Trump Now Poses Greatest Security Threat To Election And Cannot Be Allowed To Carry Out A Coup

 

"Nineteen summers ago, when counterterrorism analysts warned of a coming attack by al‑Qaeda, they could only guess at a date. This year, if election analysts are right, we know when the trouble is likely to come. Call it the Interregnum: the interval from Election Day to the next president’s swearing-in. It is a temporal no-man’s-land between the presidency of Donald Trump and an uncertain successor—a second term for Trump or a first for Biden. The transfer of power we usually take for granted has several intermediate steps, and they are fragile."-  Barton Gellman. 'The Election That Could Break America'

"He's criminalizing dissent on one level. With the FBI, he's attempting rhetorically to criminalize the execution and mechanics of the rule of law.  It's not a heck of a lot more complicated than that... He's using a charged term to create a sense of anxiety and paranoia to get his supporters in a place where assent for Trump is a patriotic act.  By doing so he's throwing 243 years of constitutional history away.

The framers had this right. They were worried about demagogues, they were worried about exactly this type of person." - Historian John Meacham, in May, 2019 (on MSNBC)

"Foreign actors seeking to do us harm will seek to undermine our confidence in the election by telling us that it is a hoax and any ballots counted after election day are some sort of scam. Foreign actors seeking to do us harm will stoke that - as per the FBI statement. Trump is doing exactly what the FBI just warned us is being done -  by foreign powers hostile to us-   trying to undo our democracy. They're doing it covertly, our president is doing it out loud right in front of us. "

Rachel Maddow, last night, MSNBC

Thanks to a new Atlantic article by staff writer Barton Gellman, e.g.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-election-that-could-break-america/ar-BB19kN77

we are now alerted to the potential for  an attempted Trump coup on November 3rd.    This is not being histrionic or hyperbolic, the threat is as real as the first splitting chest pains preceding a heart attack.   As Gellman warns us, refocusing our attention after so much has been written about Trump simply refusing to leave office:

"The worst case, however, is not that Trump rejects the election outcome. The worst case is that he uses his power to prevent a decisive outcome against him. If Trump sheds all restraint, and if his Republican allies play the parts he assigns them, he could obstruct the emergence of a legally unambiguous victory for Biden in the Electoral College and then in Congress. He could prevent the formation of consensus about whether there is any outcome at all. He could seize on that un­certainty to hold on to power.

Trump’s state and national legal teams are already laying the groundwork for postelection maneuvers that would circumvent the results of the vote count in battleground states. Ambiguities in the Constitution and logic bombs in the Electoral Count Act make it possible to extend the dispute all the way to Inauguration Day, which would bring the nation to a precipice."

This ought to scare the bejeezus out of every sane and sentient American - at least those not numbered among the Trump zombies.  We already know the swine fouling the White House is indirectly responsible for over 200,000 dead Americans because of his mishandling of the Covid 19 pandemic.  But now we know he wants to kill American democracy as well in the coming general election by carrying out a coup.  Indeed, he is already in the process of doing it with every attack he makes on mail -in ballots, and with the very words uttered last night:

"Get rid of the ballots, and there won't be a transition but a continuation of power."

 This was in response to a reporter's question of whether this fungal imp would respect  peaceful transition of power, i.e. if he loses. Just Trump babbling with no import?  Nope, as Maddow put it last night:

"This isn't some inarticulate blurt or verbal misfire from the president speaking at the podium at the White House tonight.  This is what he is saying consistently now over the last few days.  This is what he means. This is not verbal glitching or idle musings. This is insistently and consistently where we are at now.  Two hundred and forty -four years to stand this Republic up, four years to cut it down."

Indeed! And Maddow is spot on correct about his intentions.  There is no "bungling" of a response as blogger Cody Fenwick claims.  (See link below).  What Trump means when he barks "get rid of the ballots"  is that he  intends to prevent as many mail- in ballots as possible from being counted, to give him his best chance to sneak into power again. A veritable coup, and as Gellman's Atlantic piece notes, he has the machinery in place to carry it out - read it.  Let's recall  here Russian -born journalist Masha Gessen's essay Autocracy: Rules for Survival wherein she warned:

“Whenever you find yourself thinking, or hear others claiming, that he is exaggerating, that is our innate tendency to reach for a rationalization.”

Former Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice - in a NY Times piece about national division, polarization - already called out Trump as the  national security threat he is to our election:

"Trump daily tosses gasoline and matches on the bone-dry tinder of American politics.  Whether reprising discredited eugenics theories of white racial superiority, stoking fears of “low income” people invading white suburbs, demanding “patriotic education” in public schools that whitewashes slavery and institutionalized racism, falsely declaring mail-in voting corrupt or expressing contempt for “blue state” America, Mr. Trump seeks to perpetuate himself in power at great cost to our national cohesion. No wonder Russian state media and politicians are gleefully predicting an imminent civil war in the United States.."

Sadly, this same security threat also has useful idiots in the media (like Peggy Noonan, WSJ, Sept. 19-20, p. A13, 'Get Ready For An Election Crisis') who try to   denigrate or downgrade the value of mail voting compared to voting in person at a polling place.  These fellow misinformational travelers (of Trump) insinuate we choose not to vote in person because of "inconvenience" or we fail to perceive the "civic and ancestral nature of voting in person."   Actually, it's a lot simpler: we have always voted by mail in a state for which casting mail ballots has attained a gold standard, e.g.

• How Colorado Achieved The Gold Standard In Mail Vo...

