatives.”
    “wanted a violent populace.”
    I could read no further.
    This kind of hyperbole well demonstrates the dilemma faced by supporters of the second ammendment.
    The anti-gunners simply have no understanding at all. So, they resort to the kind of crazed language I just quoted, which more or less brands the gun pro people as anarchists in waiting. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The fact is that the gun support people are some of the most supportive of reasonable law, but they know from observation that history has proven over and over, that any government can become oppressive, Ever read 1984 or Animal Farm, or consider that multi govt. agencies are more and more becoming heavily armed???? The only final resort to possible oppression is still that the govt. must finally be fearful of an armed populace.

    ” a violent populace.” HA HA HA Is there any government on this planet which has shown anything close to violent propensity since 1990 than the government of the USA. Show us one, please. Follow the/our leaders.
    That is one for a great laugh, indeed.

    • Rikhard Ravindra Tanskanen
      August 16, 2016 at 15:09

      The reason for that is to deal with crime, idiot! And I can easily imagine militia members killing federal agents. Also, the fact you mention 1984 makes you lose credibility.

  18. Bill Opp
    August 11, 2016 at 00:40

    Put it all on the line.

    Bastard suck ass liberal mealy mouths vs. proud suffering and dying war veterans and all other Americans who are proud enough to fight for their freedom and protect it at all cost.

    Let’s settle it once and for all.

    You can die any way you choose.

    I choose to protect and die for all Americans…. Do you?? If not….. Stand aside.

    Let the love of America prevail. War or no war, we must not stand down for any politician or government that suppresses the rights of our free people that are implicitly protected by our precious Constitution that was written and derived from men and women who knew what the true meaning of Freedom from suppression was,

    This country and it’s values have drastically changed in over 200 years, but one thing that has not and by the grace of GOD will never change is that WE as American Citizens will fight to protect the intrinsic freedoms that we have so much taken for granted.

    Please Join with me and remove all Politicians from office that are not willing to fight for our freedoms.

    America is like no other country in the world. Do we really want to be like the liberal countries of Europe? Or for that matter China, Russia, or India, where corruption and lies run wild?

    Let us as all American Citizens join hands, come together for the sake of our well being.

    Yep, he may be a bit crazy and outspoken, but aren’t we all?

    Vote for Trump please. He may be crazy, but at least he’s not a politician. He is one of us… Just a Rich one.

    ” Thunderstruck”

    • Pixy
      August 12, 2016 at 09:24

      WOW, just WOW.. Have you been sleeping for the last 100 years? Freedoms? In USA? Are you serious? You do have freedoms indeed: you are free to be shut on the streets by the police, or arrested on false report and put in a remote prision with no charges or trial, or to be tortured, or have your private communications monitored by NSA without court order, or be brutaly suppresed by para-military should you dare to protest, or be killed by all those free citizens who do have weapons and don’t hesitate to use them for the purposes other than “fighting for freedom”.
      FYI, the last guy who claimed that his nation was exceptional and “like no other country in the world” did not end well. Oh and where USA is a truly exceptional is when it comes to “corruption and lies run wild”. There’s no contest! Only “corruption” is called “lobbying” in your country and it’s legalized. Quite neat really…
      So where are you and your fellow “freedom fighters”. What else should happen to your country before you “fight to protect the intrinsic freedoms that we have so much taken for granted”? You are being a subject of brutal abuse right now. So, what’s the hold-up?

  19. John
    August 11, 2016 at 00:30

    Remember when Obama threatened to use drones to take out the Jonas Brothers, and the media laughed?

    Remember when Hitlery promised to go to war with Iran?

    Isn’t the election season special of the Clinton Body Count up to 6 this time around?

    I wonder if anyone has liberated that call between Bill Clinton and Donald Drumpf, that has been confirmed to have happened, days before Drumpf announced his candidacy. Leaking that would be a welcome October Surprise.

  20. Exiled off mainstreet
    August 11, 2016 at 00:25

    While Trump’s statement is ambiguous and unfortunate, what about Clinton’s reference to “Robert Kennedy” as a reason to keep running until the convention in 2008, after she had effectively lost the nomination to Obama. That was not a veiled ambiguous reference to tea party rhetoric, but could be construed as an actual invitation, and the Harpy’s campaign usage of Trump’s statement would normally lead to the consideration of the earlier more direct invitation, which would become an issue if the lamestream media were not acting as a sort of “ministry of truth” on behalf of the Clinton campaign. Meanwhile the fact that Assange appears to believe that the actual wikileaks leaker was liquidated, presumably at the behest of the Clinton campaign throws an unfortunate spotlight on this issue. Others are noting that several deaths have occurred in the last several weeks which could be considered convenient to the harpy’s campaign effort. Meanwhile, the Libya thing spearheaded by Clinton as secretary of state appears to be a war crime and the mass liquidation of Africans in Sirte by the victorious el qaeda thugs that Clinton supported was mentioned again in a Black agenda report article by Danny Haiphong just this week. It should be a disqualifying issue for a candidate for president to appear to be guilty of war crimes and a sponsor of crimes against humanity and have a record of suggesting that she should remain in the running in case her victorious opponent himself should be liquidated by an assassin. Such a person should be headed for a prison in The Hague rather than the White House as appears likely in this instance. Her victory would bring about the end any shreds of legitimacy left to the US imperium

  21. Abe
    August 11, 2016 at 00:25

    Donald Trump’s Implied Assassination Threat, Fox News and the NRA
    By Amy Goodman and Denis Moynihan
    http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/donald_trumps_assassination_threat_fox_news_and_the_nra_20160810

  22. Zachary Smith
    August 10, 2016 at 23:16

    (CNN)A US Secret Service official confirms to CNN that the USSS has spoken to the Trump campaign regarding his Second Amendment comments.
    “There has been more than one conversation” on the topic, the official told CNN. But it’s unclear at what level in the campaign structure the conversations occurred.

