And at Memeorandum, "Trump's Speech to Congress: Video and Transcript."
That address was spectacular. Best #JointAddress I can remember. #PresidentTrump— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) March 1, 2017
Commentary and analysis on American politics, culture, and national identity, U.S. foreign policy and international relations, and the state of education - from a neoconservative perspective! - Keeping an eye on the communist-left so you don't have to!
That address was spectacular. Best #JointAddress I can remember. #PresidentTrump— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) March 1, 2017
Feminist icon Emma Watson couldn't care less if she wins an Oscar https://t.co/9cqTM2hpIn— Daily Mail Celebrity (@DailyMailCeleb) March 1, 2017
.@MichelleMalkin The Immigration Debate We Need: #NoAmnesty #StopAmnesty #MAGA https://t.co/ycKkrIXoGT— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) February 27, 2017
Despite a dramatic ending, the Oscars got fewer viewers than last year https://t.co/6BEX8k1EYk pic.twitter.com/zkKR5Zp8Ga— Bloomberg (@business) February 27, 2017
That's because the #Oscars are out of touch with everyday, lunch-bucket Americans and traditional values. #BoycottOSCARS #AcademyAwards https://t.co/YyfGVaYd8K— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) February 27, 2017
"Trump, in an exclusive interview with Breitbart News in the Oval Office” https://t.co/BsRDltlILh
— Jon Passantino (@passantino) February 27, 2017
the logistical gymnastics of #WomenInCombat trolls trying to discredit #Ranger women is blowing my mind. Band of Bros is over. Get over it.
— Megan H. MacKenzie (@MeganhMackenzie) January 20, 2017
Spoiled brat leftist #MerylStreep slams righteous #KarlLagerfeld. #Oscars #AcademyAwards https://t.co/cPIP7TMbzT
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) February 27, 2017
I'm not watching the #Oscars. #AcademyAwards https://t.co/qdoRqvXUbL
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) February 27, 2017
Not watching, for precisely this reason. But thank you Dana. #Oscars #AcademyAwards https://t.co/jp9lYL5ogg
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) February 27, 2017
Not for me. Not watching: "5 ways politics could steal the show at #Oscars." #AcademyAwards https://t.co/LqWwl9Yy8D
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) February 27, 2017
Lolz. So glad I tuned out the #Oscars. Looks like I was right: Totally FUBAR. #AcademyAwards https://t.co/Hm2jOUB887
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) February 27, 2017
The most politically correct movie won for best picture. Who'd have thunk it? #Oscars #AcademyAwards https://t.co/WZWnj8aGdX
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) February 27, 2017
'You had one job!': #Oscars flub engulfs accounting firm: #PwC https://t.co/BXmQooc1RC
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) February 27, 2017
#PricewaterhouseCoopers apologizes for #Oscars fail: #PwC https://t.co/IhHvopMkmr
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) February 27, 2017
This image sums up the end of the 89th Academy Awards pretty well https://t.co/g03MyJxRHT pic.twitter.com/XeQuQ4LuhB
— kcranews (@kcranews) February 27, 2017
'Refugees were the ideal citizens for a republic." @KathleenADuVal _When America Opened its Doors_ #vastearlyamerica https://t.co/i0QVknRb9J pic.twitter.com/O69zu1svUq
— Karin Wulf (@kawulf) February 18, 2017
America’s founders—both its leaders and those protesting in the streets and fighting the British Army—saw immigrants as vital to the mission of the fledgling nation. The Declaration of Independence accused King George III of “obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners” and refusing “to encourage their migrations” into the colonies. To the Founders, the king’s restrictions on immigration were evidence of his desire to keep the colonies backward and under his thumb. In the newly independent United States, they firmly believed, immigration would accelerate economic development and help the country become a player among the powerful empires of Europe.Keep reading.
As A. Roger Ekirch’s deeply researched and elegantly written “American Sanctuary” reveals, early Americans saw the United States as a sanctuary for people oppressed by the old tyrannical governments of Europe. Refugees were the ideal citizens for a republic: Having fled tyranny, they would be a bulwark against it. And they came. Nearly 100,000 Europeans immigrated to the United States in the 1790s, a dramatic addition to a population that was just under four million at the start of the decade.