So why the hell do anything differently, just to posture as a paper patriot, especially when a pandemic is raging and positive infection rates are up in 33 states?  (Also given wifey and I are both past 70 and vulnerable citizens - for different reasons.)

There are ways this electoral calamity and national debacle can be headed off but it will require all 'hands on deck' - namely the anti-Trump coalition making sure they have their act together. The first priority is ensure you are registered to vote - wherever that may be.  Second, if you need a mail ballot or absentee ballot now is the time to request one if your state isn't automatically sending them out like here in Colorado. (Where wifey and me are both proud mail- in voters and have been for nearly 7 years.)   Then, be sure to vote as early as possible - whether using mail in ballots or going to the polls in person.  The earlier you go the better, to avoid mishaps or long lines, wait times.    

Also, it's time to leave the purist pussyfooting behind. 

You're maybe a  young voter who's about as excited about Joe Biden as a bowl of cold porridge?  Grow the hell up, put on your big boy pants, hold your nose and vote for him anyway. This ain't a prom king contest, for god's sake, and no one's emotions ought to determine a vote.   Especially when said vote might avert a crisis that brings the country down. 

The key then to routing this pestilence - this proto-Nazi scum authoritarian and his cabal,  including Bill Barr, Lindsey Graham, Stephen Miller and the other vipers- - is a historic  voter turnout delivering a massive landslide.  Also, taking from 6 to 7 Senate seats from the Reepos in the process. We need to make the bastards pay for rushing to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat. We also need to have serious numbers that will make it difficult for Capt. Bonespurs to contest.   As it is, true to his M.O. now he will try to halt any continuing vote count on Nov. 3rd, given mail ballots will almost certainly be still trickling in. But this roach can't be permitted to stop the ongoing righteous count (which he will certainly try to impugn as a "scam" or "rigged").  And if he tries to pull in a "kangaroo" court tactic to validate his theft, we need all citizens to take to the streets by the MILLIONS - not thousands.  

But let's be clear that evicting this criminal scum will take more than will power or even numbers.  It will take ultimate attention to the voting process - especially in completing a mail -in or absentee ballot.  There is NO room for fuck ups!  As Michael Waldman from the Brennan Center for Justice explained on ALL In last night:  

"All of us a citizens have to do a bit more to make sure we are ready,  especially that we are registered and that our vote counts."  

As Mr. Waldman observed "all of us citizens"  includes the media, which needs to be smarter about reporting on election night.  No more "suspense calls" or "this just in" egging viewers on to believe events might wrap up by midnight and a winner called.  NO, they likely won't, so don't create the expectation.  That plays into Dotard's paws. 

Making sure your vote counts in this election will mean tracking your mail ballot online if you need to (only 4 states don't allow this: Texas, Indiana, Illinois and Missouri.)  It also means make sure your ballot is signed, and also you don't forget to put the sealed ballot into the regular mail envelope - thus avoiding the notorious "naked ballot" - which is unlikely to get counted in many states.  To plan your vote in a competent manner the site below will be of inestimable value:

https://www.nbcnews.com/specials/plan-your-vote-state-by-state-guide-voting-by-mail-early-in-person-voting-election/

Failure to effectively  act in concert to dispel this venal virus from power will be a pox on all of our lives - and our nation - for the remainder of time.   We already know from history what transpired when too many foolish Germans let Adolf Hitler crash the corridors of power in the then Weimar Republic.  Within a short time of being made Chancellor, Hitler forced through the Enabling Act, i.e. 

http://www.dw.com/en/the-law-that-enabled-hitlers-dictatorship/a-16689839

And that marked the end of Germany's experiment in democracy at that time. It would take a world war and the loss of more than 60 million lives to restore it.

 

See Also:

2020 Elections | Donald Trump

‘Get Rid of the Ballots’: Trump Badly Bungles a Question on Whether He’ll Accept a Peaceful Transfer of Power

And:

Social Justice and Activism

Is a General Strike the Answer to a Trump Coup?

And:

2020 Elections | Donald Trump | Republicans | Supreme Court

Warning: GOP Can Appoint a Supreme Court Justice in Time to Confirm Trump's Second Term

And:

Donald Trump | Supreme Court

Is Trump's Supreme Court Strategy Self-destructive — or His Pathway to a Second Term?

And:

• Trump: Blacks have themselves to blame for inequality, and Jews 'are only in it for themselves'

Godwin's Law And Obama's Warning About Hitler And Trump's Rise

It is a common and stupid fallacy that seems to have spread around the net that we are all to beware that "if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds." The corollary to Godwin's law  has been deemed even more canonical, i.e.  that "anyone who introduces Nazis or Adolf Hitler in a debate or discussion automatically loses by default". Of course,  this is arrant codswallop. If the comparison is applicable then we are enjoined to make use of it, and this is more and more the case with Donald John Trump. No, he hasn't launched concentration camps yet- but he is destroying norms and practices on a pace to what Hitler did - to Weimar Germany - from 1930 to  1933., ultimately leading to the Enabling Act, e.g.

http://www.dw.com/en/the-law-that-enabled-hitlers-dictatorship/a-16689839

The preceding provides a cautionary tale,  contrary to many pundits who beseech us to "chill"  because our Constitution is "too resilient"  to be trashed by a deranged authoritarian narcissist. . They are, of course, dreaming. History shows that even well-designed constitutions can fail. In this regard, the 1919 Weimar constitution was designed by some of  Germany's greatest minds. Its long -standing and highly regarded Rechsstaat ("rule of law")  was considered by many as sufficient to prevent any government abuse. But it could not have forecast the abnormal circumstances of the rise of Hitler, or his disrespect for German norms and laws that allowed him to use the very machinery of German democracy to overthrow it.

