Backfire: When the More Evil Plays the Game of the Lesser of Two Evils
Since when is it okay to call for the expulsion, harm and even the death of a political foe? And of course, I am not talking about the historical bad boys looming in the annals of high school Western Civ class - Caesar, Stalin, Hitler or Robespierre (“Historical Examples" below). I am talking about the dangerous calls for violence - both direct and indirect - against Trump and for the masses of anti-Trump citizens to take to the streets and launch violent riots - many of which ended in injuries, violent confrontations, and death (“Riots” below).
The Left has gone totally beyond the pale in calling on the public to kill Donald Trump, and the public has answered - at least twice in premeditated attempts, and at least two other occasions through dismantled plots as reported by the FBI and SS (“Attempts” below). And this is after charging him with an enormous variety and quantity of criminal indictments they could have very easily gone after him for as far back as the earliest years of the last decade. Through it all, love him or hate him, Trump hasn't returned the favor.
Trump is the third president to have sustained two assassination attempts. The most recent double-assassination attempt occurred in September, 1975, against Gerald Ford - oddly enough, both were female, and both with a gun. The first was on September 5 in Sacramento, California, when Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme, a follower of Charles Manson, attempted to shoot him. The second, 17 days later, was on September 22 in San Francisco, when Sara Jane Moore fired a shot at Ford but missed.
If that wasn't bad-ass enough, Theodore Roosevelt was the target of an assassination attempt when, in 1912, he was shot in the chest by John Schrank but, against the medic’s orders, insisted on giving a 90-minute speech with the bullet lodged in his chest. The one preceding that attempt, in 1909, occurred when a man tried to shoot him but was stopped by the Secret Service.
Trump is the third president to have sustained two assassination attempts. But where he stands out is that, at no time in recorded American history has any president - past or present - sustained two assassination attempts and it NOT kept headlines in international publications for months or even years.
After Roosevelt’s multiple assassination attempts, Roosevelt's life was reported widely in both national and international media, not only for his bravery and tenacity, but also for the political implications as the first president to live through two attempts. There was also an outlandish backstory that his would-be assassin, John Schrank, claimed that the ghost of President William McKinley had told him to kill Roosevelt.
Likewise, for several weeks following Gerald Ford’s assassination attempts, there was a sustained media conversation about the implications for national security, the motivations of the assailants, and Ford's handling of the incidents. The president's insistence on maintaining public appearances despite these risks was highlighted repeatedly, and the two events became intertwined with discussions on political unrest throughout the duration of the 1970s.
As I sit here and write this article, today’s top story from Yahoo News is titled, “Six takeaways from Kamala Harris’s MSNBC interview with Stephanie Ruhle.” The AP’s top story is entitled, "Alabama to carry out the second nitrogen gas execution in the US." The New York Times and several other major publications, are all boasting a headline about Mayor Adam’s indictment. Reuters’ biggest story is related to NPR’s top story which both cover the Israel conflict escalation in Lebanon. Hurricane Helene was NBC’s chosen top story today.
In fact, the only three of the legacy media companies that I searched (broadly, “Today’s Top News Stories,”) even mention Donald Trump’s name in the first three pages of returned links. First was CNN’s coverage of a sealed indictment against Trump, entitled, “Special counsel files evidence under seal against Trump in election subversion case.” This story was echoed by CBS News. The second was NBC’s story entitled, “Trump says he will meet with Zelenskyy on Friday.” And the third was Fox’s campaign coverage, entitled, “Fox News Poll: Voters' choice has flipped in Arizona since last month.”
Donald Trump’s second assassination attempt, the second such event in America’s two-and-a-half-century history (“Presidential Assassinations” below), didn’t make a single headline in mainstream media’s top stories as I write this article less than 11 days after the event.
That notion does not escape those on the Right. And it should very much concern those on the Left. For the Right, it almost certainly means that they need Trump now more than ever (an underscored understanding much to the chagrin of the Left).
To the Left, what it should mean is that their leaders are hamstringing them for votes - that they are so scared to lose this election to Trump that they’ve completely avoided politicizing the event, instead focusing on the broader need to address political violence in the country.
Unless my research and attention to detail is off, the closest Trump has ever come to calling for violence against the Left encompass the four instances below. Outside of these examples, which were debunked, taken out of context, and generally used to manipulate the Leftist audience from the very top of the political food chain, the closest Trump ever comes to calling for violence has been his “bloodbath” comment that arose out of a speech he made on the campaign trail in Ohio.
It’s surprising how many in my online friend base hear something on a major streaming or network news company and just accept it without doing any of their own research at all. Because, ‘why would a major news company ever make up such a thing?’ Well, the answer to that very question is what the Right has been champing at the bit to tell the Left for a long time. I’ll detail that in just a minute.
Trump’s Controversial Rhetoric:
“Fight like hell” (January 6, 2021)
In a speech before the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, Trump urged his supporters to "fight like hell" to “prevent the certification of the 2020 election results,” which is how many news outlets and politicians have spun his words. A full read of the transcripts tells a very different story, where Trump told the crowd to march "peacefully" and make their voices heard.