    This is cute – another government agency “leaks” about real or imaginary conversations about the “Trump Threat”.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/politics/trump-second-amendment/

    Probably this belongs in the thread about the Corporate Media piling on.

  23. Tannenhouser
    August 10, 2016 at 22:35

    Been around long enough to know I don’t wanna know anymore. Thought I had seen everything…… and then behold the Republican presidential candidate that votes Democrat. On another note the author and Trump have both misrepresented the 2nd Amendment and the majority of it’s adherents. Grossly I might add, in my opinion of course.
    Cheers to things we haven’t seen before eh.

    • Zachary Smith
      August 10, 2016 at 23:19

      On another note the author and Trump have both misrepresented the 2nd Amendment and the majority of it’s adherents.

      I don’t know very many “adherents”, but the ones I do approach batshit crazy on the subject. That’s noticeable because on most other topics they appear sane and reasonable. But I’ll admit my sample size is quite small.

  24. Gregory Kruse
    August 10, 2016 at 22:20

    I think the plan is to have him keep up the Michelle Bachmann rhetoric and off-the-wall contradictions until the debates begin, and then perform reasonably well. Hillary might have trouble fending off his attacks on her corporate loyalties and obeisance to Israel.

  25. Yuri
    August 10, 2016 at 22:09

    Et tu, Brutus?! There is plenty of over blown “objective” commentary out there already, Mr. Parry. No need to jump on, to tip tip the crowded wagon. instead of calling your interpretation a “fact”, you shoul have provided an alternative non-histrionic view/interpretation honest to the history of Trump’s personality which would have relied on the benefit of the doubt for a change. The man after all, is Republican only in the name and the only candidate out of the two who does not have blood on his hands.That should count for something and that would have been refreshing. Now I am waiting for your commentary on the significance of having the spiritual and real father of Orlando shooter at the HRC rally. “Not knowingly”, as her husband would have said. Did he have a pocket constitution in his pocket too?!

  26. Herman
    August 10, 2016 at 21:47

    I think some of the commentators have hit the nail on the head. The foreign policy establishment is furious with Trump by suggesting he would sit down with Putin and I assume anyone with whom we have differences. The establishment which hold with regime change and economic and military bullying with anyone who disagrees with us and says what Trump proposes is naïve is furious with the guy. He threatens to end the cold war, for god’s sake. He thinks we should mind our own business, for gods sake.

    As to his domestic policies, many are wrong headed but his ideas about controlling immigration is one of the qualities which define us as a nation. Since the late nineteenth century we have had an immigration policy and it shouldn’t be abandoned now. That the media is allowed to describe that as racist is really an indictment of the media and the democratic party, not Trump.

    His extreme views about Muslims is ignorant and mean spirited

    But all in all, when you put the two candidates side by side, Trump is the better hope for America. At least, I hope so.
    Put another way, we don’t know what Trump will do, we do know what Hillary has done and likely will do.

    • Zachary Smith
      August 10, 2016 at 22:51

      But all in all, when you put the two candidates side by side, Trump is the better hope for America. At least, I hope so.
      Put another way, we don’t know what Trump will do, we do know what Hillary has done and likely will do.

      I’d prefer to say that Trump is less risky. If the man somehow ends up in the White House, he’d be perfectly horrible in most every way. But I’d sleep easier than with the prospect of Hillary.

      http://blog.dilbert.com/post/148740944816/trump-prediction-update

      This gentleman has changed his prognosis from Trump Landslide to Hillary Win. From his list:

      1. Voters discover that Clinton has been hiding a major health issue.

      2. Wikileaks releases something damaging.

      Wouldn’t surprise me at all if this time next year we’re not talking about President Kaine.
      And I fear that if Wikileaks turns up an email which might possibly put Hillary in prison, Trump will cut loose with something even worse. Yes, I’m getting that kind of paranoid.

      • Vesuvius
        August 11, 2016 at 11:49

        “Wouldn’t surprise me at all if this time next year we’re not talking about President Kaine.”

        Yes. Whether or not Trump is elected, the stage is set for a new Dallas November 22. U.S. authorities still refuse to reveal the whole truth about the assassination of JFK, and the reason for this is exacly just that. A future President may be found unfit for the Presidency, or just too impopular in the “Deep State”, and so will have to be exchanged for the incumbent VEEP.

        Possibly, the same fate could befall Hillary as well.

        The Deep State is a remarkable book by Mike Lofgren, published January 2016, on Washington and the U.S. of today

    • dahoit
      August 11, 2016 at 13:11

      Sir,please stick to facts.He is against illegal immigration,and wants to screen Muslims,as they on arriving here,turn on Americans for being such.
      He has said nothing about stopping legal immigration,other than the screening.
      Other than Zionists(divide and conquer) fruit loops,the illegals themselves,and lawyers making money off them,,what American supports illegal immigration?

      • Rikhard Ravindra Tanskanen
        August 16, 2016 at 15:05

        You are Islamophobic and anti-Semitic (since when do Zionists in particular, Chrstian and Jewish, support illegal immigration?). Also, many of the people in the American Southwest support illegal immigration, as their economies depend on it.

        • Rikhard Ravindra Tanskanen
          August 16, 2016 at 15:17

          Sorry that I spelt “Christian” wrong. It was a typo.