Thus, Godwin's Law does not dispute the validity of references or comparisons to Hitler or the Nazis. This is given (as I will show)  such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate in a discussion. What Godwin has really argued is that overuse of the Nazi comparison should be avoided as it dilutes the impact of any further analogies that might be even more valid. In other words, pick your Hitler (and Nazi) comparisons judiciously!

Over a year ago I drew parallels between Hitler and Trump in terms of consideration of their premoral characters,  see e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/10/narcissism-pre-moral-mind-and-donald-j.html

In each case, I showed the gestation of the particular narcissistic authoritarian complex arose from the mistreatment by parental figures: Savage beating by his father Alois in the case of Hitler, e.g.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/aug/04/research.secondworldwar

In the case of Trump, we learned (e.g. Ch. 2, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump) of his parents' abandoning him to the New York Military Academy,, thereby arousing a sense of parental rejection and incipient doubts in his self worth. This was after he was reported by Queens' cops for making  "all purpose"  switchblades and testing them on cats.  Perhaps even at that young age Dotard was honing his savage bullying and depravity.
 

Much of this was also   referenced in the book, 'Hitler:The Psychiatric Files'  by Nigel Cawthorne who  examined the detailed comparative  traits of Trump and Adolf Hitler..  I will go through a number of these traits shortly but first wish to point out the danger to democracy is not just destroying norms and government as a protective bulwark for citizens via regulations, see e.g.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/mel-gurtov/76692/the-calculated-destruction-of-america-s-government

But also creating degenerate support in a minority faction of the populace - who are severely propagandized to follow their leader (like the "Good Germans") - and also to despise their fellow citizens.  The dynamic enables easy identification with fellow Trumpies via their mutual hatred of  political correctness  and  "establishment elites"  Their narcissistic hunger (in some cases driven by a sense of inferiority) has also compelled them to identify with Trump in his destruction of norms, which has exacerbated political divisions in the country.  In a similar vein, Hitler's S.A. fanatics had no problem beating up socialists, Jews or labor leaders if they protested at Hitler's rallies.   The S.A. - many of whom were unemployed lower class workers seeking status-  felt they attained it by executing the Fuhrer's orders.

Now, as  Trump's extraordinary malfeasance and dereliction grows by the day, Barack Obama,  invoking the specter of Nazi Germany has warned against complacency..   Is this  "Hitler" excess? A violation of "Godwin's law"? Of course not. Obama's warning is very timely and apropos. Speaking before the Economic Club of Chicago, Obama said:

"The danger is "grow(ing) complacent.  We have to tend to this garden of democracy or else things could fall apart quickly."

That's what happened in Germany in the 1930s which, despite the democracy of the Weimar Republic and centuries of high-level cultural and scientific achievements, Adolph Hitler rose to dominate.   Sixty million people died. . . .So, you've got to pay attention. And vote."

Obama didn't mention Dotard Trump by name, but really he didn't have to. At the same time he didn't expatiate on very cogent comparisons to Hitler's and his Nazis' success in destroying Weimar democracy.  Perhaps he chose not to elaborate, worried that even the liberal media might invoke Godwin's law to criticize him. So be it.

He  didn't mention that even before Hitler and the Nazis assumed power, Weimar democracy was under assault.  German tribalism was sown by Hitler's brown shirts (Sturm Abteilung) especially against Jews, socialists, and labor unions.  Historian and author Ian Kershaw in his magnificent account of Hitler’s rise to power (‘Hitler Nemesis’) showed that the pre-Reich Weimar Republic constituted a weak democracy which had little or no control over the most radical Rightists, especially Hitler. They were aggregated into gangs of thugs who would regularly beat Marxists, socialists, and any leftists on the streets while holding up signs that read: “Tot dem Marxem!” (Death to Marxists!)

The final piece to undermining German democracy was for the big business capitalists to fall in, believing they would be able to "control"  Hitler. Kershaw again (‘Hitler Nemesis’, p. xxxiii):

“Leaders of big business, though often harboring private concerns about current difficulties and looming future problems for the economy, for their part were grateful to Hitler for the destruction of the left-wing parties and trade unions. They were again ‘masters in the house’ in their dealings with their work force”

With the left wing, socialists and labor unions virtually demolished and in chaos by the 1933 elections Hitler and the NSDAP had a clear route to dominance in the Reichstag.  They only needed a simple majority of the factional votes and once that was achieved they could demolish the democratic edifice using Hitler's Enabling Act- which link I posted earlier.

Make no mistake our democracy is currently under vicious attack by Trump - though not  (yet) in as violent and daring a manner as Hitler. Though various voices,  like those of batshit crazy floozy Jeanine Pirro  on "Trump TV",  have called for Mueller and surrogates to be "in cuffs".  See e.g.

“It's time to take them out in cuffs”: Fox News' Jeanine Pirro calls for a purge of the FBI"

 Rabble rousing Trump brain slaves and Harpies like Pirro  are also stoking rebellious passions among their brain dead herd.  This is very likely to foment violence  in case indictments of Trump and family are handed down. (Which they very likely will be soon).

So one can definitely call it a slow rolling destruction, beginning with the undermining of the pillars of our democracy: calling out the press as " enemies of the people") and excoriating the judiciary for doing their jobs. Even castigating our constitutional  divided government - preventing a Trump dictatorship.