Encouragement of Aggression at Rallies
During his 2016 campaign, Trump encouraged rough treatment of protesters at rallies. In Iowa, he said, "If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them... I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees." Not only were these remarks not directed specifically at Democrats, they were also seen as inviting the crowd to defend him against those who would throw things at Trump as he spoke on stage.
The ‘Second Amendment People’ Comment
In August 2016, Trump said: "If [Hillary] gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people—maybe there is, I don’t know." While clearly a reference to pro-gun supporters, Trump was referencing Clinton’s presumed stance on gun ownership and the citizens who saw it as a constitutional issue, concluding that 2A lobbies would fight for gun rights.
Dehumanizing Language
Beyond Trump's brash selection of less-than-eloquent word choices when commenting about those who cast doubt on his leadership, the closest quote I could find to Trump’s quotes inciting violence against the Left to the level as it has invoked against him were various times when he called Democrats, the media, and political opponents, "enemies of the people." If his personal belief is that they are lying about him, which they are, then this quote, almost regardless of context, is fitting. Because, as before, why would mainstream media lie to us if they were our friends and only wanted a well-informed public? “You” are the people. And if they are not your friends, what are they? Enemies? Enemies of whom? You. You, the people. “Enemies of the people.”
Which brings us back to the “bloodbath” quote. He said, “If I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath, for the whole [automobile industry]. That’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country.”
Taken in context, clearly Trump is talking about an economic loss for American manufacturing workers. Taken out of context, it's an idiot’s battle cry to “save America from a tyrant.” It’s been used out of context like it was the very wildfire the Left was waiting to see spark.
Biden, Harris, the mainstream media, and other voices used that quote to fan the flames of that wildfire, but they forgot that, once said, their words would always be etched in the edifice of media history. For all to see. And for all to simply do their homework on.
More and more people have done their homework, and more and more people are getting tired of being lied to. And the exhaustion of being lied to is starting to outweigh party loyalty. And that is inevitable in an educated public.
A smiling face and a sharpened speech only draws the crowd in for so long. It’s truth that keeps its attention longest. William Shakespeare had that figured out more than 400 years ago.
"The fringed curtains of thine eye advance, And say what thou seest yond." -"The Tempest"
The day after the Ohio rally, Biden's team quickly reacted to Trump’s comment, accusing him of stoking fears of political violence similar to January 6. Biden referenced Trump's remark in campaign speeches and interviews, framing it as a dangerous escalation in rhetoric. They continued to insert it into news briefs at the White House for months. And even Biden, himself, reiterated it in his geriatric trainwreck of a performance during the presidential debate with Trump on CNN.
Not to be outdone, NBC, Politico, and Rolling Stone quoted the comment so out of context that it led to a firestorm of reactions both in and outside of the media talk box.
Specifically:
NBC News ran a headline: "Trump says there will be a ‘bloodbath’ if he loses the election."
Politico published: "Trump says country faces ‘bloodbath’ if Biden wins in November."
Rolling Stone framed it as: "Trump Says There Will Be a ‘Bloodbath’ and Elections Will End if He Isn’t Reelected."
Coming up in journalism, and moving on to teaching it to students all over the world, I would have fully expected to fail an assignment to write a story with that headline, and certainly would have failed any of my students who did so.
It is an outright lie. It’s menacing, and it puts the public in extreme jeopardy because there are people who will (and do) believe it. If they’ve lied so boldly about such an obvious, public statement, what else are they lying about? And this, of course, is coming from the side of the political aisle who are calling their opponent dangerous!
The Right does it to. I am not allowing anyone any freedom from scrutiny here. It happens on both sides. But this instance is so glaring, so brazen, it can only mean that the media elites simply don’t even care to do it in hiding anymore. They clearly see us, the consumer public, as moronic sheep, gazing endlessly like zombies through a window into a world they’ve created for us, and believing every word.
Even though debunked by left-leaning fact-checkers, as of the date of this release, these (and other) misuses of Trump's words are still fully published, never redacted, never updated, never used as the basis for an apology to their readers for lying to them, and still fully available for the public. These are real world examples of major media players LYING - taking their subscriber’s money and handing them bullshit in return. There is no other way to describe it.
And, again, this is not coming from a Trump supporter. It’s actually coming from a once-liberal leaning, well educated, world-traveled, multiple author and former journalism professor. You’d think I’d be sporting my Birkenstocks and leaning on the side of the media for this one. I just happen to have my eyes open. I read. I investigate. And I can confidently say that this is coming from a place of deep concern for every citizen of this country - left-leaning, right-leaning, independent, whatever. This is being written not in support of any major party candidate currently vying for the next presidency.