  27. Evangelista
    August 10, 2016 at 20:49

    The NRA are “second amendment people”. They engage in lobbying and congressional buttonholing, and, of course, spreading money in Washington, to effect legislations and encourage, or discourage confirmations for judge-ships and other executive appointments.

    It is something of a stretch to suggest that Trump on the stump would suggest “second amendment people” would/could or should assassinate a presidential candidate. It is a bit beyond logical to assume that “second amendment people”, who are adamant for their rights to be armed, would even imagine to use arms to assassinate an elected official. Assassins of elected officials are who “second amendment people” regularly assert that the presence of ones of their numbers, armed, could stop before they could take their assassination actions.

    Trumps forté is arousing the media to provide him, and his campaign, free publicity. In this case the media has gotten itself so wound up it sprang its spring without Trump triggering its release (or light the fuse, to continue Robert Perry’s similé).

    • Bill Bodden
      August 10, 2016 at 21:24

      There would be the possibility of one of nuttier gun-nuts taking the violent interpretation of Trump’s remarks and acting on it.

      • Evangelista
        August 11, 2016 at 19:57

        Bill Bodden,

        Was John Hinckley, who shot Reagan, a ‘gun nut’?

        Was ‘Squeaky’ Frome, who shot Ford a ‘gun nut’?

        Was the certified nut who shot Gifford a ‘gun nut’?

        There is NO possibility of any class of ‘gun nut’ “taking a violent interpretation of Trump’s remarks, because the phrase “second amendment”, for referencing a sane and sensible expression of rule for law in a sane and sensible Rules For Law document, in its expression in itself, raises the focus in any conversation it is brought up in to sane, reasonable and rational.

        I will suggest, for an experiment, that you, if you are able to control your heebie-jeebies to a sufficient degree to maintain your cover, find a group of radical “militia” to hang out with, and at a time when they become wound-up about something and begin talking weapon-use solutions, you mention the “second amendment” in passing, even without adding the word “responsibility”, then note the damping effect the phrase has on over-enthusiasm, even in off-the-wall ‘tall-talk’.

        The people you have to watch out for are the ‘cowboys’, who don’t know a damn thing about guns, to whom weapons are not tools, but ‘accessories’, who want them, and wear them, to reflect their imagined images of themselves, who carry loaded (round in chamber, or under hammer) and unlocked (safety off) think “hair-trigger” is macho and cool, usually in a fast-draw holster, as often as not that their weapon tends to fall out of, usually again and again. They are the most dangerous because their weapons can go off anywhere, at any time, in any direction. The only worse than ‘cowboy’ carriers are cops, who are ‘cowboys’, who demonstrate all the scarey cowboy characteristics, but also, for their ‘cop’ status, consider themselves to have a ‘right to shoot’ people. These, and all the riff-raff idiot legions, including the three listed at the top, are non-gun plain, garden-variety-nut nuts who kill people without reason, sufficient reason, rational reason, or need to, and they will use whatever they might have, or find, at hand, so when they use guns it is because that is what is there, or in their minds. Most of them, if you ask about the second amendment will ask you back, “Which one is that?”

  28. ltr
    August 10, 2016 at 18:56

    This campaign has been saddening and frightening by turns, and I thank you for making what sense of it I need to have made.

  29. Laura
    August 10, 2016 at 18:03

    I do not understand why Trump is not arrested for threats, stirring violence, false statements…

    • Bill Bodden
      August 10, 2016 at 19:18

      Why should he be “arrested for threats, stirring violence, false statements” and not Hillary and her neocon accomplices for worse?

      Threats? Lookout Russia, Iran and anyone else on Israel’s hit list.

      Stirring violence? Where to begin on that one? She wasn’t the subject of Diana Johnstone’s book “The Queen of Chaos” because she spilled some milk and burned some cookies in the kitchen.

      False statements? She’s opposed to the TPP and she’s going after those Wall Street types to pay higher taxes after they paid her $5,000 a minute for speeches? If you believe that let me tell you about some real estate in the Mojave Desert. It has 500 feet of beach front with a private ski slope on one side and all the toys from Michael Jackson’s Neverland on the other side. Going real cheap. Give your real estate agent a call before someone beats you to it.

      Donald Trump is no white knight coming to our rescue. He is liable to be the Bubonic plague to Hillary’s Ebola virus, but it is unlikely any prosecutor in our department of justice (sic) would charge him with the threat the media chose to perceive in his statement. His defense counsel need only say he meant the Second Amendment types would engage in legal protests under the guidance of the NRA.

  30. Marc
    August 10, 2016 at 17:49

    Trump is a master at throwing out these ambiguous statements that can be interpreted in various ways depending, as much as on anything else, the state of mind of the audience. He knew his audience and he knew how they would interpret his code. He’s as good at code-speaking as Reagan or Bill Clinton. This is the big reason he is so dangerous.

    • John
      August 10, 2016 at 17:56

      So tell us how he will use the language ” to be dangerous “. Give us a real example and not hearsay…in other words not your opinion (spin) but hard facts with references……

      • D5-5
        August 11, 2016 at 11:07

        Left out of the discussion so far is this second amendment remark sits within a context of other Trump remarks, stated seriously, indicating violence. These can easily be referenced as with (quoted from memory) the “kick the crap out of him” and “I wanted to hit him so hard his head would spin” and “in the old days we knew what to do with him” (referring to beating up protesters). Point being this second amendment supposedly “innocent” comment plays to people already fond of Trump and likely susceptible to his insinuations, This discussion has pointed out equally odious commentary from Clinton, but Trump’s carelessness here is serious, and ought to be considered seriously.