As referenced in a recent article in The New Republic ('How A Democracy Dies', Jan/Feb. p. 16):

"If 25 years ago someone had described to you a country where a candidate threatened to lock up rivals, and the government was accused of election fraud, you might have thought of Ecuador or Romania. It wouldn't have been the United States of America."

The piece also notes there were good reasons why no extremist demagogue ever won the presidency before. One was that parties themselves served as important gatekeepers, to prevent a "free for all" where one or more contenders might be authoritarian nuts (like George Wallace in 1968) or psychos.  The other was that the Electoral College would do its job if enough of the people - through ignorance, stupidity or misplaced passion - chose a demagogue. Then the Founders expected the electors to do their jobs and prevent the ascension of the unqualified screwball. But neither of these proved true in 2016.

Trump rumbled through all the debates and emerged on top after numerous instances of name calling and vitriol. Then, the electors turned into useless, inanimate props and just rubber stamped state vote tallies as opposed to acting like the adults, quashing them and concurring with Hamilton's take, i.e. in The Federalist # 68:

"The process of election (by state electors) affords a moral certainty that the office of President shall never fall to the lot of any man who is not to an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications..."

Is Trump endowed with such qualifications?  Absolutely not! But one can certainly make plausible comparison to Adolf Hitler in terms of being a mentally deranged authoritarian. These include:

-  Hitler exhibited a pronounced absence of objectivity, which translated into his tendency to project his own ego on external reality "to the point of delusion" (HPF, p. 51).  Analyzing his speeches and writings, investigators found a disorganization of ideas and uncommon inability to express himself which at times verged on the pathological.  At one point (p. 52) we note that:

"Hitler operated on thalamic energy rather than rational planning"

All of these have been observed in Donald J. Trump as well, from his notorious ability to distort reality by projecting his own ego and wishes onto it ("biggest inauguration crowd ever",  "greatest electoral win since Reagan" etc.), to the inability to express himself as a rational, mature adult man ("Believe me you're gonna luv it!"), to his tendency to operate according to his "gut" and "instincts" (thalamic energy).

- Both Trump and Hitler share the attribute called "narcisensitivity" (p. 61) whereby the person  constantly exhibits a low tolerance for any depreciation, criticism, or contradiction - along with an inability to take a joke. Thus with Trump one beholds an almost pathological sensitivity such as displayed in his ranting tweets against attacking everyone who even mildly criticizes him, from Meryl Streep, to Joe Scarborough, to  Alec Baldwin for his Trump portrayal on SNL ("inability to take a joke")


- Among the most prominent characteristics of Hitler was self-exhibition, including self-display, extravagant demands for attention and obedience, desire for applause and vainglory. Recall Charles M. Blow's description:

"things had to be gilded to be glamorous. All modesty — either real or contrived to guard against exposure — was absent from the man. He was a glutton for attention and adoration. He chased the spotlight and pimped celebrity for profit. He valued flaunting over philanthropy"

Recall also Charles Krauthammer's comment:

"Trump's own instincts and inclinations (are responsible). A thirst for attention that leads to hyperactivity. He needs to dominate every news cycle which feeds a compulsive tweet habit. It has placed him almost continuously at the center of the national conversation and not always to his benefit".

- Verbal depreciation in belittling the worth of others, especially rivals and potential critics. (Fusion of verbal aggression and rejection).

As with Trump. e.g. during the campaign. Recall how he belittled a disabled NY Times reporter who criticized him about post 9/11 lies), as well as assorted others including the intel agencies, and the press. Also how he has chronically belittled women as "cows, pigs, dogs etc."

- Counteractive Aggression - always to repay in insult in double measure: A tooth for a tooth to avenge an injury perceived or other. Always to attack opponents, critics and frustrators. Inevitably the mandate is to: accuse, condemn, depreciate or mock an enemy - to his face or behind his back. Often by "unwarranted criticism, smear campaigns

All of which has also applied to Trump and his assorted tirades, and attacks on others. Once described by conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer:

"Trump simply can’t resist playground pushback. His tweets gave Meryl Streep’s Golden Globes screed priceless publicity. His mocking Arnold Schwarzenegger for bad “Apprentice” ratings "

- The incessant craving for superiority" (winning at all costs, devil take the hindmost) that actually arises out of an unbearable feeling of inferiority".

Hitler derived his sense of inferiority from living in Vienna for four years as a destitute artist.  Also, even after attaining the Chancellorship he was keenly and painfully aware he himself came from peasant stock and there was not the slightest trace of the Nordic (Aryan) "superman" in him, that he came to obsess over and hold as a model to the German people.

NY Times op-ed columnist Charles Blow has also pointed out how Trump hasn't accomplished anything in his first year on the scale of Obama, hence his nursed resentment. Also, he's always been painfully aware of never having been accepted by NYC's upper class while Obama has been.  As Mr. Blow writes ('A Ticket To Hell'):

"With a hustler’s spirit and some sleight of hand, he made it, but not in total.  He made the move, made the money and made his mark on New York’s skyline, but he never quite made it into the inner sanctum of New York high society. I’m convinced that this is part of his obsession with former President Barack Obama. Obama was quickly granted the thing Trump never had: upper-class acceptance and adulation."

In like manner, Hitler never enjoyed the acceptance and appreciation allotted to Paul von Hindenburg, the previous Chancellor. This infuriated him just as the elites and intellectuals embrace of Obama has infuriated Trump. 