This is just a sampling of examples that prove that the Left have moved from the party I loved and appreciated for their interests in the conservation of the environment, their bastion stances on free speech, their forward-thinking initiatives on upending the prison state and giving education, healthcare, and states’ rights back to the states. But these days are over - even in the arena of healthcare, which has become a woman-centered campaign to hang white men as the poster-children of all the country’s ills, traded the once community-minted “whole health” ideology to shill for Big Pharma lobbies that fund everything from their campaigns to their broadcasts.
But back to the topic at hand. Trump followed that statement by stating that if elected, he would impose a 100% tariff on any car made in those foreign plants and sold in the U.S., preventing these companies from exploiting American markets while undermining U.S. workers. Taken out of context, Biden, Harris, and at least a dozen mainstream news agencies quoted only his “bloodbath” comments and reanimated their “danger to democracy” claims at his behest.
When that didn’t work, they claimed that the tariff would simply be “passed onto the consumer.” In the auto industry, this is simply not true as it is in, say, the aluminum or steel industries. These, and other materials necessary for vehicle manufacturing, would not be taxed, still be used in car manufacturing domestically, and would still continue unencumbered by the import tariffs. If foreign car makers knew that, to sell their fully-built cars in America, they’d have to pay a 100% tariff (essentially a full-profit tax), they simply wouldn’t do the business of selling fully built cars here.
This means that the only cars on the market would be older, tax-paid foreign cars and newer, American-made vehicles. This, and not the media spin of “passing on the cost to the consumer” would be the end result of America-first goods.
So, if that’s the closest they can get without the thinly veiled attempts to take his quotes out of context, they are playing a dangerous game of Lesser of Two Evils. Because, if it's the "lesser of two evils" they want us to vote for, and they keep getting exposed for being outright liars on a national stage, guess who many people, including would-be democrats, are going to be soured on the idea of a Democratic president?
It’s a gamble. And when someone is so desperate that they’re gambling with so much at stake, it’s normally because they’re out of options.
Not for nothing, as they say in my mother’s home state of New York, but that’s a helluva gamble to take with the future of the Party. And if they’re willing to make that kind of a gamble, most folks would reasonably assume that they are no longer relying on Party confidence or confidence-assuring actions (like, say, locking down the border and taking care of our veterans, teachers, homeless problems, housing crisis, recession-prone economic policies, and so on).
Otherwise, they’d just be showing the voters that they’ve got the capacity to tackle all those other things. They wouldn’t even have to consider Kamala’s race or gender as a promotion of the Left’s new ideological visage of a president. They could just say to the world, “Look! We have done all these great things! We have pulled the country out of Trump’s terrible remnants! We’ve pulled out of all wars, refused to fund other wars, and focused on strengthening our own global resources and allies!”
Who wouldn’t want four more years of that? If they’d done that, this article would never have been written, because I’d have long since taken a breath of fresh air knowing that the Democratic Party had finally revived itself - refashioned its image as the once-cutting-edge citadel, the once-progressive bulwark, once-globally strategic and inclusive rampart of the free world.
Even Republicans couldn’t deny they’d vote for someone with that kind of track record. But we don’t see that - not from a single member of the current cabinet.
Instead, what we see is a near-24/7 media frenzy over a non-existent gender debate that’s been promoted as a political conversation, and which may soon stand as the groundwork for hate speech arrests (as is happening all over Europe and the UK following their all-too-familiar open borders policy).
We see recently appointed transgender military generals placing “misgendering” above top secret security clearance violations in the tribunals. We see Department of Interior Communications Director Tyler Cherry’s social media posts which are hyper focused on gender-oriented commentary about a “slave patrol” police force acting as “lynch mobs” alongside his tweets of bondage parties.
I mean, let’s be clear: Be gay, if that’s who you truly are. Be bi. Be trans. Throw round-the-clock sex parties in the penthouse for all I care. Everyone (and I mean everyone from the top-down) does things in the privacy of their own homes that they don’t bring into the spotlight - for a very good reason.
Hell, even Epstein knew that! But in the cabinet history of a global leader in freedom, we have never had such a clown show of leadership as we do right now, particularly because we are hiring people who call cops “lynch mobs,” and then take positions of power over them. The success of our military, and its reach over massive populations has never before been deprioritized over harming the ego of a person representing an extraordinarily tiny subset of our population.
This is what the Right is upset about - not whether General So-and-so likes to wear women’s underwear. But the narrative is that the conservative class of citizens out there are just judgy, bigoted, misogynist, out-of-touch, xenophobic ultra-nationalists who prefer profits over peace, and can’t stand anything different.
Okay, some are of that ilk. But then again, some liberals are well within the camp of socialist, snowflake, elitists with radical bleeding hearts, wading a sea of woke ideology and globalist sympathies. If you’re reading this from the leftist perspective, you will read that and say something like, “Yeah, but that’s a tiny portion of our numbers.” And with that statement, you now understand how the Right feels about the less desirable of their ranks.
The point is, no one I know generally opposes gayness, denies LGBTQ+ issues, refuses to accept a transgender presence. They are just understandably tired of having those issues come before the issues that keep our country, our economy, our education, our workplace, and so on, all moving in the right direction.