But when the French Revolution turned radical in the 1790s, some Americans began to worry. They feared that French as well as Irish immigrants would drag the new, still-fragile country into anarchy. Harrison Otis, a congressman from Massachusetts, gave a speech in which he railed that he did “not wish to invite hoards of wild Irishmen, nor the turbulent and disorderly of all parts of the world, to come here with a view to disturb our tranquility.” South Carolina Rep. Robert Goodloe Harper proposed getting rid of naturalized citizenship altogether. And from the beginning Congress limited naturalized citizenship to any “free white person.”
The war that broke out in 1793 between Britain and revolutionary France sparked the first great divide in American politics. Thomas Jefferson and others supported France, grateful for its help in defeating Britain in the American Revolution and for following the United States into revolution itself. But other Americans, including John Adams and George Washington, were aghast at French revolutionaries’ use of the guillotine and the Bastille. After Washington’s administration negotiated a treaty with the British in 1794 that struck supporters of France as too cozy, New Yorkers threw rocks at Alexander Hamilton. Some congressmen even talked of impeaching Washington.
Into this fractious debate about the place of the United States in the world came the bloodiest mutiny in the history of the British navy—a mutiny that forced Americans to decide if the country was truly a haven for lovers of liberty, even those who had killed for its sake.
Probably half of the HMS Hermione’s diverse crew had been “impressed”—meaning that the British navy had forced them from non-British private merchant ships into British service. On one day alone in 1795, sailors from the Hermione boarded 20 American ships, took nearly 70 crewmen (most of whom claimed American citizenship) and forced them into the British navy. On most ships of the era, impressed sailors grumbled but did not mutiny, but circumstances combined with the revolutionary times and a particularly cruel captain to push the Hermione’s crew over the edge. On the night of Sept. 21, 1797, off the coast of Puerto Rico, several of the crew charged into the captain’s cabin, brandishing swords and axes. After killing him, crew members searched the ship and killed all 10 officers.
Mr. Ekirch’s gripping and timely book both conveys the drama of this long-forgotten mutiny and reveals its importance to the early American republic. The first part of “American Sanctuary” tells the story of the mutiny, and the rest of the book traces the crisis it prompted—specifically when some of the mutineers from the HMS Hermione fled to the United States. Would Americans side with rebels against British tyranny, or with the rule of law on the high seas? Would the United States turn its back on Thomas Paine’s charge in “Common Sense” to be “an asylum for mankind” by extraditing mutineers to Britain?
The man that put all of these questions to the test called himself Jonathan Robbins. A little over a year after the mutiny, an American schooner docked at the port of Charleston with Robbins aboard. He had reportedly bragged to his shipmates that he had been one of the mutineers on the now-infamous Hermione. Charleston officials put him in jail, where an officer who had served on the Hermione prior to the mutiny visited him and declared that the man in the cell was in fact Thomas Nash, one of the mutiny’s leaders. After the British consul in Charleston requested the man’s extradition for court-martial, U.S. Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and President John Adams determined that this was a simple case of mutiny and murder on a British ship. With their approval, the man calling himself Robbins was handed over to British justice.
It was a huge political mistake...
— George Ciccariello (@ciccmaher) February 26, 2017
Check the Pirate's Cove, "Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup," and "If All You See……is a horrible evil world killing from carbon pollution dog, you might just be a Warmist."Lea Michele In Hawaii (PHOTO GALLERY) https://t.co/YhKBIIPqAv— TMZ (@TMZ) February 26, 2017
#RIP Bill Paxton Dead at 61 https://t.co/Np1hdE9yZt— TMZ (@TMZ) February 26, 2017
Forsyth County, Georgia, at the turn of the twentieth century was home to a large African American community that included ministers and teachers, farmers and field hands, tradesmen, servants, and children. Many black residents were poor sharecroppers, but others owned their own farms and the land on which they’d founded the county’s thriving black churches.
But then in September of 1912, three young black laborers were accused of raping and murdering a white girl. One man was dragged from a jail cell and lynched on the town square, two teenagers were hung after a one-day trial, and soon bands of white “night riders” launched a coordinated campaign of arson and terror, driving all 1,098 black citizens out of the county. In the wake of the expulsions, whites harvested the crops and took over the livestock of their former neighbors, and quietly laid claim to “abandoned” land. The charred ruins of homes and churches disappeared into the weeds, until the people and places of black Forsyth were forgotten.
National Book Award finalist Patrick Phillips tells Forsyth’s tragic story in vivid detail and traces its long history of racial violence all the way back to antebellum Georgia. Recalling his own childhood in the 1970s and ’80s, Phillips sheds light on the communal crimes of his hometown and the violent means by which locals kept Forsyth “all white” well into the 1990s.