The new theme is Trump being infuriated with Robert Mueller and his investigation. Obama then is very right that we need to pay attention. This is not the time to doze, get bored or not keep our eyes on the "ball".   According to the latest TIME (with "person of the year') Trump has already undermined the respect for the office of the presidency by his wayward tweets and lack of self- control. Our democracy is the next target and it behooves us all to attend to what he's doing and find ways to mitigate the growing threat.


See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/eileen-m-russell-phd/76677/trumps-enablers-a-leader-this-malignant-stays-in-power-with-a-lot-of-help

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/adil-e-shamoo/74765/it-s-time-to-take-the-nazi-trump-comparisons-seriously

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/neal-gabler/76726/what-happened-why-i-don-t-think-the-trump-moment-will-pass-without-serious-and-permanent-damage-to-amer

Psychiatrists sound alarm: Trump deteriorating by the day. We are all in danger.

Holman Jenkins Dismisses U.S. Nazis As "Mere Losers" - Why He's Not Credible

According to the WSJ's Holman Jenkins Jr., real Nazis who subscribe to Nazi ideals and memes don't exist in the U. S. of A. They are all simply run of the mill "losers".  As he writes in a piece from yesterday ('The Great Nazi Scare of 2017', p. A13), referring to the thousands of protesters in Boston last weekend who came out to oppose neo-Nazis, white supremacists:

":Leftists imagined themselves to be modern day versions of the Czech resistance or the Warsaw uprising, but it turns out they were the majoritarian mob shouting down a handful of losers who've been an execrable but small part of the American pageant for as long as most of us can remember."

Actually, little Holman suffers evidently from some memory lapses, or maybe just convenient omissions. First, the pro-Nazi side wasn't always merely a "small" or non-influential sector, but the German-American Bund and its nefarious networks probably came before Jenkins'  time.  So we give him a minor pass there. As for the "leftists" in Boston, he commits the fallacy of composition - attributing to the whole an attribute peculiar only to a minority. In fact, the majority of his "majoritarian mob" were simply ordinary citizens out to voice their protests against a noisome group. They were not card carrying members (like I am) of the Democratic Socialists Of America.

These people expressing their outrage did not fancy themselves part of any "Czech Resistance" (Google "Prague Spring of 1968") but rather American citizens out to voice their first amendment rights -which Holman seems to believe must only be exercised in the event of a monster scale rally on the other side. Maybe 100,000? I am not sure, but Jenkins' dismissive tone suggests he wants no protests unless the side protested against is an immense, immediate dire threat.  As he put it:

"The meeting ended early, the speakers were all drowned out. Nazis and white supremacists, if any were present,  were shown to be vastly outnumbered by Americans who reject such doctrines;"

Well at least here he properly cited "Americans" and not "leftists". But, of course, he's still a foolish twit. Waiting to protest until the vermin side metastasizes  to thousands is the error most Germans made in the early 1930s.  They laughed and hurled jibes about the "fools" marching in the streets causing trouble with Hitler, and never imagined that ten years later they'd hold power. OR, that these same riff raff would - in that power- use the very laws of Nuremberg democracy to destroy that democracy, via the Enabling Act.

And lest too many forget or were never aware, Hitler's National Socialist rabble began with only about twenty or so in a Munich Beer Hall.  This according to Konrad Heiden in 'The Fuhrer'.   As my late friend (and former Hitler Youth - by coercion)  Kurt Braun used to say: "Never, EVER, get complacent about a few Nazis!"   That was in 1978, in Frankfurt - while visiting Kurt and his wife, Ute. We were also shown archival films of how the Nazis and Adolf Hitler came to power. But to dolts like the WSJ's Jenkins we are "over reacting to Nazis" if thousands protest "against just a few"  - like in Boston last weekend.

This shtick is not new. If the Right can't win the narrative, say to come out directly against their more extremist sidekicks, they dismiss the threat of those extremists - to try and make it appear as though any opposition is foolish, over reacting and bordering on hysteria.   This is the sort of screwball premise Jenkins used in his piece to actually end up concluding it was the "minority" Nazis and white supremacists who needed protection against the "Majoritarian Mob".  But as Kurt would have said, if he was still alive observing events, "Would that such a majoritarian mob had shouted down the Nazis while still in their infancy in Germany!"

Well, yes, but we already know how that German history turned out when too many stood by, merely laughed at the jokesters wearing swastikas and did nothing. Even by the time the German capitalists like Krupp had tossed their lot behind Hitler, they still believed in their heart of hearts they could control him - after he became Chancellor. They had no remote conception that he'd use their own parliamentarian rules to destroy German democracy leading to a one party state.

"Oh, but that can't happen here! It's different!"

Those like Jenkins'-  and other pundits who seek to minimize the Nazi -white supremacist threat- would love for most people to buy into this codswallop. But the lessons of Germany in the 1930s disclose we'd be better off adhering to the maxim that "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance". Also, Jenkins and his allies appear to forget our present day, home grown Nazis already have a leg up on their German forbears. That is, they already have a friendly force occupying the peak of power, even controlling the nuclear codes.

We've also since learned how the neo-Nazis and other racist scum networked using the web (WSJ, Aug, 17, p. A1)  to mobilize the disaffected angry young whites (mainly males) including "white nationalists, neo-Nazis and defenders of Southern heritage"  to "maximize their opportunity to get their point of view across".   The Nazis cited in the piece also made it clear they no longer aspire merely to more marches and rallies but policy changes.  These could include everything from limiting immigration, especially of Mexicans and Muslims, to building a border wall using taxpayer money, to fielding a new "security" arm similar to the Nazi Gestapo.  Bottom line, as long as even ten thousand Nazis aspire to policy governance we can't relax. Hell, so long as ten aspire to such governance it is folly to let our guard down.