There are far too many initiatives that limit one's ability to show love in this world. So I could never, in good conscience, limit someone else’s expression of love? Free love! Free expression! You do what you want with consenting peers. But do it without forcing your beliefs or morals on anyone else! That’s what everyone expects of everyone, right?
But, second, just as I have no right to tell anyone else what they can or cannot say, they do not have any authority over how I am required to address them - varying pronouns or no. If a man looks like a man, I will call him a man. Common sense does not mitigate itself over anyone’s choice to deny their biology. And it sure as hell shouldn’t insinuate itself into our national and international policies.
I can’t speak for an entire demographic of any political segment, but I don’t personally know any right-leaning people who oppose any sexually-orienting, sexually-leaning, or even sexually-denying self indulgence that one may want to explore in the private lives. Do these people exist? Sure - just like intolerant lefties exist who are willing to burn down buildings in response to Trump’s election. But, just as in any group, these are the extremists. Or so I should hope.
Historically, there are decades of examples of a presidential cabinet being filled with politically sympathetic staff. But we have never, in the history of the Republic, experienced an almost across-the-board hiring campaign of staff with such an extreme ideological bent that has nothing to do with political alignment, economic stability, military readiness, international relations, global trade, national sovereignty, or any of the other fundamental aspects of captaining the helm of the free world.
The dems at the head of this kind of push think that they are on a ride - a new wave of groundbreaking ideas that’s gaining traction and momentum - and that everyone else is on that ride with them. I am old enough to remember when it was the Republicans who were on that same ride - so I know what it looks like.
It looks like the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, George H. W. Bush, establishing the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) in 1989, leading to the appointment of a “drug czar” to coordinate anti-drug efforts across various federal agencies.
Even though the War on Drugs created "no sustained reduction in drug abuse overall," the number of Americans incarcerated for drug offenses rose sharply, from around 50,000 in 1980 to over 400,000 by 1997, it did so with nearly full, bipartisan support, as the Reagan and Bush administrations were on a ride - and in a bubble - of self-important, self-imposed national imperatives. Just as we are seeing on the Left today.
But now, just as then, they may well find out that this bubble is smaller than they think.
If you're planning to vote for Kamala, do yourself a favor: Try and think of reasons why you plan to vote for her without using the word ‘Trump.’ If that list of reasons is shorter than those where you must use her political opposition as validation for your choice, you can rest assured that you have been indoctrinated by the "pick me because I'm not him" rhetoric.
Her speech is articulate and poised, but doesn't say much. She promises a lot, but has literally completed none of the campaign promises she could have been working on for the last four years. She comes so close to being a constitutional violation of the popular vote by her “appointment” as the Party candidate that no one even remembers any other candidates lost in the shadow of shock. And what if she wins? She will have been the first hand-picked president in the history of our country. That would see the Forefathers turning over in their graves, because that is not the country they built for the free world.
Let’s also not forget that Kamala played a pivotal role in the border crisis that she, herself, is promising to fix after the election for which thousands, if not millions of illegals are already registered to vote in Oregon, Arizona, and other key states.
I want to make sure I restate that in the form of a question for context. After the illegals she let in help her take the presidency, she will then boot them out? Does that make sense to anyone, anywhere? “Thanks for your vote, guys, now let’s get you back on those planes to El Salvador!” How would that impact her DEI-dependent citizen voter base? And how would that bode for a second term? It’s a lot to unpack, but, simply put, I am betting that this is a bold-faced lie that we will see unfold in the first two years of her would-be presidency.
But back to the voter registration issues. Other examples include California’s 2018 Motor Voter program, which faced issues where the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) “mistakenly” registered ineligible individuals, including noncitizens, to vote. These errors were caused by “technical” issues and “clerical” mistakes during the voter registration process linked to the DMV.
In 2019, Texas conducted a voter registration review and claimed that around 95,000 noncitizens were registered to vote. And then there’s the big one where, just last year, Georgia election officials testified before Congress and acknowledged errors in vote counting during the 2020 election to the tune of as many as hundreds of thousands of votes.
Also in 2020 where, in Illinois, many hundreds of noncitizens were “accidentally” registered to vote through the state's automatic voter registration system, which made it all the way to the November elections before being noticed.
Two more cases in 2020 include (a) in Clark County, Nevada, officials discovered discrepancies during the post-election audit where votes were counted twice due to a scanning error, and there were also claims of improper voter registration; and (b) in Wisconsin, errors were found during recounts requested by the Trump campaign. These errors included improperly filled-out absentee ballots and clerical mistakes in multiple counties. Spokespersons for each of these states claim that the issues were minimal, and that, coincidentally, the findings of those issues fell in the benefit of Joe Biden.
We all know I am no Trump fan. Even up to the latest debate, I really wanted to like him. And then... he spoke. He defended his ego and not the issues. He allowed himself to be totally controlled by the questions, Kamala's comments, and the moderators. And he just generally left me sincerely and deeply underwhelmed (even without considering the obvious lean in the debate set against him).
