Mediaboss Marketing

Christopher LaMothe in Mineville, N.Y., says he hates Nazis and white supremacists, but he thinks Black Lives Matter is just as bad. Brian Mann/North Country Public Radio hide caption

Christopher LaMothe in Mineville, N.Y., says he hates Nazis and white supremacists, but he thinks Black Lives Matter is just as bad.

One of the things we've learned over the past year is that events like the violence in Charlottesville, Va., are often viewed very differently in different places. Places like rural white communities that make up President Donald Trump's most loyal base. One such place is Mineville, N.Y., a tiny rust-belt town in the Adirondack Mountains north of Albany, where on Sunday afternoon we found Christopher LaMothe sitting on a bench.

In these small towns, events like what happened in Charlottesville are also portrayed differently in the conservative media. When Trump first responded to the deadly violence in Charlottesville, he blamed the rioting and bloodshed on "many sides," failing to name the white supremacists and neo-Nazis who organized the march. It sparked a huge backlash even from many Republicans.

But the president's words sat just fine with LaMothe. "I think when he called for the unity of the country, that should have been what was pounded on," LaMothe says in between taking a drag on his cigarette. By pounded on, LaMothe means respected. He loves Trump and says the president never gets a fair shake from the media.

He says he hates the idea of neo-Nazis and recalls when growing up, he had friends who were black. But now he thinks the white guys he saw on his TV marching in Charlottesville have some reasonable arguments.

"This is a different white supremacy movement than before, because I don't think whites are saying, 'well we're better.' They're saying why can't we be treated all as equal?"

LaMothe thinks affirmative action programs should be scrapped. He also thinks neo-Nazis who sparked mayhem in Charlottesville are no worse than a lot of activist groups on the left. "I didn't hear anything from Barack Obama about Black Lives Matter and that was another hate group," he says.

In fact, Black Lives Matter has no history of violence or racial bigotry comparable to America's far-right militias, neo-Nazis or Klan groups. But that's not how this plays even in fairly mainstream conservative media, where liberal groups are often portrayed a radical or dangerous.

"I think the president nailed it, condemned in the strongest possible terms hatred and bigotry on all sides," Pete Hegseth, co-host of Fox and Friends said during a broadcast Sunday. He echoed the narrative that white nationalist groups have legitimate concerns and compared them with groups on the left.

"Antifa also ought to be called out, just like the violent aspects of Black Lives Matter ought to be called out," he said.

Antifa means "anti-fascist." It's a kind of catch-all name for far-left students and anarchists who often stage counterprotests in cities where far-right conservatives march or stage rallies. And their approach is confrontational. In Charlottesville, Antifa protesters chanted that people should "punch a Nazi in the mouth."

The left-wing movement is tiny, but it's become a major fixation for the far-right. Over the weekend, a reporter from the media site Breitbart, which has close ties to the White House, urged Virginia Gov. Terry McCauliffe to criticize Antifa protesters, as well as neo-Nazis.

"Governor, will you condemn Antifa as well?" he asked repeatedly.

McCauliffe didn't reply.

People who speak for the Antifa movement acknowledge they sometimes carry clubs and sticks. They have clashed in recent months with police. But James Anderson who runs an anarchist website rejects comparisons between the militant left and white supremacists, pointing out that their goals and aims are far different.

"I mean the idea that we should organize against the Klan or stop the Klan or stand up to the Klan, most people would be like, 'yeah, obviously,' " Anderson says. "The Klan is bad, it kills people, it lynches them."

But for many rural white conservatives, it's not that clear. Cultural and political lines that once seemed sharply drawn to a lot of Americans just aren't any more. In their media and in their worldview, groups like Black Lives Matter seem just as radical as the Klan.

When asked if it wouldn't be better if President Trump had just condemned neo-Nazis and white supremacists in Charlottesville using blunt language, LaMothe shakes his head impatiently.

"He's in a no win situation," LaMothe says. What he did do and no one's giving him credit for that he called for unity. I never saw Obama call for unity."

In fact, Barack Obama did call for national unity numerous times during his presidency, especially during times of racial conflict and violence. That message was often downplayed or ignored in much of the conservative media that shapes opinion in rural America.

NPR's Maquita Peters produced this story for the Web.

Read more from the original source:
Trump Supporter: 'He Called For Unity, I Never Saw Obama Call For Unity' - NPR

On November 15, 2015, as the world grappled with the horrors of a multipronged ISIS attack in Paris, Donald Trump, who was then an improbable but officially declared candidate for the presidency, tweeted, When will President Obama issue the words RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM? He cant say it, and unless he will, the problem will not be solved!

I raise the subject of this tweet, and the sentiment that motivated it, in light of President Trumps remarkable reaction to the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, this weekend. We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides, he said. Trump, when presented with the chance to denounce, in plain, direct language, individuals who could fairly be described as white supremacist terrorists, or with some other equivalent formulation, instead resorted to euphemism and moral equivalence.