I'd go so far as to argue a version of Dick Cheney's "one percent doctrine" is applicable to the home grown Nazi terrorists. Recall that doctrine asserted if there is even a one percent chance of Pakistan helping Al Qaeda get a nuclear weapon the U.S. had to go all out to stop them. In the new incarnation, if there is even a one percent chance the U.S. Nazis and white supremacists can enlist Trump to help advance their agenda we citizens must go all out to stop it. That means assembling for a massive protest even if only ten neo-Nazis are speaking in a park. Nothing less will do, certainly so long as their enabler fouls the White House. (See the article link at very end.)

Jenkins wrote (ibid.):

"Majoritarian violence is the predominant risk even when its targets are people otherwise impossible to sympathize with".

He then proceeded to use mealy-mouthed lingo to try to paint events in Charlottesville in a less defined form, i.e. "first reports are unreliable", "manipulating news-related symbols in way that pleasure their target audiences" etc. - in other words seeking to support Trump's narrative that violence was equal and occurred on "many sides".   In Jenkins' later words:

"For the record, Donald Trump's press conference is available in its entirety online and takes 23 minutes to watch. He did not fail to denounce Nazis and racists"

Yeah, but he diluted the impact by including "on many sides".  Also, he earned the cheers of the same Alt-Right bunch who dismissed his words being aimed seriously at them.  See e.g. Richard Spencer's reaction here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAcoz7iIUfk

Make no mistake these riff raff already have a pal in the WH and they know it. This is why we can't go lightly or ignore the home grown Nazis so long as Trump occupies the Oval Office.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/adil-e-shamoo/74765/it-s-time-to-take-the-nazi-trump-comparisons-seriously

Excerpt:

"The slide towards bleak historical periods can be difficult to recognize in the moment — often it only seems obvious in retrospect. But it’s hard to miss in the U.S. in this early part of the 21st century.

Dangerous signs are everywhere. In the New Yorker, Robin Wright writes of a coming Civil War. Holocaust survivors are issuing warnings about the similarities of this period to the rise of the Nazi era.

While no two events are the same, there are lessons and events in history that can be used to shine a light on the present. Those lights, if we choose to follow them, can guide us to avoid the tragic errors of the past"

No, Nanette, Government is NOT Your 'Friend' or ' Daddy'!

Right: Nazi defendants wait to be tried at Nuremberg. It was the 'good Germans,' who saw no evil after Hitler came to power , who were responsible for the chaos the 3rd Reich caused.

"Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for the purpose of a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

"In every government on earth is some trace of human weakness, some germ of corruption and degeneracy, which cunning will discover and wickedness insensibly open." - Thomas Jefferson, in 'Notes on Virginia'.

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves therefore are its only safe depositories. AND TO RENDER THEM SAFE, THEIR MINDS MUST BE IMPROVED." - Thomas Jefferson, 'Notes on Virginia'.

Yesterday, our dear friend 'Nanette' visited from Aurora, and we had a really good breakfast before having a heavy conversation about Snowden, the NSA, citizens and rights.  'Nanette' like so many 'Muricans, felt in her heart of hearts that Snowden had "betrayed" his country  and merely created hysteria about the NSA mass surveillance programs like PRISM. There was nothing whatever to fret about and the NSA was merely carrying out its mission to protect us from the millions who want to kill us. If you didn't do anything wrong, NSA wouldn't be tracking your every move. Just be a 'good guy' and move on, oh, and stop complaining!

When I mentioned the 'continuity of Government' (COG) program given teeth by the  Bushistas through Sec. 215 of the Patriot Act, and how it provided for domestic protestors (like Occupy Wall Street and anti-frackers) to be labeled "terrorists" - and noted  how the Occupy demonstrators were tracked and hounded-  she merely shrugged her shoulders:

"I don't protest or complain so I have nothing to worry about."

When I told her that the same Sec. 215 allowed federal agents to break into a home and rifle through computer files and other documents without having to tell you, she just smiled - that was for others to worry about because she had nothing to cause any alarm. Only photos of her two kitties.

When I noted the 'Main Core' program and how 8 million innocent Americans were already listed under it, people who'd done nothing except perhaps speak out against the Afghan adventure and the waste of money involved, she just laughed. It doesn't mean a thing and no one is going to do anything with it. She would become a true believer if people started to get arrested and their doors get knocked down.

To her it was quite fine and dandy and not worth worrying or fretting over because, after all, government was good to us, our "friend" or at least 'Daddy': it paved our roads, it paid our benefits - like her Social Security and Medicare- and it regulated her foods so there were no salmonella infections, and supplied money for our schools (ok, at least the better ones through 'No Child Left Behind' and 'Race to the Top') and it protected us from all those bad guys that Clapper and Alexander keep warning us about.

When I cited the stat - from a Gideon Rachman Financial Times article, e.g.






and that "the average American had only a one in 500,000 chance of being killed in a terrorist attack", compared to  a one in 346,000 chance of being annihilated by a large asteroid (> 0.5 km dia.) she again just shrugged. She still knew in her heart of hearts that the government was protecting her.

When I informed her the same gov't she praised for paving her roads also started wars that couldn't be paid for, she was mostly speechless. Finally, she agreed I had a point. When I added to that those unpaid for wars (as well as tax cut for the rich) meant cuts to her domestic S.S. and Medicare benefits she said she'd "wait and see". I added that, in case she forgot, the Supreme Court in a ruling some years back stated that no benefits are enshrined and the government could reduce them or even eliminate them.