Let's face it, he was not our greatest president. He left us with the largest debt of all previous presidents combined. He all but destroyed our international relations. And he offered his cronies the same thing that every preceding politician has - big breaks he promised he would not offer. But, even with all of that, he and his party have not sued left, right and center against nearly all the parties and opponents who challenge him. In fact, just since 2022 alone, the Democratic Party has launched a record number of voting-related lawsuits, with 96 active lawsuits as of 2022, filed across 26 states.
Though he has expressed wishes that Hillary and the Bidens be put in jail, Trump has not weaponized the DOJ in the same way that dems have sicked the dogs on him. And he seeks to bridge the political, healthcare, and economic gap by collectively including lots of influential people like RFK Jr., who wants to unravel Big Tech/Pharma/Tobacco/Govt, etc; philanthropist, attorney, and former spouse of Google's founder, Nicole Shanahan; Hawaii's 2nd Congressional rep and two-time Kuwait and Iraq veteran, Tulsi Gabbard, and a host of others from in and across the aisle.
He may have a bad track record, but it appears that he at least has the party support and allies to maybe do a better job this time. Harris has no one of note who she can fall back on if she falters.
He may have blocked a border bill (that had a ton of literal and figurative holes in it) for political reasons, but he is not escalating a war with Iran and around Israel. Harris and Biden have never renounced Israel’s affronts, and have even financially supported moves into Lebanon and the West Bank.
Trump may have put us into debt, but he has a plan to pack America's coffers with a "Strategic National Bitcoin Stockpile" that would ostensibly help pay off the U.S. national debt (a plan that, even in theory, eclipses Kamala's $6K/yr family restoration b.s.).
In fact, it is my humble belief that the very reasons that democrats are calling for his execution are the very reasons he makes my list of positive attributes. The Left has become the party of war mongers and political unrest - praising and calling for violent protests and even assassinations. They are arming and funding the two nations with the highest current probability for inciting multinational war (and they have printed trillions of counterfeit, debt-soaked dollars to do so). They’ve also made no secret of shilling for the corporations and PACs that control them.
Things are weird, my friends. And they show no sign of becoming any less so. I cannot vote for RFK (who I helped get on the ballot in Arizona) because he pulled his candidacy from here and joined the Trump camp. But I sure as hell am not voting for his opposition. I could not, in good conscience, support the party that enforced baseless, unconstitutional, mass arrests, fines, and firings of people who stood against injecting themselves with an experimental drug for which there would be no legal or financial recourse should things go awry with their health (which, as we are finding out, is rampant).
I couldn't support the party I once closely aligned with because they are constantly and historically shifting their alliances, allegiances, and aspirations. And I will absolutely do everything I can to help RFK Jr., Tulsi, Nicole and others get into positions where they can do the most good - even if it's through a vehicle of the lesser evils.
Don’t believe me that the protests were violent?
Riots and Protests Foment Violence and Death:
Numerous casualties and injuries were reported during anti-Trump protests and riots over the years, particularly following high-profile events involving Donald Trump. While most protests were peaceful, some demonstrations escalated into violent confrontations, leading to property damage, clashes with law enforcement, and injuries.
1. Inauguration Day Protests (January 20, 2017)
Starting from the very beginning, on Inauguration Day 2017, protests against Trump’s swearing-in turned violent in Washington, D.C. as protesters clashed with law enforcement, set vehicles on fire, and smashed windows of businesses. Police responded with tear gas, pepper spray, and flash-bang grenades to disperse the crowds. Over 200 people were arrested, and several police officers and protesters were injured during the clashes.
2. Portland Protests (2020)
Portland, Oregon, became a hotbed of anti-Trump protests, especially during the summer of 2020. The protests, initially sparked by the death of George Floyd, often turned into broader anti-Trump demonstrations, particularly due to Trump's deployment of federal agents to the city. Clashes between protesters and federal officers were frequent, with injuries reported on both sides, with protesters being injured by crowd-control munitions, and officers being injured by homemade fire bombs and small, heavy objects.
3. Berkeley Protests (2017)
In early 2017, the University of California, Berkeley, witnessed violent protests ahead of planned speeches by conservative figures linked to Trump like Milo Yiannopoulos. Rioters set fires, damaged property, and clashed with police, leading to injuries and the cancellation of the events.
Don't believe me that the Left has called for violence?