    • dahoit
      August 11, 2016 at 13:05

      He’s only a danger to Zionism,and their lock on America.
      Hence demonization,and dis and misinfo re him.
      But the MSM only represent less than 2% of our population,and up till now they have led the US people around by the nose,but that is changing.

  31. John
    August 10, 2016 at 17:32

    As I said in an earlier post, the MSM is becoming unbelievable …..Trump uses ambiguous language so the MSM can fill in the blanks. I think he’s trying to show the American public just how corrupt the system really is. Meanwhile we have a call to murder the wiki guy and also an ex CIA clown who wants to murder Russians and Syrians and Iranians….Hell this is direct language….. Americas pentagon has gone rogue along with the CIA, both controlled by the neocons and you people want to take away guns from the USA citizens ??? Now that is beyond wacky….And there is more news about Bill and Hillary doing what they do best…..increasing market share for the rest of the neocons and themselves………The MSM has to use the ambiguous language of Trump for damage control for Hillary…..Some people are extremely thick…..

  32. Andoheb
    August 10, 2016 at 16:42

    Note that media seems to be downplaying a call by one of HIllary s top aids to murder Julian Assange. This is far worse than anything Trump has said. I do not like Trump, but he is a lesser evil than HIllary and her flock of warmongers

  33. FobosDeimos
    August 10, 2016 at 16:36

    To me it is now finally clear that Trump desperately wants to lose in November. Sieg Heil to the new Chief of the exceptional and indispensable nation, Madame “Bomb Bomb Bomb” Clinton.

  34. Bill Bodden
    August 10, 2016 at 16:19

    The meretricious nonsense coming out of the gun-toters in militias about defending the nation against tyranny should by now be evidence they are talking through holes in their heads or, as The Donald might put it, wherever.

    Tyranny has been on the rise in the United States for a long time. Walter Karp warned his readers of that during the Reagan presidency and government intrusion in citizens’ lives has increased constantly since then and especially since 9/11. Where were the militias then? Where are they now? The only resistance that I know of came from Timothy McVeigh and the Bundy family with their standoffs in Nevada and Oregon with all now quiet on government lands after the Bundy’s and some of their followers were put in jail.

    Contrary to the Bundy sons and their claim of an oppressive government, they really wanted to do a little oppressing themselves by transferring the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge over to private ownership and taking it away from the thousands of people who enjoy this special place each year.

  35. Brad Owen
    August 10, 2016 at 16:05

    What is the intent? Greasing the skids for the coming coup d’etat? And guess what, it’ll be popular with folks who simply want safety & security, peace & quiet…at first.

  36. Joe Tedesky
    August 10, 2016 at 15:45

    Trump is done. How do I know this, well I just turn on my television and listen to the many pundits who are now trashing him to no end, and that’s all I need to hear. It’s like the media has eagerly jumped on the Hillary for President bandwagon, and Trump is undeserving of residency in the White House. The only defense the American media can fall back on, is that Donald Trump is truly a bazaar presidential candidate of the first order. What Trump entertained us all with during the Republican primaries, is now what leaves us all flat. An old entertainer once taught me, how a good twenty minutes is better than a bad half hour, and this may just be the case of the Trump speech failures of late. Has the Donald stayed out there on the stage a little past his best punch lines?

    • Brad Benson
      August 10, 2016 at 17:58

      I hate to break it to you Joe, but Trump is going to win this in a landslide. Remember that you heard it here first. ; )

    • Eddie
      August 10, 2016 at 23:41

      I don’t know, Joe, I believe you’re a ‘geezer’ like me (i.e.; age=late 60’s) and you undoubtedly remember the Reagan election of 1980 – – – I see parallels between that and this election, mainly in the sense that Reagan mis-spoke often, with macho rhetoric, and was a political/diplomatic lightweight, but voila… Now Trump is worse than Reagan in those categories, but Clinton is worse than Carter (i.e.; much more bellicose). And as fellow lefties Glen Greenwald and Michael Moore have mentioned (in earlier articles carried here) this election has a major component of anti-status-quo blind rage, so all the intellectual reasoning is going to be irrelevant to a significant segment of the voting population.

      I myself am tired of even trying to play the ‘Keynesian beauty contest’, and am going to vote for the person whose policies are the closest to what I believe, and that would be Jill Stein. It’s hard to see how continually voting for the lesser of two evils will ever get us out of this political morass we’re in, and how can we hold politicians to a high moral standard when we take a low moral road and vote for a candidate we believe to be immoral?

      • Kiza
        August 11, 2016 at 23:41

        Bravo for the brief and to the point analysis and for the moral voting decision. Every Hillary voter will carry many souls of bombed to bits Syrian children on his/her conscience (on top of a sky-high pile of souls of Libyan and Iraqi children). Even Trump could do something as mean as bombing another country for third party interests, although it is much, much less likely. But if you vote for Jill Stein, even if she does not win you have a clear conscience for the next four years. This is why I call it a moral decision. It just boggles the mind that anyone in the US who calls him/herself “I am an intellectual” would ever vote for Hillary. I always thought that only the FSA (Free Sh** Army) and the flag-burning ethnic minorities are the the dedicated Hillary voters.

        • Rikhard Ravindra Tanskanen
          August 16, 2016 at 14:57

          I haven’t heard of ethnic minorities burning flags. Stop your bigoted rhetoric.

    • Annie
      August 10, 2016 at 23:43

      They can trash him all they want, but he’s not done. I don’t want him to be done either. Let this presidential election run it’s course without being awash in propaganda.

