Skip to main content

Enemy of the People

So I wanted to single out a subject that greatly bothers me at this point, and that is the President's attacking of the Free Press.  It has been happening since well before Trump even ran for office, and has become significantly worse in recent months. 

Trump has went so far as to call the press, "The Enemy of the People".

I wanted to talk a bit of history here to really get to the root of why that phrase is so concerning to me when the President of the United States uses it.

The words "ennemi du people" were extensively used during the French Revolution.  On 25 December 1793, Robespierre stated, "The revolutionary government owes to the good citizen all the protection of the nation; it owes nothing to the Enemies of the People but death."  The Law of 22 Prairial in 1794 extended the remit of the Revolutionary Tribunal to punish "enemies of the people", with some political crimes punishable by death, including "spreading false news to divide or trouble the people.". 

If that isn't concerning to you I don't know what would be at this point.  Trump amps up the crowds at his rallies and always points out the Fake News at the back of the venue.  He gets off on everyone chanting against the news agencies and screaming and yelling at them.  Recently, Jim Acosta was personally attacked, with people chanting against him, flipping him off, screaming at him to tell the truth and stop the lies, etc.  Jim is highly respected and has integrity that everyone in the news business respects. 

What concerns me isn't that people are speaking out against the press.  People have the absolute right to do that in this country.  What concerns me is the President's role in all of this. 

A President is a person who should work while in office to bring people and parties together in order to accomplish common goals that are in the best interests of the country and citizens.  A President is a person who should be fighting for peace and not division and hatred.  A President is someone who should stand out as the moral leader of the world, as the position has historically been held to high esteem around the world. 

President Trump does none of the things I just mentioned.  President Trump uses his words and actions to breed hatred within his base for the press.  He does so because he doesn't want people to pay attention to the facts.  He wants them only to believe his false narratives.  Trump himself said in an interview some time ago that he has always played the press as the enemy, even when they are right, because if he pushes the false narrative enough, people start believing it.  One of the first things an Autocrat does when ascending to power is destroy the free press and take control of the narrative. 

Trump continually denigrates people and institutions in the press to create uncertainty in the facts.  Sadly, the very institutions and reporters he is denigrating and calling fake and disgraceful are the very institutions and reporters who are publishing the facts about the President. 

It has even gone a step farther at this point, with Press Secretary Sanders standing by the President and not the Press when asked about the President's denigration of the press and the response to the press from Trump's base.  She touted the greatness of free speech and how it is a good thing and not a bad thing. 

It is actually a very concerning thing.  If people don't open their eyes soon and do something about this President's Autocratic, Xenophobic, Egotistic, and Bigoted words and actions, the very fabric of what makes this the greatest nation on Earth is going to tear, and it will be extremely hard to ever recover. 

DUNK

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Trump and the DOJ Trying to Silence Mueller...

Mueller is set to sit in front of Congress on Wednesday this week and answer questions regarding the Mueller Investigation.  The DOJ, and organization that is supposed to look out for the best interests of America but has recently decided to become Trump's personal Law Firm, has sent correspondence to Mueller about what he can and cannot answer. For instance, you have the question of the 10 documented cases of obstruction in volume 2 of the report.  Mueller made it clear that he was bound by DOJ policy and could not indict a sitting president.  One very important question the Congressional Leadership will likely ask is, "If Donald Trump wasn't the sitting President, would you have indicted him based on the amount of evidence in the report?"  That question in every respect is fair.  You are asking the head of an investigation if they would have indicted someone had an arbitrary roadblock not been in place.  I say arbitrary roadblock because the policy is...

Truth Matters

If there is one thing I need to keep reminding myself in today's world of political discourse, it is that Truth Matters. At any point in time I can turn on (insert news agency here) News and what I see is vastly different depending upon the news agency I watch.  Why is that?  Every mainstream news organization is bias in some way based upon who runs or owns the news organization.  Don't get me wrong; there are great and impartial journalists and agencies out there, but we are talking in aggregate and not about individuals or one-off agencies. When an issue like immigration is at the forefront of political discourse you can tune into CNN, MSNBC, and FOX and likely get three completely different takes on immigration.  Each news organization tailors their message to speak to what they feel is their viewer base and potential viewer base. That in and of itself is understood by people who follow politics on a regular basis and dig through multiple news sources in ord...

Why does it have to be one way or the other?

I remember a time when I could sit and talk politics and religion with people and have good, productive debates.  The debates were not hateful or one sided, and only rational personal opinions and actual facts were used during the discussions.  They included each person stating their points and making their case, and then each side came to compromises that allowed for solutions that would be good for both parties in the debate.  How did we come to a time in our country's history where we are so vehemently divided on every issue that nothing beneficial to the majority of the American populous or the stability of the country itself can be accomplished?  I am going to state some facts in the next paragraphs.  They may be facts you don't agree with, but they are facts none-the-less.  Those of you on the Right who believe your party's platform has all of the answers to the issues and problems this country faces...you are wrong.  Those of ...