Trumps position on the matter of President Obamas anti-terrorism rhetoric did not place him outside the Republican mainstream. Obamas critics argued throughout his presidency that his unwillingness to embrace the incantatory rhetoric of civilizational strugglehis reluctance to cast such groups as al-Qaeda and ISIS as vanguards of an all-encompassing ideological and theological challenge to the Westmeant that, at the very least, he misunderstood the nature of the threat, or, more malignantly, that he understood the nature of the threat but was, through omission, declaring a kind of neutrality in the conflict between the United States and its principal adversary.

It is true that Obama calibrated his rhetoric on the subject of terrorism to a degree even his closest advisers sometimes found frustrating. They hoped that, on occasion, he would at least acknowledge the legitimacy of Americans fears about Islamist terrorism before proceeding to explain those fears away. But Obama had a plausible rationale for avoiding the sort of language his eventual successor demanded that he deploy. He believed that any sort of rhetorical overreaction to the threat of Islamist terrorism by an American president would create panic, and would also spark a xenophobic response that would do damage to Americas image, and to Americans Muslims themselves.

He also took a view opposite to that of Donald Trump: Bringing Islam itself to the forefront of the conversation about terrorism would create a backlash in the Muslim world that would do real harm to the armed anti-terrorism campaigns he was then leading. Obama, over the eight years he served as president, ordered the killings of more Muslim terrorists, in more Muslim countries, than any of his predecessors. On this subject, he spoke so softly he could barely be heard, but he carried a lethal stick. His goal was to eradicate Muslim terrorists without alienating the great mass of Muslims unsympathetic to the theology and tactics of those terrorists.

I spoke with Obama on a number of occasions about the dilemmas he faced in his fight against Islamist terror. I was one of those who thought he was rhetorically wanting, but I also came to understand that he labored under no illusions about the nature of the threat, and of the problem afflicting Islamic civilization. There is a need, he told me once, for Islam as a whole to challenge the radicals, to challenge that interpretation of Islam, to isolate it, and to undergo a vigorous discussion within their community about how Islam works as part of a peaceful, modern society. Refracting this conflict through the prism of a clash of civilizations of the sort imagined by the late political scientist Samuel Huntington would do no one any good. I do not persuade peaceful, tolerant Muslims to engage in that debate if Im not sensitive to their concern that they are being tagged with a broad brush, Obama said.

Muslim radicals do seek the sort of civilizational clash that Obama tried to avoid, but reality has delivered them something else: A clash within their civilization, between fundamentalists and modernizers, between a small but murderous minority and a much larger number of Muslims who seek to co-exist with other cultures and religious groups. It is up to the worldwide community of Muslims, Obama believed, to shape the Muslim future. It was not the job of the president of the United States to insert himself unnecessarily into this debate, by using rhetoric that would be polarizing and dangerous.

Trump, in his remarks on Saturday, refused to align himself against the so-called alt-right protest movement. His decision to maintain a neutral stance on the activities of the racist and anti-Semitic right has opened him to charges of hypocrisy; Trump is now refusing to speak plainly about the nature of a particular terrorist threat, a sin he continually ascribed to his predecessor.

But the issue here is substantially larger than mere hypocrisy. Obama carefully measured his rhetoric in the war against Islamist terrorism because he hoped to avoid inserting the U.S. into the middle of an internecine struggle consuming another civilization. But the struggle in Charlottesville is a struggle within our own civilization, within Trumps own civilization. It is precisely at moments like this that an American president should speak up directly on behalf of the American creed, on behalf of Americans who reject tribalism and seek pluralism, on behalf of the idea that blood-and-soil nationalism is antithetical to the American idea itself. Trumps refusal to call out radical white terrorism for what it is, at precisely the moment America needs its leadership to take a unified stand against hatred, marks what might be the lowest moment of his presidency to date.

See the original post:
Why Won't Trump Call Out Radical White Terrorism? - The Atlantic

Ben Rhodes on Sunday ripped President Trump's response to the violence at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va., saying Trumpgave up the "moral authority" of the presidency.

"These are critical moments. I think of President Obama going out to Charleston after a white supremacist killing. President Clinton, Oklahoma City, President Bush after 9-11. You know, this is a living office, and what we saw yesterday really is a president surrendering the moral authority of the office of the president of the United States," Rhodes, who served as former President Barack ObamaBarack ObamaBiden endorses Dem in Alabama Senate primary Rice: US has failed in denuclearization of North Korea Trump threatens McConnell MORE's deputy national security adviser, said on ABC's "This Week."

"I think there are huge costs to that for the nation because people look to a president to put these events in context and bring people together," he continued.

Rhodes's comments come after Trump condemned the violence that engulfed the small Virginia city on Saturday. Trump, however, stopped short of naming specific hate groups involved and said "many sides" held responsibility for the violence.

Trump frequently hit Obama for not calling out "radical Islamic terrorism" during his administration.

At least one persondied in Charlottesville and dozens were injured on Saturday after a white supremacist rally.

Original post:
Former Obama adviser: Trump surrendered 'moral authority' of presidency - The Hill

Did anyone expect President Donald J. Trump to wax eloquent and consoling with regard to Charlottesville? Did we really think he would condemn the torch-bearing white supremacists who assembled there? Do a majority of Americans count on Trump to provide wisdom, guidance and inspiration in times of trouble?