Blood at the Root is a sweeping American tale that spans the Cherokee removals of the 1830s, the hope and promise of Reconstruction, and the crushing injustice of Forsyth’s racial cleansing. With bold storytelling and lyrical prose, Phillips breaks a century-long silence and uncovers a history of racial terrorism that continues to shape America in the twenty-first century.
In 1971, the People Didn’t Just March on Washington — They Shut It Down, from DIRECT ACTION by @LAKauffman https://t.co/SBP8F5Np9O pic.twitter.com/AOCHJkMvZA
— Verso Books (@VersoBooks) February 26, 2017
I will not be attending the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner this year. Please wish everyone well and have a great evening!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 25, 2017
⚡️ “Hundreds protest in #Anaheim after officer-teen confrontation” #TheOC https://t.co/ymp5kX8upm
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) February 23, 2017
The altercation on the tidy, suburban street in Anaheim apparently began with a complaint common in many neighborhoods: a group of teenagers walking through a neighbor’s yard on their way home from school.More.
But this seemingly mundane dispute spun out of control on West Palais Road on Tuesday when authorities say an off-duty Los Angeles police officer confronted the group. Other teenagers pulled out their cameras, filming the officer as he held a 13-year-old boy by the collar of his sweatshirt, trying to detain him.
The situation quickly escalated from there. At one point, another teen rushed the officer, sending him tumbling over a line of bushes. The officer then reached into his jeans and drew a gun, firing a single shot.
No one was hurt by the gunfire, which Anaheim police said was aimed at the ground. But footage of the encounter stirred uproar across the country, prompting criticism of the off-duty cop’s actions and questions over why investigators arrested two teenagers — but not the officer — at the scene.
As the video went viral Wednesday, more than 300 protesters took to the streets to protest the shooting. Police broke up the demonstration and arrested 23 people, but not before some vandalized the officer’s home.
The tension in Orange County’s largest city comes after several incidents in recent years in which Latino activists have protested police shootings that they felt unfairly targeted the city’s large Latino community. Many of the teens involved in Tuesday’s incident appeared to be Latino, and the officer appears to be white.
On Thursday, officials from both Anaheim and Los Angeles scrambled to calm the public’s concern.
“Like many, I am deeply disturbed and frankly angered by what it shows,” Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait said about the footage of the incident. “The video shows an adult wrestling with a 13-year-old kid and ultimately firing a gun. … It should never have happened.”
Anaheim police are investigating the altercation itself while the Los Angeles Police Department and Inspector General are conducting internal investigations into the officer’s actions.
The Los Angeles Police Commission will ultimately decide whether the officer violated any LAPD rules during the encounter.
“I am very interested in knowing the facts of the incident based on the investigation by the department and the Office of Inspector General that is underway,” said commissioner Cynthia McClain-Hill. “Some of the actions — brief as that exchange caught on video may be — do not properly represent what I believe should be expected and reflected by a member of the Los Angeles Police Department when engaging members of the public, be it on-duty or off-duty.”
The officer, whose name has not been released by authorities, was removed from the field, which is standard protocol after shootings by LAPD officers.
An attorney representing the officer, Larry Hanna, declined to discuss the encounter in detail, citing the ongoing investigations. He also declined to name his client or describe his work with the LAPD, saying he was concerned for his safety.
“All of this will come out,” he said. “I just think that people should let the investigators do their job.”
The union representing rank-and-file LAPD officers came out strongly against those who criticized the officer’s action...
1/20/2017 "We the People" pic.twitter.com/CDOrl8Cs2P— 🌸TrumpGirl® (@Girl4Trump_) January 20, 2017
#DNCFuture looks disastrous!. See what this African American man has to say about what has become of the Democratic Party. #CPAC2017 💯 👏🏾 pic.twitter.com/A5y8ccUfy9
— Deplorable Melissa (@sweetatertot2) February 24, 2017
Conservatives love Trump now b/c 'he has all the right enemies.' But how long this honeymoon? https://t.co/CQ5DoTAYbI @Noahbierman
— Marc Duvoisin (@MarcDuvoisin) February 24, 2017
A year ago, Donald Trump skipped the nation’s preeminent conference of conservatives, underscoring the friction between the populist candidate and many of the warring factions in his party during a heated presidential primary season.Keep reading.