    • Joe Tedesky
      August 11, 2016 at 01:06

      Annie, Brad, and Eddie, for starters yes Eddie I am an old geeser, and referencing past elections is always good to center an opinion around, but in my opinion Trump is going to a place where others dare not go. I loved it, how in the first Republian primary debate Trump brought up the fact of how all these politicians have their hand out for donations. If you recall he specifically brought out how Hillary is nothing more than a money grabber, and for his cash support of her he was invited to Chelsea’s wedding. Another time that I thought he said something that needed said, was when he criticized G.W. Bush over 911, and going to war in Iraq.

      No, Trump has had his moments, and for the most part the press was been rather okay with his outrageousness. Only, now I see the press going towards Hillary’s corner. Why, because the press in my opinion has given Hillary a huge pass on such things, as her using her own email server, and by not making more of the DNC’s skullduggery unleashed on the Sanders campaign. Seriously, in a sane America Hillary would be, and should be toast. Instead the media treats her as if she deserves the title as America’s first woman president. There are many terrific American women who would be wonderful yo have as our first woman president, bug Hillary….please.

      The reason I wrote that Donald Trump is ‘done’, is due to what I see going on with the media’s outright condemnation of anything, and everything that comes out of the Donald’s mouth. What’s more perplexing is Trump keeps it up. Trump has been campaigning for over a year now, and even the best and most talented know when it’s time to reinvent to win, or go stale and lose. I naturally may have this election all wrong, I’m no wizard nor do I have a crystal ball, but if Trump should be able to turn this all around, then good on him and I will be happy for his supporters.

      Over at the Intercept they have an article which goes into some depth talking about the White Working Voters. The article claims that Trump is sliding in that demographic, and currently Trump retains less WWV than Romney did back in 2012. If Donald Trump is to be our next president, then he will need to improve this demographic, because the WWV demo is the base of support that he must keep in order to win. For those of you who support Trump, I’m sorry to upset you. I’m not here to rain on anyone’s parade, but at least for now I see the Donald going down a dark path with the press. I dread a Hillary presidency like you wouldn’t believe, and I have nothing against Trump, but for now, and with the aid of the media it looks like it will be Hillary who goes to the White House.

      I plan on voting for Jill Stein, and although I know she hasn’t a chance of winning, I will cast my vote for her feeling satisfied that I will be able to live with myself. I know this is a crappie plan, but what else is left when there is nothing left to lose?

      • Joe Tedesky
        August 11, 2016 at 12:38

        Here on this link I am providing is a great example of how the media is in Hillary’s corner;

        http://www.dailywire.com/news/8285/nine-minutes-cnn-cutting-guests-who-dare-critcize-chase-stephens

        In addition to what you see on this provided link, there has been other moments like these on the daily wire where the media sticks up for our Queen of Chaos. I’m not sure why, or for what purpose, but it sure looks to me as though Hillary has the media behind her.

      • Eric McKenzie
        August 12, 2016 at 13:06

        Joe, I also plan on voting for Ms.Stein for the reasons you have cogently put in your comment. If you have not read the Newsweek expose of Trump’s business dealings, it is well worth your time. There seems to be no end of Trump’s skulduggery when it comes to cheating investors and walking away from failures.
        Furthermore, you might consider reading up on one of HRC’s foreign policy advisers, Robert Kagan. He is a fervent advocate of the War in Iraq and was one of the principal advisers to Bush Administration policy makers. It is quite eye opening to see what kind of people are now leaning toward her. You can draw your own conclusions.

  37. Zachary Smith
    August 10, 2016 at 15:44

    The fact, however, that Trump can’t seem to turn off that side of his personality and control his mouth is arguably disqualifying for someone who aspires to be President of the United States.

    I regret that I have to mention once again that it may not be a matter of he “can’t turn off”, but rather he “won’t turn off” the motor mouth nonsense. The man knows very well that every single word he says is carefully examined by people looking to portray him as a menace.

    Trump playing to lose wouldn’t look very different at all from a Trump who actually is an undisciplined and ignorant rich *******.

    • Annie
      August 10, 2016 at 16:04

      Hillary Clinton when asked to drop out of the race when she ran against Obama in the Democratic primaries made note of what happened to Bobby Kennedy, that is, he died so you never know. She did get some flack for that remark, even from the NY Times, but nothing like the media blitz Trump received. Are you more concerned by someone who is a verbal lose cannon, or a lose canon like Clinton that uses the military to overturn governments for political and economic gain? A lose cannon that is even willing to stir up a new cold war and play nuclear games.

      • Bill Cash
        August 10, 2016 at 16:36

        Being the first black with a shot at winning, the chances of assasination were very elevated. He has received far more death threats than any other president. It was a realistic fear, not a threat.

        • Annie
          August 10, 2016 at 17:15

          I don’t disagree. I thought her comment was extremely thoughtless, and I knew he was a very vulnerable candidate in what is still a racist America, but I didn’t believe when she said it she wanted someone to shoot him. She was just being Hillary whom I’ve never perceived as a sensitive soul, or a thoughtful human being. Otherwise we would never have that circulating video clip of her laughing over Gaddafi’s death, and laughing knowing he was sodomized with swords.

        • Brad Benson
          August 10, 2016 at 17:57

          It was a realistic fear for those who cared. Hillary Clinton is a psychopath and wouldn’t have cared one bit if someone had knocked off Obama prior to his election.

          • Annie
            August 10, 2016 at 23:38

            I don’t think she would have cared, but I don’t think she was sending a signal for someone to shoot him. I think she’s a psychopath as well. What normal human being would feel comfortable knowing they were responsible for another’s death, let alone hundreds of thousands, if not millions of deaths. In America when a person kills someone, and not in self defense, he or she can get life, or be executed, yet our politicians bring death and destruction to whole populations, for political and economic gain, and yet they continue to reside in positions of political power and can even run for the president of this country.