In other words, her image of a benevolent government largely depended on who was in power:  which party - and who in that party had what agenda in the Executive branch. It was certainly not a 'slam dunk' that in each election cycle we'd get the government we need or want. (And no one can dismiss the power of money to trump our votes,  negating her argument that "we" get the gov't we deserve via our voting choices.)  It could be a malevolent one with no citizen rights at heart, and no incentive to "promote the general welfare" as stated in the Preamble of the Constitution. As for the Bill of Rights, it was a truism that if people didn't use them then they'd lose them.


'Nanette' in this sense did appear to see the paradox of the NSA going ape shit to reign in terrorists with its mass surveillance dragnet (that didn't discriminate good guys from bad)  but not attending to the millions of cockeyed gun owners with their AR-15s, Bushmaster .223s and other weapons - all 2nd amendment rights aficionados, when thousands of times more people were murdered than killed by terrorists each year.


But then these gun zealots - unlike 4th amendment civil libertarians - might go bonkers if threatened with the remote loss of any of their current rights.. At least she saw the divergence in government obsession between protecting 2nd and 4th amendment rights. The 2nd amendment folks struck fear in the heart of government, but not 4th amendment rights folks. (As I noted in an earlier blog post, protecting 4th amendment rights is always more difficult because they are largely intangible and people don't see when they're losing them. By contrast a gun owner can instantly see when he's losing his Bushmaster or Glock 9mm).

I tried my best to show Nanette it is the citizen's job to oversee and pay attention to what the government is doing, and not be asleep at the switch. I read to her Jefferson's quotes (above) and indicated that a real citizen had to treat government more or less like a toddler of immense power that might wander off the beaten path at any time -depending on political winds, or outside agents.

As MIT's Noam Chomsky put it in a recent interview:

"Governments are power systems. They are trying to sustain their power and domination over their populations and they will use what means are available to do this. By now the means are very sophisticated and extensive and we can expect them to increase. So for instance, if you read technology journals you learn that in robotics labs for some years there have been efforts to develop small drones, what they call “fly-sized drones,” which can intrude into a person’s home and be almost invisible and carry out constant surveillance. You can be sure that the military is very much interested in this, and the intelligence systems as well, and will soon be using it."

So true.  The saddest part of our exchange is the extent to which I realized that Nanette was like the millions of good Germans who, had they paid attention and done their homework, might have averted the catastrophe of the Third Reich - by not turning a blind eye to what was going on. (In Nanette's view that'd never happen today since we're more "civilized". Hmmm... I reminded her that the Germans with their Goethe and Bach also fancied themselves to be).

Ironically, we Americans - who had to sacrifice so many lives to liberate Europe from Hitler's grasp- had no tolerance for any of the 'good Germans' - a historical point many 'good Americans' today would do well to ponder.  Go back to the end of World War II and the American occupation of Germany in the years after 1945. We assailed the “weak” German people and mocked them for not standing up to the growing metastasis of Hitler’s Reich which they obviously saw but did nothing about. Hell, too many sided with Hitler, praised him and embraced his ideology while turning a blind eye to the wrongs. The last straw was the Enabling Act (1933) which essentially obliterated the last vestiges of the Weimar Republic. Our military also dragged out these “good Germans” and trotted them into the remnant concentration camps to see first hand what their Fuhrer and his minions did. They were marched in and forced to look at the naked, gassed bodies stacked like cordwood until they puked.

Meanwhile, our then military leaders rounded up the remaining high profile Nazis, including Hermann Goering (see photo) , and dragged them before a Tribunal to be accountable for their actions. (Read the book, ‘Judgment at Nuremburg’ or see the movie). Though they gave the excuse they were only “following orders” we didn’t buy it. We demanded a higher moral standard that NO one is obliged to follow orders to serve such vile ends and there exists higher moral law that trumps “orders” or “oaths”.

The U.S. insisted instead that violating a government order was mandated by the principle (VI) that the United States trumpeted in the Nuremberg war crime trials. Principle VI came to be known as the Nuremberg Code and clearly states: “The fact that a person acted pursuant to orders of his government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."


Note this Principle’s injunction is exactly analogous to what Edward Snowden followed. He had allegedly binding orders and “oaths” by which the government found it expedient to limit his actions, but he saw (as the U.S. military leaders did at Nuremberg) that the option of a higher moral choice dictated he inform the American people – whose liberties were at stake and threatened – of what was being done in their name. As Robert Scheer noted in a June 25 blog, ‘The Good Germans in Government’:

Read the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and tell me that Edward Snowden is not a hero in the mold of those who founded this republic. Check out the Nuremberg war crime trials and ponder our current contempt for the importance of individual conscience as a civic obligation

I ended our conversation (moving back to more light-heated fare)  by suggesting to Nanette that she read the 4th amendment again and carefully, and take note that mass warrants were not permitted. The government had to seek out and issue individualized warrants specific to the perpetrators and context. It didn't matter if this "took time", or was "inconvenient" - that is what the amendment stated.

Why, I asked her, should we empower the government to take away our 4th amendment rights any more than the gun owners allow the government to take  away their 2nd amendment rights?

She had no answer, but she promised to read the Bill of Rights again as her first resolution for this year. Let us hope millions of our fellow citizens do the same, in between their shopping excursions, instagrams and Facebook-ing.

