By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Steve Bannon claims that those protesting in Minneapolis, following the actions of federal agents, are a “domestic terrorist mob” aligned with a “red-green alliance” intent on destroying the American republic. He believes these protests are not organic, but rather the result of a coordinated effort, despite a lack of evidence. Bannon is critical of those protesting the policies in Minneapolis and blames George Soros for the actions being taken by the activists. Bannon’s response to the protests is to call for even more federal agents to go to Minneapolis.
Read the original article here
White House Refuses to Back Stephen Miller’s Smear Against Alex Pretti.
The situation is clear: the White House, or at least certain facets within it, is not rushing to Stephen Miller’s defense following his comments regarding Alex Pretti. This reticence, while perhaps appearing significant, shouldn’t be mistaken for a genuine change of heart. It’s crucial to understand the context and motivations driving this apparent shift.
The perception is that the administration is primarily motivated by damage control, a strategic maneuver to mitigate the negative media attention surrounding the situation. They recognize the current narrative isn’t favorable, and rather than outright defending Miller, they’re opting for a strategy of silence or non-commitment. It’s a calculated move to weather the storm, hoping the public’s attention will shift elsewhere.
The absence of a full-throated defense from the White House, and specifically from those in positions like the press secretary, doesn’t necessarily signal disagreement with Miller’s underlying agenda. It’s more about protecting the administration’s broader image and political interests. The core principles and the direction of the administration haven’t changed.
It’s tempting to see this as a sign of Miller’s waning influence, potentially setting him up as a fall guy. However, it’s essential to remain skeptical. While Miller is perceived by some as the most dangerous individual in government, even more so than figures like Trump, the likelihood of a complete separation is slim.
It’s been said that Miller may have been the one who initially suggested labeling Alex Pretti as a domestic terrorist. This isn’t just a political maneuver; it’s a reflection of the current climate where the truth seems secondary. This tactic of using labels to demonize opponents is a dangerous trend.
It’s crucial to remember that this “refusal to back” isn’t a sign of dissent. They refuse to comment; they refuse to defend. This isn’t a change of heart; it’s a careful dance designed to avoid the repercussions of defending a widely unpopular stance.
This recent shift in the White House’s posture should be viewed with a critical eye, as it’s likely a tactical maneuver for damage control. They’ve been on board with Miller’s agenda up until this point. This sudden shift isn’t about principle; it’s about perception, and they are changing course in response to the growing backlash.
Ultimately, the focus remains on image management and strategic positioning. Stephen Miller’s comments are the White House’s comments, and the agenda remains the same.