      • August 12, 2016 at 08:30

        Do you mean a loose canon?

    • zman
      August 15, 2016 at 21:16

      I feel you’re right. It just looks like another McCain/Palin job. I’ve been expecting controversial comments from him, not just the run of the mill campaign gaffs….if he is just a straw horse, then expect the rhetoric to get even more controversial as Nov comes closer. Time will tell.

  38. August 10, 2016 at 15:37

    This is a belly laugh!

    Newsmedia Darlings [the Gods of our past?] seem to think THEY are the arbiters of this election.

    Meanwhile they are bidding up the Trump franchise with their over the top crap on TRUMP.

    All of us 2nd amendment people are looking at all of you now…..yes we are……and we’re LAUGHING!

    I guarantee TRUMP is laughing too. Reading new and honest poll results from honest pollsters.

    2LT Dennis Morrisseau USArmy Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR, retired.
    POB 177 W Pawlet, VT 05775 802 645 9727 dmorso1@netzero.net

    • Bill Cash
      August 10, 2016 at 16:39

      Remember the crosshairs that Gabby Gifford was put in. These things aren’t funny. There are too many well armed right wingers out there who will shoot if given the chance. I guess you’d think it was funny if Hillary was shot. Trump probably would while telling us what a horrible, horrible thing it was.

      • Kiza
        August 11, 2016 at 00:08

        The only shot that Hillary will ever get is the one from the Diazepam pen that her burly Joe-Frazier-like minder always carries. In fact, she will probably need quite a few seizure-recoveries before November just to remain in the race.

        But on asking for opponents to be shot, here is something from your own DNC camp:
        Amid the media-hyped furor over Donald Trump’s 2nd Amendment comments and Wikileaks’ suggestions about the untimely death of DNC-staffer Seth Rich, we thought it perhaps of note that Democratic strategist, and CNN host, Bob Beckel, has publicly called for the “illegal assassination of that son-of-a-bitch” Julian Assange…

        http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-10/democratic-strategist-calls-assassination-julian-assange

        Those sitting in glass castles should not be throwing stones, unless their glass castle is called DNC and is protected by all oligarchic MSM. Then the open calls for assassinations of opponents become a norm.

      • Kiza
        August 11, 2016 at 23:28

        Exactly, when your side says then it is a norm, not a deviation. Only Trump deviates.

  39. Annie
    August 10, 2016 at 15:33

    All this nonsense about Trump suggesting some gun toting second amendment rights advocate take a shot at Clinton is just more propaganda meant to destroy Trump as a viable candidate. I’m not a Trump or Clinton supporter, but what I see going on is a political coup, a war of words so vile one can on this basis alone challenge our right to call ourselves a democracy, not to mention that those we elect into office do the bidding of the corporate world, and the media, owned by them, works in lockstep with their agenda.

    • Bill Cash
      August 10, 2016 at 16:34

      Here are his words:
      “Hillary wants to abolish — essentially abolish — the 2nd Amendment.
      By the way, and if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the 2nd Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.
      But — but I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day. If, if Hillary gets to put her judges — right now we’re tied. You see what’s going on. We’re tied ’cause Scalia — this was not supposed to happen.”

      He is definitely threatening her. His words are speaking of after the election and there is no other choice except a 2nd amendment remedy.

    • Kiza
      August 10, 2016 at 23:20

      Bravo Annie, exactly right. For a while I wanted to write a comment that the left-wingers will interpret all electoral pandering by Trump to a part of his electoral base as Trump’s Evil Commandments. Just to paint this picture of Trump the Impaler of the minorities and the weak and the poor female candidate Hillary. Naturally, they never fail to give the benefit of doubt to Hillary Clinton, quite the opposite: HRC talks all the time about waging wars, but naaah… there is going to be peace (go figure that logic). Even anti-Hillary intellectual left-wingers, such as Mr Parry, gladly engage in such fantasies about Trump implementing all his electoral “promises”. Overall, I can see three groups attacking Trump with their BS:
      1) US oligarchs who control MSM and turn around absolutely anything Trump says into something sinister and menacing.
      2) Cocky minorities, which amongst other actions burn US flags, most of who or whose parents are/were illegal migrants.
      3) Intellectual left-wingers who are predisposed to fall for the oligarchic propaganda from 1) because it falls into their world-view.

      Mr Parry is absolutely right that the Constitutionally guaranteed guns in Americans’ hands were not meant to be used against the guv’mint, then as a territorial defense, because this proved immensely useful during the US War of Independence against the King. It is only a huge irony that today’s US President has become an emperor (empress), thus the 2nd retains its relevance. And Mr Parry, please show me in which country, in which the citizens have a highly restricted right to bear arms, are people free-er than the people with the right to bear arms in US. The fact that the arms bearing right does not go well with the highly disassociated US society (huge social, economic and mental problems) is a related but a different issue. It is this why US has a big gun problem, not because the Constitution is wrong! The US society in 1776 was a very, very healthy society; in 2016 the US society is one of the sickest in the world. Add guns to this, and … well, you get US of today.

      Finally, although I do not consider myself a Trump proponent, let me state that I believe none of the socially divisive policy suggestions that Trump is making (building the Wall, completely stopping Muslim immigration etc) will happen if Trump wins. But, I do see Trump wanting to turn minorities into minorities and return majority into being the majority, that is return a bit of the social balance. This is actually a formula for reducing social tensions and returning US to its former greatness, because when minorities rule (especially the 0.1% mega-rich minority) then the US ends up where it is now – a huge mess.

      Elect Clinton and continue down this same path (same old, same old). Elect Trump just for a chance of a different approach which, unfortunately, may bring the same result. But just for that small chance that something different may happen.

