THEPLACEFORNEWS.COM

Trump’s latest series of deflections came at a time when he badly needed to control the narrative in the news cycle. Epstein, food prices, alienation of friends around the world, an unpopular deportation policy, tariffs, retribution, Democratic victories in recent elections, a self aggrandizing ballroom, were all you heard about at a time when Trump’s poll numbers were at a record low.
Trump, always the deflector, has embarked on a journey to take back the narrative:

1. His war on drugs. There has never been a successful war on drugs in the U.S.. In 1971 Nixon launched a war on drugs only to see it fail miserably. The reason is simple. The demand for marajuana and cocaine was and is much greater than the governments efforts to stem the importation of these products. Fentanyl aside, the American people are the purchasers of these drugs. If the supply was lessened the prices might go up, but people would find a way to buy them. In past years, this has led to gang turf wars and has killed many innocent children and bystanders caught in the crossfire.
   The Trump Administration has taken to bombing small boats it accuses of transporting fentanyl. Venezuela has never been associated with fentanyl. Why have the smugglers not used covered boats yet. If instead it is cocaine, this does not put a dent in the supply of cocaine coming into this country. Alternative methods of importing have been widely used for many years and continue to be used today.
   The Administration has singled out Venezuela as the culprit in the drug trade. He has demanded that all air traffic above Venezuela be halted, and has threatened to invade the country and force regime change, under the guise of protecting Americans. Talk about testosterone gone amuck. This leaves out Columbia and Mexico to name two purveyors of drugs . They have produced and transported far more drugs into this country, and continue to do so.
   
2. It looks as though the ongoing meetings between Russia and the U.S., supposedly designed to bring about a solution to the war in Ukraine, are nothing more than sham attempts to show efforts to bring peace to the region. In 2016 and beyond, there was much talk of Trump being Putin’s puppet, or the Manchurian Candidate. In the absence of these accusations in recent years, there is still the feeling that Trump is strongly on the side of Russia. The fact that it was the aggressor does not factor in his thinking. Rewriting history is very acceptable to this Administration.
   
3. The Administration’s reaction to the unprovoked attack on two National Guard members calls for the banning of all immigrants and asylum seekers of color. Is Trump’s reaction to this attack another deflection from the fact that the National Guard should not have soldiers on the street corners of our cities? While careful vetting needs to be a priority, it cannot completely predict future actions by an individual. Nor does the lone act of violence suggest a ban on millions of people as being a logical solution.
   A complete ban of all immigrants and asylum seekers of color is not only racist, it is a continuation of a misguided policy meant more to score political points than anything else. U.S.-born citizens commit more crimes and have higher incarceration rates than immigrants in America. Statistics emphatically show that even crimes of violence are more likely to be carried out by U.S. born citizens. The tragic killing of one National Guards member and the critical condition of another, however horrific, do not justify a ban on all immigrants and asylum seekers of color. Since 2004 AR style rifles have been legal in this country dispite their devastating effect on so many victims. Has one, ten, or twenty incidents of mass shootings incentivized Congress to ban AR style rifles? The results of any ban of all immigration and asylum seekers would have untold negative effects on the country.

4. Regardless of how you feel about the six Democrats that made a video warning Americans about the possible misuse of the military, calling for their execution is ridiculous and is meant to deflect from the misuse of the military that has already been carried out by this administration.

The media is at fault here. Rather than calling out the possible conflicts, it instead treats each new announcement as if it exists in a vacuum, not influenced by any other event and grants full news coverage to the new pronouncement, leaving the preexisting issues in the dust.