Threats by Famous Actors and Comedians:
Robert De Niro - October 2016: "He's so blatantly stupid. He's a punk, he's a dog, he's a pig... I'd like to punch him in the face." (https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/oct/08/robert-de-niro-donald-trump-punch-him-face)
Johnny Depp - June 2017: "When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/23/when-was-the-last-time-an-actor-assassinated-a-president-johnny-depp-draws-rebuke-for-remarks-on-trump/)
Madonna - January 2017: "Yes, I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House." (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/01/21/madonna-womens-march/96820296/)
Kathy Griffin - May 2017: Posed with a prop of Trump's severed head during a CNN interview (https://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/30/entertainment/kathy-griffin-trump-head/index.html)
Threats by Political Talking Heads:
Rick Wilson - January 2020: "They're still going to have to go out and put a bullet in Donald Trump, and that's a fact." (https://www.newsweek.com/msnbc-contributor-rick-wilson-trump-controversy-1484392)
Carole Cook - September 2018: "Where is John Wilkes Booth when you need him?" (https://people.com/movies/carole-cook-donald-trump-assassination-john-wilkes-booth/)
Maxine Waters - June 2018: "If you see anybody from that [Trump] cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd, and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere." (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/06/25/maxine_waters_call_for_harassment_of_trump_officials_create_a_crowd_and_push_back_on_them.html)
Gina Raimondo - September 2024: "Let’s extinguish him for good." (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/gina-raimondo-extinguish-trump-for-good)
Threats by Politicians:
Congressman Dan Goldman - November 2023: "He is not only unfit, he is destructive to our democracy, and he has to be eliminated." (https://justthenews.com/government/congress/dem-rep-goldman-apologizes-after-calling-trump-be-eliminated)
Joe Biden - October 2018: "If we were in high school, I’d take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him." (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/16/joe-biden-says-he-would-beat-the-hell-out-of-trump-if-they-were-in-high-school)
Don't believe me that the Democratic Party has floated in a political sea of sway? Don’t believe me that the Democratic Party actually SUPPORTED slavery as a pillar of its inception? It was actually the Republican Party that opposed slavery as a pillar of its founding principles.
A Brief History of the Two Primary Parties Today
First, Republicans:
Sadly, I didn't remember this from history classes, so I did a little research. Turns out the Republican Party was formed in 1854 in response to the growing opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which allowed for the possibility of slavery expanding into new territories. Its primary founding principle was opposition to the expansion of slavery, advocating for a free labor economy and the prevention of slavery in new states and territories.
The party quickly gained traction, especially in the northern states, as a strong alternative to the Democratic Party, which at the time had significant support in the South. By 1860, the Republican Party had elected its first president, Abraham Lincoln.
Now, Democrats:
On the other hand, the Democratic Party traces its origins back to the early 1790s, making it the oldest active political party in the United States. The party at that time represented Southern agrarian interests and was a supporter of slavery, a stance that lasted until the Civil War and Reconstruction eras. Over time, the Democratic Party underwent significant shifts in ideology, particularly during the 20th century, when it embraced more progressive and civil rights-oriented platforms.
The Democratic party evolved from the Democratic-Republican Party, which was founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The Democratic-Republicans stood in opposition to the Federalist Party, advocating for a more decentralized government, states' rights, and a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
One might understand why I leaned this way when the tattered fabric of that history was still visible. After all, three of my degrees are in Journalism, Communication, and the Intermedial Arts. Not exactly fodder for the Right (at least at the time).
The Democratic Party, as it is known today, was formally established in 1828 with the election of Andrew Jackson, who became its first president. Jackson's populist policies focused on the common man, opposition to the national bank, and advocating for westward expansion. This was a time when they were on the right track. Alas, they have become much more Communist in their ideologies of late, even using slogans of the Marxist Party right up to Kamala Harris and Joe Biden.
Kamala’s quote repeated at her speaking engagements ad nauseum, “I can see what can be unburdened by what has been…” is right out of Karl Marx's The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852).
His full quote (selected from several similar) is, “Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living… The social revolution of the nineteenth century cannot draw its poetry from the past but only from the future."
In this passage, Marx is critiquing how historical precedents and outdated social structures can hinder contemporary society's progress. He argues that in order to effect revolutionary change and build a new future, society must free itself from the constraints of the past. Fully free. In fact, he suggests a complete tearing down of the old world to build a new one.
Because Kamala is following in the very same footsteps of the famous revolutionary socialist and a communist theorist who wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1948. Why wouldn’t she? Her party is poised for that kind of change. She calls for violent protests, Minneapolis burns. Her Leftist followers “suggest” that Trump should die, one attempt per month ensues like clockwork.
Imagine you’re sitting in the place of power she currently sits, seeing these chess pieces move as she wants them to move by way of her party. Imagine what it must take to keep that kind of suggestive power from going to your head.
I have always believed the same things, my friends. It just seems like the political spectrum has shifted around me so that I now appear to align with the Right. And, frankly, by the state of things on the Left, I am ashamed that I ever found myself amid that herd.
They started off supporting slavery, they then went hard to the right in Constitutionalism, then, most recently, they went straight for Marxism. And I wish more people could see that the party they feel is so stable, is anything but stable - that it ebbs and flows with cultural tides.
Think for yourselves. Not for the party that thinks that it thinks for you, but really only caters to cultural swings. Its a fad. Not a political party.