      • Kiza
        August 10, 2016 at 23:51

        Why did US not float a better candidate than Trump or Hillary? Exactly as stated above, because it is a society in crisis. The complex breaking of influence and interests filtered out anyone who could really do something good for US.

        • Bill Bodden
          August 11, 2016 at 00:10

          Why did US not float a better candidate than Trump or Hillary?

          Probably for the same reason a nation gets the kind of government it deserves. The nation gets the candidates it deserves before it gets the government it deserves.

          Perhaps moral and ethical deficits are primary factors given, for example, a 60 to 70 percent majority approved the illegal and immoral war on Iraq.

          • Kiza
            August 11, 2016 at 09:08

            Yep, the War on Iraq is an obvious symptom of the US gross malady. The US people, if they do not kill foreigners, they kill each other. When the US started bombing the country that I originate from, I suggested to people there to read about Waco, Ruby Ridge etc. It is nothing personal, they are not treating you any different than their own – they kill as a way of (their) life.

      • John
        August 11, 2016 at 00:09

        In 1776, the United States viewed people who were black as property, indigenous people as vermin to be extinguished, and the 1% (or less) were the only ones who could vote (white male landowners, when land ownership was reliant on Crown land grants. So only those who betrayed the British throne who gave them their wealth.)

        This is what you call a “very, very healthy society”?

        • Silly Me
          August 11, 2016 at 08:08

          Don’t blame today’s people for history.

          At the time, serfdom was prevalent, because technology and capital allowed for little more. Legally, a serf was a descendant of the Roman colonus, who rented the land, but over the years, landlords demanded more and more in payment, which led to peasant revolts, after which even the few rights of the poor were revoked, resulting in a legal status that closely matched slavery. Slavery stopped, because due to advances in technology, it became more profitable to hire workers for wages.

          People are pack animals, consequently born racists. Only a few ever ascend to a level where being human is more important than belonging to an interest group.

          In the British tradition of segregation, racism in the US is still institutionalized in the school system. Instead of free school choice, which is universal in the civilized world, US apparatchiks are busy privatizing public education in charter schools, depriving children of the very hope of having at least a few good teachers, while ripping off the taxpayer. In a system with free school choice, there are entrance exams, not lotteries, and schools receive subsidies after the number of students attending (not just enrolled). Meritocracy is the best remedy for racism in this context. Sadly, instead, what we have is a race to the bottom (no pun intended).

        • Kiza
          August 11, 2016 at 08:53

          A comment such as yours reminds me of people who call the period before Renaissance in Europe, the Dark Age. But it turns out that putting labels depends very much on the point of view, that is on the criteria applied.

          If you were a black African brought to North America on a British slave ship, I bet you would call 1776 a dark age. But those African slaves were not members of the society and slavery was only one aspect. Similar applies to women’s suffrage, although it would be a much smaller issue than slavery.

          Now, imagine for a moment that you are talking to the family of a Japanese Christian who perished in the Nagasaki bombing. Would his and hundreds of thousands of other Japanese families call 1945 the Dark Age? Even numbers do not work in your favor – more people have been killed in the two nuclear bombings by the US than the number of all slaves brought to US. Would they care that there was no slavery but full suffrage in 1945? Perhaps you get my point by now – every age has its victims, whilst you are applying very subjective criteria (mainly based on liberal propaganda of what is important). Because, for example, what do Syrian women care about women from the Western US states who helped give all women the right to vote when they have to prostitute themselves to east and feed their families, thanks to a great extent to the daughters of those US suffrage women.

          So why is 1776 a time of a healthy US society? 1776 was a time of enlightenment and most Founding Fathers were members of this movement. The US Constitution itself is one of the most progressive products of mind in all of human history. I just smile when somebody says: but George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin owned slaves! US could only dream now to have a person of a character standing of any of the three as a candidate in 2016. The US has just fought a good war for Independence, probably the first and last truly good war the US ever fought. The US people were defending their country from a controlling foreign power. There were morals in the society, respect for others, do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself, there was much more belief in God, much less greed and so on and so on.

          • historicus
            August 13, 2016 at 08:24

            The veterans of the Continental Army who gathered in numbers in the winter of 1787-88 on federal property (then only courthouses and customs houses) to burn copies of the new Constitution called it a betrayal of what they thought they had fought for. And the War of Independence was as much a fight among colonial rivals for economic advantage as it was a challenge to British authority. The result of it all was just what the Founders intended, a new government in which their class held all the real power, while the right to vote in the new people’s paradise was restricted to barely 12% of America’s population.

      • Roberto
        August 11, 2016 at 02:18

        With the DNC use of super delegates and their refusal to end that practice, we have a situation where the people of the “United States” are no longer able to choose their leaders. The designated candidate trick is too easy to play in a two party system.

      • Wade
        August 11, 2016 at 20:45

        “please show me in which country, in which the citizens have a highly restricted right to bear arms, are people free-er than the people with the right to bear arms in US”.

        Canada.

        • Kiza
          August 11, 2016 at 23:26

          It is because the Canadians so free that they took part in almost every war of US (Israel’s) choice (and even died from US bombs). Great point Wade, as long as you use your MSM-brainwashed brain to decide what are the criteria for “a healthy society”, “freedom”, “prosperity”, “personal rights” and so on you will just be another one of the shipple. Switch off that TV and stop buying the newspapers and magazines, it is all bull. There are only a few fringe websites (sorry Mr Parry this one is on a fringe too) where freedom truly speaks, everything else is already under total control. If there were not on the fringe, they would be taken over or legally harassed or …

          • August 12, 2016 at 08:12

            How about shutting off right-wing talk radio and its fair and balanced dialogue and try reading up on the history of our country. A good place to start would be a book written by Ida Tarbell about the history of Standard Oil. If you take the time to read it you might discover that history does repeat itself. When stuck in the forest it is hard to see the forest through the trees. The right is hell bent on destroying guvmint. You still have a right to vote.