Friday, Trump returned to the Conservative Political Action Conference with the blunt force of a conqueror, planting his brand of nationalist, anti-globalist populism like a flag.
His speech, with rhetoric that even Trump said would have been too controversial at the event even a year ago, marked his takeover of the conservative movement, one of several signs of his dominance throughout the conference, which also featured a rare and well-received speech from his chief intellectual influence and advisor, Stephen K. Bannon.
"There is no such thing as a global anthem, a global currency or a global flag," Trump said to great applause from thousands of conservatives. "I'm not representing the globe. I'm representing your country."
He echoed ideas he has espoused in the past — denouncing trade deals as the antithesis of "economic freedom," warning that Paris and other great cities of Europe have been ruined by mass immigration, criticizing Democratic and Republican presidents for their interventions in the Middle East.
Although many of the words were familiar, the venue and the passion made Friday's speech remarkable.
Trump spoke directly of his ambition to turn the GOP into "the party of the American worker."
"I'm here today to tell you what this movement means for the future of the Republican Party and for the future of America," Trump said. "The core conviction of our movement is that we are a nation that [must] put and will put its own citizens first."
While Trump tried to unite conservatives, the speech made little effort to bridge the country's larger political divide. For example, Trump dismissed people who have shown up at town halls around the country to protest reversal of Obamacare.
"They're not you. They're largely — many of them are the side that lost," he said.
The visuals around the waterfront conference outside Washington were just as striking: the red “Make America Great Again” caps, the throngs of college Republicans surrounding Trump’s aides and allies, the giant Trump-decorated pickup truck at the convention center entrance.
As he has repeatedly done in the last couple of weeks, Trump attacked the media for what he sees as unfair coverage. He also showed how much he remembers the details of how his campaign was described in the press, at one point praising The Times for its election tracking poll that consistently showed him leading.
“I must say Los Angeles Times did a great job — shocking,” he said. “A couple polls got it right.”
In reality, the USC Dornsife/L.A. Times “Daybreak” tracking poll overstated Trump’s support, although it did correctly pick up the backing he was getting from disaffected white voters, many of whom had sat out the 2012 election.
Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist and the former executive chairman of Breitbart News, an outlet that has presented itself as a voice of the white nationalist alt-right movement, joked a day earlier as he sat down for a marquee event about how far he had come.
He used to hold a competing event called “Uninvited” for conservatives whose philosophies were considered too radical for the conference, Bannon said at a panel featuring him and White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus.
Bannon reveled in his newfound influence as the conference organizer interviewed him in front of thousands of people.
He praised Priebus, the former GOP chairman, another indication of how the mainstream of the party has come into Trump’s fold. But both men made clear that Bannon was the dominant force in shaping Trump’s vision.
Bannon spoke about defending his notion of American culture and lashed out against the “corporatist, globalist media” standing in the way of Trump’s “economic nationalist agenda.”
“If you think they're going to give you your country back without a fight," he said. "You are sadly mistaken.”
“We're at the top of the first inning of this,” Bannon said near the end of his remarks. “We want you to have our back.”
Conference organizers seemed to have gotten the message.
Breitbart News owns the first booth by the entrance of the convention hall, hawking “Border Wall Construction Company” T-shirts...
The New Nationalism in America: How conservatism is changing in the Trump era https://t.co/ytTqhBYbTx via @continetti pic.twitter.com/GtJZRFZkCi— Free Beacon (@FreeBeacon) February 24, 2017
Dear Senators and the People:
I and the children of the former South Vietnam soldiers will never forget the support of former Senator Tom Hayden for the Communist government of Vietnam and the oppression by the Communist Government of Vietnam for the people of Vietnam.
After 40 years, the efforts by people like him have hurt the people of Vietnam and have worked to stop the Vietnamese refugees from coming to the United States, a free country. We will always continue to fight for freedom and human rights for the people of Vietnam.
Members, I recognize today in memory of the million of Vietnamese and the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese refugees who died seeking freedom and democracy. I recognize that on Tuesday you had an opportunity to honor Senator Tom Hayden. With all due respect, I would like to offer another historical perspective.
On Tuesday, instead of participating, I chose to step out of the chamber out of respect to his family, his friends and to you. In contrast to your comments on Tuesday, I want to share what Senator Hayden meant to me and to the over 500,000 Vietnamese Americans who call California their home, as well as to the over 1 million Vietnamese Americans across the United States.