Don't believe me that the Left states and swing states are basically handing illegals voter cards?
Historical Examples of Leaders Calling For the Deaths of their Opposition
Julius Caesar (44 BCE) - Ancient Rome
Assassination of Political Rival: Julius Caesar, a Roman general and statesman, was assassinated by a group of Roman senators led by Brutus and Cassius. This assassination was driven by fears that Caesar was consolidating power and becoming a tyrant, undermining the Roman Republic.
Stalin's Purges (1930s) - Soviet Union
Great Purge: Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin famously carried out widespread purges against both political and military figures whom he viewed as threats. During the Great Purge (1936-1938), Stalin ordered the execution or imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of individuals, including prominent Communist Party members, military leaders, and intellectuals. Key figures like Leon Trotsky, his political rival, were targeted and assassinated.
Nazi Germany (1934)
Night of the Long Knives: Adolf Hitler, leader of Nazi Germany, ordered the elimination of political opponents within the Nazi Party during the Night of the Long Knives in 1934. This purge involved the assassination of Ernst Röhm, leader of the SA (Sturmabteilung), and other perceived rivals to consolidate Hitler’s control.
French Revolution (1793-1794)
Reign of Terror: During the French Revolution, Maximilien Robespierre and other Jacobin leaders oversaw the Reign of Terror. Political opponents, royalists, and anyone suspected of counter-revolutionary activities were executed, often by guillotine, including prominent figures like Georges Danton.
Attempts:
In addition to the Iranian plot, several other assassination plots against Donald Trump have surfaced recently, both from domestic and foreign sources.
Domestic Militia Threats: Various far-right militias, particularly linked to groups like the Three Percenters, have been involved in discussions about targeting Trump due to their shifting political perspectives. These groups often consider themselves the last line of defense against what they perceive as government overreach. In one case, a militia leader, David Seddon, had discussions with followers regarding political assassinations and organizing sniper training. While no specific attempt was made, the heightened rhetoric and military-style training among these groups raised serious concerns. (https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-secret-ap3-militia-american-patriots-three-percent) (https://www.adl.org/resources/report/right-wing-extremist-terrorism-united-states)
Pakistani-Iranian Connection: In 2024, Asif Raza Merchant, a Pakistani man linked to Iranian interests, was allowed to enter the U.S. despite being on a terrorism watchlist. After entering, he tried to hire assassins to target Trump but was thwarted when the hired individual reported him to the FBI. This plot was part of Iran’s larger response to the killing of General Qasem Soleimani in 2020. Merchant’s plan was uncovered in time to prevent any harm, though it exposed vulnerabilities in border security and intelligence coordination. (https://americanmilitarynews.com/2024/08/trump-assassination-plot-suspect-let-into-us-by-fbi-was-on-terror-watchlist-report/) (https://justthenews.com/government/security/trump-assassination-plots-expose-fbi-secret-service-vulnerabilities)
Weaponizing the DOJ:
It has been claimed that Donald Trump attempted to "weaponize" the Department of Justice (DOJ) during his presidency. The allegations largely revolve around Trump’s efforts to use the DOJ to advance his political agenda, influence investigations, and target political opponents. Here are a few key ways in which these claims have been made:
1. Interference in Investigations
Russia Investigation: Critics argue that Trump attempted to interfere with the DOJ’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The Mueller Report outlined several instances where Trump allegedly tried to obstruct the investigation, including attempts to fire Mueller and limit the scope of the probe. Although Mueller did not charge Trump with obstruction of justice, many saw his actions as an effort to use the DOJ to protect himself . Effectively, no indictments were ever filed, and no impeachment was finalized against him as a result of the Mueller Report.
2. Pressure to Investigate Political Opponents
Trump repeatedly called for investigations into his political opponents, most notably Hillary Clinton. During the 2016 campaign and beyond, Trump requested via Twitter that the DOJ "lock her up" over her use of a private email server. He also pushed for investigations into Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, focusing on their business dealings in Ukraine, especially during the lead-up to the 2020 election. Oddly enough, since these calls were made, Hunter has been found guilty on multiple related felony counts.
In 2020, it was reported that Trump’s associates, including Rudy Giuliani, were in discussions with the DOJ regarding investigations into the Bidens. Critics argue that these efforts were intended to undermine Biden's candidacy and bolster Trump's reelection chances. Nevertheless, formal charges were filed against members of Biden’s family, and connections did, in fact, exist between the Biden family and foreign interests mentioned in case proposals.
3. Use of the DOJ in Election Disputes
After losing the 2020 presidential election, Trump sought to use the DOJ to support his false claims of widespread voter fraud. Reports suggest that Trump pressured then-Attorney General William Barr to support legal challenges aimed at overturning the election results. Barr, however, publicly stated that the DOJ found no evidence of widespread fraud. Trump also followed Bill Clinton’s footsteps in attempting to replace top DOJ officials with those more sympathetic to his defense.