        • Ed
          August 12, 2016 at 07:18

          And not to mention Australia, Japan, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Austria, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway etc…

      • Rikhard Ravindra Tanskanen
        August 16, 2016 at 14:50

        Cocky minorities whose parents were illegal immigrants? What racist garbage. I knew you were anti-Semitic, but you seem to be anti-Hispanic, anti-Muslim, and anti-black too (since you mentioned minoritis in the plural, and those are the minorities protesting against Trump).

        • Rikhard Ravindra Tanskanen
          August 16, 2016 at 15:19

          I spelt “minorities” wrong. Sorry.

    • dfnslblty
      August 11, 2016 at 12:01

      No, Annie, mr t’s words are inciteful and actionable – the test: you, Annie, walk into your local bank/school/town hall/etc. and say the exact same words. Whatever your intent/meaning/motivation your freedom will be impinged. Disguised threats such as t’s & talk-radio’s disqualify such speakers from public forums.

    • rosemerry
      August 11, 2016 at 13:35

      Correct. Clinton’s actions as well as her words against Russia, for the violent illegal actions of Israel and Ukraine, and against the governments of countries such as Libya, Syria should also disqualify her, if incitement to violence has any meaning.

    • Bart Gruzalski
      August 11, 2016 at 14:28

      Annie, you have nailed it right on the head. Vile, words used to disqualify Trump, “and the media, owned by them, works in lockstep with their agenda.”

      I’m an old guy, a professor emeritus, three books and one coming out (on concepts deeply relevant to this election), over sixty articles, have taught over 5000 students, am long in the tooth, and I couldn’t have said it any better. Very well done. Ten stars out of five. There’s not even any need (except idle curiosity for which I have no time) to read the next comment and I won’t.

      What worries me is that this article fits in with your description of what’s going on more broadly: disqualification, lockstep with the major media.

      The author wrote: “Words do have consequences and politicians should be held accountable for their intemperate remarks. Yet, my impression on Tuesday was that Trump was running off at the mouth, much as he regularly did in making himself popular on talk-radio shows. The fact, however, that Trump can’t seem to turn off that side of his personality and control his mouth is arguably disqualifying for someone who aspires to be President of the United States.”

      Who is the author? The editor of Consortium News, the person who decides what articles get published and which ones don’t. Words do have consequences, and their consequences have significantly more or less weight depending on who says them. If I were to call Obama a lying two-mouthed bastard, that would have almost no consequences but if Hillary were to let that slip out of her own liar’s mouth, huge consequences. Depending on who is saying the words the words may have significantly greater (or less) consequences.

      Same here with this article. The editor had ruled, judged, decided that Trump is disqualified from running for the presidency (sure, he said “arguably,” but since he’s the editor, the “Yea” or “Nay” doorkeeper to the site, it is quite significant).

      If you go back over the last few weeks we’ve had a Ms. Cohen Prof. Emerita who trashes Trump because she doesn’t accurately assess what his fundamental gold standard test for good or bad policy. Now we have the editor trashing Trump.

      I was writing a piece to submit to Consortium news entitled: SO CALLED PROGRESSIVES, WHY DO YOU CHEER KAHN AND BEAT UP ON DONALD TRUMP?

      It begins: “I’ve been reading articles…. I notice that everyone seems concerned about the hyper-anti-Russia propaganda pouring out beyond the borders of the Beltway. The odds of a nuclear war with Russia are extremely high…. If Hillary is elected…. Although Donald Trump would not start a war with Russia or China or anyone else, those reading and writing on Consortium News don’t seem to think much of him.”

      Am I wasting my time submitting it? Maybe the reason there’ve been no articles even vaguely favorable to Trump is because the “Nay” stamp on the editor’s desk is always well inked to keep Trump a not-viable-let’s-laugh-at-him candidate. I hope not. I will trust that Mr. Parry’s professionalism will override his anti-Trump bias. We’ll all see since I will submit this article by evening.

      Annie, I see you are not for Hillary or Trump. I was an avid Bernie Supporter. Avid avid avid. I also do “conceptual analysis” and I became intrigued by Trump’s criterion of what is good policy and good actions by the government: America First. Check it out, I’ll say a couple of things if the piece I’ve mentioned above gets published. Frankly, I was initially surprised. I’m the only “Boston Caucasian Blue Blood Respected Professor” who even gives Trump’s ideas the time of day. And, Annie, they are the best thing going, even clearer than my hero Bernie Sanders.

    • August 11, 2016 at 16:57

      nonsense indeed, annie, and thanks for thinking…probably the worst and most stupid thing about trump is the reaction to his pin-headed ,arrogant but often depressingly honest unedited reactions which brings the most stupid – at best – and repressive thought control – at worst – response from mind management headquarters of consciousness control and its flunky corps in media and politics…why who could ever imagine that the nra/gun-owners-by-the-millions lobby could have any power in america? obviously he was calling for armed insurrection, murder and all the other liberal wet dreams that make life in the ivory tower so comfortable ..we must rely on media , democrats , and all too many former radicals to keep us well informed.

      anyone who’d think other wise probably believes there’s an israeli lobby!

      • Rikhard Ravindra Tanskanen
        August 16, 2016 at 14:55

        Liberals don’t want murder or insurrection. Right-wing militias do.

Comments are closed.