No. No. And no.

Handed an opportunity to shock us with a display of principled leadership, Trump on Saturday could have distanced himself from the alt-right and white nationalists he empowered with his Make America Great Again campaign. But he did not come close to that. He never uttered any of the descriptors we use for people who carry Confederate flags and chant, Jews will not replace us.

Instead, he blamed many sides for the violence that erupted in Charlottesville.

Many sides presents a false equivalence, putting neo-Nazis on the same footing as those who stand against them.

Trump, a quick-trigger when it comes to assigning blame radical Islamic terrorists, bad hombres, crooked Hillary, Mitch McConnell just could not bring himself to condemn the racists who marched on Charlottesville. He did not name names, as he usually does. He did not call out David Duke, former Ku Klux Klan Imperial Wizard. He did not call out alt-right leader Richard Spencer.

Even before the violence, the president of the United States had a chance to serve his nation well. Friday nights torch parade of young white supremacists as disturbing a tableau as weve seen on the American continent in recent years begged a response.

Again, a condemnation of the assemblage would have been shocking to a lot of us. But it might have neutralized some of Trumps critics.

Instead, he offered a banal tweet about being united against hate and violence.

Lets come together as one! Trump tweeted, and, given the snark and personal attacks we usually see in Trumps tweets, could those words have been any more hollow?

So I go back to my premise: What did we expect? Donald J. Trump is capable of many things bragging about his business acumen and the size of his rally crowds, blasting the media, blaming others for the failings of his presidency but he is never going to unite the country, he is never going to console us. Hes been a divider, not a healer, giving comfort, even inspiration, to the nations bigots.

It is just one of many ways Trump will never measure up to the standards set by his predecessor, the African-American man whose birth as a U.S. citizen Trump infamously questioned for several years.

Former President Barack Obama many times stepped in front of television cameras to talk the nation through tough times, most of them stemming from gun violence -- the massacre of children and teachers at Newtown; the shooting of Gabby Giffords, the former Arizona congresswoman; the slayings of Dallas police officers; the death of Trayvon Martin.

And Obama had cred as consoler-in-chief because of what was in his bones and what was in his heart. He was, and is, a decent, thoughtful man.

Saturday night, Obamas offering on Charlottesville was a three-part tweet quoting Nelson Mandela: No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin or his background or his religion. . . . People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love. . . . For love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.

Had he still been president, would Obama have condemned the racists who marched on Charlottesville? I think he would have, and he probably would have done so with a forgiving grace the neo-Nazis who hate him do not deserve.

Trump, on the other hand, just does not have what it takes to move the nation to a higher level of civic virtue, unity and respect. He never offered to be such a man during his campaign, and we should not expect that now. He is what he is, nothing more.

Continue reading here:
What do we expect from Trump? He's the opposite of Obama. - Baltimore Sun (blog)

Flickr

First Lady Melania Trumps response to the violence in Charlottesville, Va., being copied from words spoken by former First Lady Michelle Obama is an unproven claim. A meme is circulating social media positing that Trump again copied words from Michelle Obama while denouncing violence in Charlottesville. However, that claim is likely a spoof.

Where did this meme originate? On Aug. 12, 2017, Trump publicly responded to violent events that had taken place earlier that day at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville by tweeting the following. Our country encourages freedom of speech, but lets communicate w/o hate in our heart, Trump wrote. No good comes from violence.

Trump previously was met with criticism for delivering a speech before the Republican National Convention which included passages identical in content and specific phrasing to an address given before the Democratic National Convention in 2008 by Michelle Obama.

As a result, a good number of spoof items were posted online that played on the idea of various prominent political figures plagiarizing each others words.

Now, social media users are debating whether Trump once again stole words from Obama. Shortly after Trumps Twitter response, an image began circulating online alleging that Trump had likewise taken those words without credit from a comment made by Obama over a year earlier.

However, Snopes is reporting that the above meme is most likely a spoof. While not being able to completely rule out the possibility that Obama might at some time have expressed something like the thought attributed to her here, there is no record of her having done so.

Here are some examples of people discussing the meme on social media.

Rather, the above meme is most likely having fun at an earlier controversy involving Trump and Obama and the current crisis facing the country and President Donald Trumps administration.

White nationalists had assembled in Charlottesville to vent their frustration against the citys plans to take down a statue of Confederal Gen. Robert E. Lee. Counter-protesters massed in opposition. A few hours after violent encounters between the two groups, a car drove into a crowd of people peacefully protesting the rally. The driver was later taken into custody.

Webcast, August 29th: How to 8x Your SEO Traffic With These 3 Power Hacks

What did you think of the meme alleging plagiarism by Trump? Did you believe it or see evidence to support the memes claim? Let us know in the comments section.

Photo credit: Disney | ABC Television Group, Flickr

View post:
Did Melania Trump Criticism Of Charlottesville Violence Actually Plagiarize Michelle Obama? - Business 2 Community