As you may be aware, Tom Hayden chose to work directly with the Communist North Vietnamese Government to oppose the efforts of United States forces in South Vietnam.
Mr. Hayden sided with a communist government that enslaved and/or killed millions of Vietnamese, including members of my own family. Mr. Hayden’s actions are viewed by many as harmful to democratic values and hateful towards those who sought the very freedoms on which this nation is founded.
Were it not for the efforts of the thousands of men and women who served bravely in the United States military and the South Vietnamese military, as well as the efforts of millions of Vietnamese citizens who resisted the communists, I would not be standing here on this Senate floor humbly representing the residents of the 34th District.
In addition to the sacrifices made during war, the efforts of President Ronald Reagan in the 1980’s allowed many Vietnamese like me to seek refuge in the United States.
In contrast to the great many people who fought to defend freedom and democracy, Mr. Hayden supported a Communist agenda and traveled to North Vietnam during the war.
He believed that those who protested the human-rights violations of the Communists were tools of the CIA. It is known that he believed that the war was a conflict between Imperialism, led by the United States and the “free” people of North Vietnam. Former Senator Hayden was profoundly wrong in his support of the Communists.
Members, to this day, the government of Vietnam continues to violate the basic human rights of its citizens. They systematically continue to oppress freedoms of expression, religion and assembly and incarcerate those who speak out for freedom and democracy.
Thank you for allowing me to make my comments. I proudly stand before you as a Vietnamese-American who appreciates the freedoms that so many around the world do not enjoy.
Trump, Putin, and the new Cold War: https://t.co/f6B9fbTLXC pic.twitter.com/lEBySWGTpK
— The New Yorker (@NewYorker) February 24, 2017
Trump administration rescinds guidelines on protections for transgender students https://t.co/v6IGLFsmgx pic.twitter.com/Yb4JNTVmh1— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) February 23, 2017
Emily Ratajkowski’s iCloud is ‘targeted again as personal nude images of the model appear online’ https://t.co/RMOm4PLS2r pic.twitter.com/m58VmleUeJ— The Scottish Sun (@ScottishSun) February 19, 2017
#LePen is Mightier than the Sword -New #BenGarrison #cartoon #frenchelection #Brexit #Islam #Veil #ImWithHer https://t.co/Oj98iIxEAZ pic.twitter.com/ZxdVsj2YA8
— BenGarrison Cartoons (@GrrrGraphics) February 22, 2017
A 1964 book claiming that communists had infiltrated all levels of government was that era's version of fake news https://t.co/V1K2wG4uCp— NYT Metro Desk (@NYTMetro) January 11, 2017
Killing of a young woman grips Iceland https://t.co/zDW0ZJE5w1
— The New York Times (@nytimes) January 24, 2017
Trumps’ critics, left and right, aim to bring about the cataclysm they predicted.It's sickening.
A 1964 political melodrama, Seven Days in May, envisioned a futuristic (1970s) failed military cabal that sought to sideline the president of the United States over his proposed nuclear-disarmament treaty with the Soviets.
Something far less dramatic but perhaps as disturbing as Hollywood fiction played out this February.
The Teeth-Gnashing of Deep Government
Currently, the political and media opponents of Donald Trump are seeking to subvert his presidency in a manner unprecedented in the recent history of American politics. The so-called resistance among EPA federal employees is trying to disrupt Trump administration reform; immigration activists promise to flood the judiciary to render executive orders inoperative.
Intelligence agencies had earlier leaked fake news briefings about the purported escapades of President-elect Trump in Moscow — stories that were quickly exposed as politically driven concoctions. Nearly one-third of House Democrats boycotted the Inauguration. Celebrities such as Ashley Judd and Madonna shouted obscenities to crowds of protesters; Madonna voiced her dreams of Trump’s death by saying she’d been thinking a lot about blowing up the White House.
But all that pushback was merely the clownish preliminary to the full-fledged assault in mid February.
Career intelligence officers leaked their own transcripts of a phone call that National Security Advisor–designate Michael Flynn had made to a Russian official.The media charge against Flynn was that he had nefariously talked to higher-ups in Russia before he took office. Obama-administration officials did much the same, before Inauguration Day 2009, and spoke with Syrian, Iranian, and Russian counterparts. But they faced no interference from the outgoing Bush administration.