Meanwhile, the fathead fool and dickhead Peter King (R- NY) has flipped out at the NY Times editorial board calling them "apologists for terrorists"- for calling for clemency for  Edward Snowden. See,

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/02/gops_peter_king_flips_out_on_the_new_york_times/

This asshole still claims Snowden is a “traitor” -  despite the fact Ed has done more to protect this nation's honor and principles than the fat bag of blowhard gas has done in all his years sitting in congress.  The real traitors are pigs like King, and we need to call them out and say so!

What Was This Federal Judge Thinking?

Reading back through the history of Third Reich Germany it became increasingly apparent how the whole basis of law was subverted, usually by courts taken over by the Nazis. While once there had been real laws, ennobling citizens, i.e. of the Weimar Republic, the laws had now been gutted and misshapen through corruption, fear and violence.

It all began on March 23, 1933, as the newly elected members of the German Parliament (the Reichstag) met in the Kroll Opera House in Berlin to consider passing Hitler's Enabling Act- which was officially called the 'Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich.' (Think of it in neo-Orwellian language terms, like "the Patriot Act")

 Once passed, it effectively meant the end of democracy: no more labor unions, end of voting, free speech and a free press in Germany and establishing the legal dictatorship of Adolf Hitler. The vote,  441 for, only 84, (the Social Democrats), against, achieved what Hitler had wanted for years - to tear down the German Democratic Republic legally and end democracy, thus paving the way for a complete Nazi takeover of Germany.

The point?  “Laws” can be implemented as abominations! Just because we are told mass spying is "lawful" or "legal" doesn't make it so - not if the original law was altered to make it conform to lawlessness. Once proper courts are taken over whether by fear, intimidation or violence, then all law goes out the window because it is no longer based on founding principles - but perversions of them,

In this way, the Enabling Act led the way for further perversions of German law as embodied in the Reich laws, which conferred sweeping powers on Reich courts to enable the Nazi government to do whatever it wanted: have neighbors spy on neighbors, get Gestapo to collect people in the middle of the night, halt all contrarian news articles or editorials as "threats to the state" and prevent any dissemination of why this was happening on the basis of "national security."

We have seen the same genesis for the disruption of law and the Constitution in our own country using the Patriot Act in ways never intended. It began with the illegal wiretapping of citizens under the Bush administration and was then compounded when a pathetic congress legalized the lawless wiretaps rather than bringing the Bush bunch up on charges. This marked the original violation and subversion of law.

It then continued when the perverted law came up for extension in 2011 and a perverted traitor congress again passed it, much like the 441 cowards in the Reichstag passed the Enabling Act. Rather than set the legal and Constitutional basis straight, it became warped once more.  To the point of validating extreme and lawless measures to fight "terrorism", e.g.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/03/31/the-showdown/

Voices have since fought to expose this perversion and subversion, starting with Edward Snowden's exposure of its extent. Then, more recently we had the original Patriot Act authors (Patrick Leahy and Jim Sensenbrenner) calling foul and asserting the Act was never intended to go so far as Snowden revealed. A new law  (USA Freedom Act) was proposed to steer us back onto a path of sanity, i.e.  http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-31/usa-freedom-act-would-leash-the-national-security-agency

However, it is being fought tooth and nail by the current crop of neo- 'Enabling Act' pawns of the national security state.  Fighting back have been other voices, as well as one federal  judge, Richard J. Leon of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. Judge Leon said the program most likely violated the Fourth Amendment. As part of the ruling, Judge Leon ordered the government to stop collecting data on two plaintiffs who brought the case against the government.

 

In his ruling, Judge Leon said that the program “infringes on ‘that degree of privacy’ that the founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment,” which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

 

Rather than live with that ruling, the government has appealed and we now behold another federal judge aligning with the Spooks and their pawns - much like the lower German courts were intimidated into aligning with the Reich courts.  In this case,, Judge William H. Pauley III, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, granted a motion filed by the federal government to dismiss a challenge to the program brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, which had tried to halt the program.   

    

Incredibly Judge Pauley's excuse was that protections under the Fourth Amendment do not apply to records held by third parties, like phone companies.   Fair enough, but then you cannot give those records to the NSA unless they have a proper SPECIFIC warrant - individualized  - as per the wording of the 4th amendment! You cannot cede the records en masse, based on mass warrants!

 

 Pauley added:

"The ACLU argues that the category at issue – all telephony metadata – is too broad and contains too much irrelevant information. That argument has no traction here. Because without all the data points, the government cannot be certain it is connecting the pertinent ones.......This blunt tool only works because it collects everything,”

 

  Right! So by that logic if I have to get rid of a hornet's nest on my house I will need to get hold of a flame thrower and an AK-47.

 

Does this judge have any idea how ignorant he sounds? He compounds that with this additional twaddle:

     

“While robust discussions are underway across the nation, in Congress and at the White House, the question for this court is whether the government’s bulk telephony metadata program is lawful. This court finds it is,”

At the same time, and in contradictory fashion, Pauley acknowledged that his ruling did not mean it was right to continue with the program, which he acknowledged was a “blunt tool” that “imperils the civil liberties of every citizen” if unchecked. And yet despite this acknowledgement of threat - reinforcing Judge Leon's take - he approved it. Cognitive dissonance anyone?

This sad excuse for a federal judge, alas, has no concept of what the 4th amendment is all about and has no business sitting on any bench.  If he'd acted consonant with the Constitution he'd have validated Judge Leon's earlier ruling and definitely not found the dragnet approach lawful. That is talking out of both sides of one's mouth, especially after admitting the threat to civil liberties.

 

What we can say, is that Hitler would have welcomed him with open arms on his Reich Courts!