4. Roger Stone and Michael Flynn Cases
Trump was accused of using the DOJ to intervene in high-profile cases involving his allies. For example, the DOJ under Attorney General Barr reduced the sentencing recommendation for Trump’s associate Roger Stone, who was convicted of lying to Congress, and prompting resignations from DOJ prosecutors. Trump also pardoned his former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI during the Russia investigation. Both actions were seen by critics as attempts to shield political allies from accountability - in much the same way that the following presidents have done. Pay attention to the last one on the list.
1. George Washington (1789–1797)
Whiskey Rebellion (1794): Washington pardoned leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion, a tax protest in Pennsylvania, to help restore peace after the uprising.
2. John Adams (1797–1801)
Pardoned individuals convicted under the Sedition Act of 1798, which made it illegal to criticize the government. His actions helped reduce tensions over the act.
3. Thomas Jefferson (1801–1809)
Pardoned several people convicted under the Sedition Act, which was highly controversial as it was seen as a violation of free speech.
4. James Madison (1809–1817)
Pardoned some individuals involved in the War of 1812 and related crimes.
5. Andrew Johnson (1865–1869)
Post-Civil War Pardons: Johnson issued a blanket pardon for thousands of former Confederate soldiers and officials after the Civil War, as part of the Reconstruction effort.
6. Ulysses S. Grant (1869–1877)
Pardons for Confederate Leaders: Grant pardoned several high-ranking former Confederates, including Robert E. Lee, to help the country reconcile after the Civil War.
7. Warren G. Harding (1921–1923)
Eugene V. Debs (1921): Harding pardoned Debs, a Socialist Party leader, who was imprisoned for his opposition to U.S. involvement in World War I under the Espionage Act.
8. Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933–1945)
Prohibition-related Pardons: Roosevelt pardoned those convicted under laws related to alcohol prohibition after it was repealed in 1933.
World War II-related Pardons: Roosevelt pardoned some individuals convicted of wartime offenses.
9. Harry S. Truman (1945–1953)
Post-World War II Pardons: Truman issued pardons to many individuals convicted of wartime crimes or offenses, including some deserters.
Puerto Rican Nationalists: In 1952, Truman pardoned Puerto Rican nationalists involved in political violence, including an attempted assassination of President Truman.
10. Gerald Ford (1974–1977)
Richard Nixon (1974): Ford issued a full and unconditional pardon to former President Richard Nixon for his role in the Watergate scandal, a highly controversial decision intended to help the nation move on from the crisis.
Vietnam War Draft Evaders: Ford offered conditional amnesty to draft evaders and deserters who had fled during the Vietnam War.
11. Jimmy Carter (1977–1981)
Vietnam War Draft Evaders (1977): Carter issued a full pardon to all Vietnam War draft evaders on his first day in office, a move aimed at national healing after the divisive war.
12. Ronald Reagan (1981–1989)
Mark Felt and Edward Miller (1981): Reagan pardoned these two former FBI officials who were convicted for ordering illegal break-ins during the Watergate investigation.
13. George H. W. Bush (1989–1993)
Iran-Contra Affair Pardons (1992): Bush pardoned six former officials involved in the Iran-Contra scandal, including former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, in an attempt to put the controversy behind the country.
14. Bill Clinton (1993–2001)
Marc Rich (2001): In his last day in office, Clinton controversially pardoned financier Marc Rich, who had fled the country while facing charges of tax evasion and illegal trading with Iran.
Clinton also pardoned several other high-profile individuals, including his own brother, Roger Clinton, for drug charges.
15. George W. Bush (2001–2009)
Lewis "Scooter" Libby (2007): Bush commuted the prison sentence of Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, who had been convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in the CIA leak case.
Border Patrol Agents (2009): Bush commuted the sentences of two U.S. Border Patrol agents convicted of shooting a Mexican drug smuggler.
16. Barack Obama (2009–2017)
Chelsea Manning (2017): Obama commuted the sentence of Manning, who was convicted of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks. This was one of the most high-profile commutations during his presidency.
Drug Offenders: Obama issued more than 1,700 commutations during his time in office, many for non-violent drug offenders as part of a broader push to reform sentencing laws.
17. Joe Biden (2021–Present)
Federal Marijuana Offenses (2022): Biden pardoned thousands of individuals convicted of federal marijuana possession offenses as part of his administration’s effort to reconsider federal drug policy and racial disparities in sentencing.
5. DOJ's Handling of Civil Unrest
During the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, Trump was accused of using the DOJ to support aggressive law enforcement tactics to quell unrest, often seen as part of his broader "law and order" rhetoric. This was highlighted by the controversial use of federal law enforcement in cities like Portland, where peaceful protesters were met with force, allegedly at Trump’s behest .
Other Citations:
https://jonathanturley.org/2023/11/21/the-rhetoric-is-really-getting-dangerous-rep-goldman-calls-for-trump-to-be-eliminated-after-decrying-his-inflammatory-rhetoric/
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/democratic-lawmaker-calls-trump-be-eliminated