No doubt the designated security officials of most incoming administrations do not wait until being sworn in to sound out foreign officials. Most plan to reset the policies of their predecessors. The question, then, arises: Why were former Obama-administration appointees or careerist officials tapping the phone calls of an incoming Trump designate (and Trump himself?) and then leaking the tapes to their pets in the press? For what purpose?
Indeed, Trump’s own proposed outreach to Russia so far is not quite of the magnitude of Obama’s in 2009, when the State Department staged the red-reset-button event to appease Putin; at the time, Russia was getting set to swallow the Crimea and all but absorb Eastern Ukraine. Trump certainly did not approve the sale of some 20 percent of North American uranium holdings to Russian interests, in the quid pro quo fashion that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did, apparently in concert with Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation — and to general indifference of both the press and the intelligence community.
In addition, the Wall Street Journal reported last week that career intelligence officers have decided to withhold information from the president, on the apparent premise that he is unfit, in their view, to receive it. If true, that disclosure would mean that elements of the federal government are now actively opposing the duly elected president of the United States. That chilling assessment gains credence from the likelihood that the president’s private calls to Mexican and Australian heads of state were likewise recorded, and selected segments were leaked to suggest that Trump was either trigger-happy or a buffoon.
Oddly, in early January, Senator Charles Schumer had essentially warned Trump that he would pay for his criticism of career intelligence officials. In an astounding shot across his bow, which was followed up by an onslaught in February, Schumer said: “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you. . . . So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he’s being really dumb to do this.”
Schumer was evidently not disturbed about rogue intelligence agencies conspiring to destroy a shared political enemy — the president of the United States. What surprised him was how naïve Trump was in not assessing the anti-constitutional forces arrayed against him.
Trump-Removal Chic
The elite efforts to emasculate the president have sometimes taken on an eerie turn. The publisher-editor of the German weekly magazine Zeit raised the topic on German television of killing Trump to end the “Trump catastrophe.” So did British Sunday Times columnist India Knight, who tweeted, “The assassination is taking such a long time.” A former Obama Pentagon official, Rosa Brooks, recently mused about theoretical ways to remove Trump, including a military coup, should other avenues such as impeachment or medically forced removal fail: “The fourth possibility is one that until recently I would have said was unthinkable in the United States of America: a military coup, or at least a refusal by military leaders to obey certain orders.”
The Atlantic now darkly warns that Trump is trying to create an autocracy. Former Weekly Standard editor in chief Bill Kristol suggested in a tweet that if he faced a choice (and under what surreal circumstances would that happen?) between the constitutionally, democratically elected president and career government officials’ efforts to thwart or remove him, he would come down on the side of the revolutionary, anti-democratic “deep state”: “Obviously strongly prefer normal democratic and constitutional politics. But if it comes to it [emphasis added], prefer the deep state to the Trump state.” No doubt some readers interpreted that as a call to side with anti-constitutional forces against an elected U.S. president.
Hollywood stars such as Meryl Streep equate the president with brownshirts and assorted fascists. A CNN reporter announced that Trump was Hitlerian; another mused about his plane’s crashing. Prominent conservative legal scholar Richard Epstein recently called for Trump to resign after less than a month in office, largely on grounds that Trump’s rhetoric is unbridled and indiscreet — although Epstein cited no indictable or impeachable offenses that would justify the dispatch of a constitutionally elected president. Earlier, Republican columnists David Frum and Jennifer Rubin had theorized that the 25th Amendment might provide a way to remove Trump from office as unfit to serve. The New Republic published an unfounded theory, based on no empirical evidence, alleging that Trump suffers from neurosyphilis and thus is mentally not up to his office.
Former president Barack Obama — quite unlike prior presidents Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush, who all refrained from attacking their successors — is now reportedly ready to join the efforts of a well-funded political action committee to undermine the Trump presidency...
"Sympathy for the Devil "
Ed Driscoll, at Instapundit "AND THE ROLE OF EMMANUEL GOLDSTEIN WILL BE PLAYED BY…: Liberals’ Knives Come Out for Nate Silver After His Model Points to a Trump Victory..."
R.S. McCain, "'Jews Are Dead, Hamas Is Happy, and Podhoretz Has Got His Rage On ..."
Ace, "Georgia Shooter's Father Berated Him as a "Sissy" and Bought Him an AR-15 to 'Toughen Him Up'..."Free Beacon..., "Kamala Harris, the ‘Candidate of Change,’ Copies Sections of Her Policy Page Directly From Biden's Platform..."