No, you say ? Consider this statement quoted in the New York Times on April 9, 1944 by Vice President Henry A. Wallace :
” The really dangerous American fascist … is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence.
His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power …
They claim to be super — patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest.
This final objective, toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjugation.”
Prophetic, no ?
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Especially on International Holocaust Remembrance Day.
I don’t like that all my comments are now directed at Fred Rich LaRiccia asking him to “please stop.”
This kind of hyperbole sickens me for that reason. Thank you for expressing its inappropriateness.
Care to revise in light of recent developments that were also “Especially on International Holocaust Remembrance Day”?
We’re at a point where Never Again means something.
In the analogy you want to draw, Trump is Roosevelt, the guy who didn’t accept the refugees that Hitler meant to kill. All I’m saying is, enough with the Hitler comparisons.
Trump is a fascist and has supported a Muslim registry and has now enacted a Muslim ban (not to mention rounding up an expelling another large group of people). He is purposely targeting a specific religious group and using the power of the US government to isolate and monitor the group.
Never Again means remembering the steps that led to the Holocaust and preventing them. There are similar actions already afoot.
You think they are hyperbolic, but how he has acted thus far, I think comparisons and warnings are apt.
It’s getting pretty hard these days not to review pre-war German history and come to some stark conclusions about the nature of our own country.
And Roosevelt did that terrible move because our government was full of anti-semites, good thing our current government isn’t filled with Islamaphobes (sarcasm).
He’s already threatened to “send in the Feds” to an American city to deal with gun violence in parts of that city.
We’re a terror attack away from martial law.
I for one don’t want to be among the group telling people to calm down and “don’t blow things out of proportion.”
Trump is a violent attack on all that we should hold dear about our Democracy and constitutional rights (and it’s just week one), and we need to treat him as such.
… is the rule of law. Others thing I find precious and worthy are respect and constitutional principals. None of which are to be found in a ‘street fight’
We can match them vicious for vicious, or we can cling to what we hold dear. We can’t do both.
The Supreme Court rules that some action by the Trump administration is unconstitutional and orders it to be stopped. Trump tells the court to fuck itself. The GOP led Congress agrees to let Trump do what he wants. What happens? Do we just wait for the next election and hope we win?
We can win the street fight and rebuild and strengthen institutions. We can also end up never having another election if we think that norms and the currently weakened institutions will save us.
You win the street fight and you win on their terms. You cannot, under any possible circumstances, strengthen the institutions by winning a street fight. The very act of fighting in a street fight is a willful dismissal of the institutions… that is to say, a deliberate weakening of them.
What is it that you want?
Do you want to strengthen institutions? Then you have to, at least, act like they matter.
Do you want to punish, indeed inflict pain upon, the adversary? That’s a dismissal of the institutions you say you want to protect.
Choice is yours.
The Constitution only really works if the other branches bother to check this one. The Court is neutered by it’s vacancy and a stark partisan divide. The Senate and House are just going to be rubberstamps for the Trump agenda as the vast majority of Republicans are putting party over country. Even the ones who denounced the ban in the past like Ryan and the Veep himself.
There are some principled constitutional conservatives in Congress. Paul, Amash, and Sasse come to mind. There are also principled security hawks who recognize the danger in inflaming the Muslim world like McCain, Flake, and Graham. And lastly there are a few who’s constituents are directly being targeted like Faso in NY and Dent in PA. Otherwise-radio silence.
This is the same body that went apoplectic over Obama Executive Orders that were far more symbolic and enforced far less ham handedly.
The institutions of the party system were supposed to stop Trump, the institutions of the media were supposed to stop Trump, the institutions of our electoral system were supposed to stop Trump. And they all failed. I have very low confidence that a neutered liberal presence in Congress and on the Court matted with an emboldened regressive partisan majority in Congress will be able to stop this agenda.
So yes, massive resistance by ordinary citizens where we put our bodies in the way of the tanks if need be, is what we have to consider.
…Not two weeks ago, it was Hillary Clintons fault for not appropriately addressing the ‘economic anxieties’ of the working class.
And they didn’t because, as you now — in a panic — admit, he is exactly what he said he was but which you — and they, and I– wouldn’t believe. Well, here we are.
I’ve been considering that for some time now. Welcome. Solidarnosc!
I’ve never argued the Trump voter made a rational choice or that they were justified to do so. Only that understanding how our side failed to convince them was the key to understanding how to win them back. That never meant putting the breaks on opposing Trump in any way. I’ve never argued working with him and confirming his cabinet and court choices as others are. I’ve consistently applauded mass resistance in the street as an element of
Movement building.
Trump is a racist fascist and Hillary fell victim to a terrible campaign strategy that was tailor made to get working voters in the Midwest to elect him. Both of these facts can be simultaneously true; in fact, they are.
Trump has no popular support but our flawed system unjustly gives the balance of power to about a hundred thousand midwestern white voters who picked Obama over Romney and Trump over Hillary. Current polling suggests they dislike Trump personally by wide margins but like his policies. Hitting him on character will continue to be a failed strategy.
This ban is narrowly popular right now, so it’s incumbent on us to show that it won’t make us safer and will cost us more money than it saves. Additionally, we have to show how all of his policies raise consumer prices and fail to create jobs. This is the economic route back to power where we will gain the votes in Congress to stop his social agenda. Until then, absolutely hit the streets to stop it-its our right and only remaining recourse as citizens. And I welcome you and anyone else as a brother or sister in solidarity for that fight.
The other institutions, yeah, only so much they could do. As I’ve said, the states may be the bulwarks here – yay federalism!
And blocking the will of the voters on marijuana reform. Our state continues to fall short while others are showing us the way.
…they are trying to implement marijuana reform in a practical manner. When they repeal legalization you can complain about blocking popular will, and no, don’t tell me they should have been ready for a law they didn’t want to pass to begin with – now I’m being Burkean again.
Neither legislative pay nor marijuana reform has anything to do with resisting Trump.
Their priorities are not the resistance, but self enrichment and denying the will of the voters.
Perhaps the pot deserves it’s own post, so as not to hijack the unity of purpose on this thread, but Sen. Lewis’ “reforms” to the law trample the specific voter intent behind the bill. We did not see similar shenanigans for the casino law, but we did see them when Finneran defunded clean elections.
As a Burkean you should’ve supported the Rogers Jehlen bill which had the sense to anticipate the long term affects of passing a flawed bill and passing a more sensible one than the one the masses would decide. Since they failed to do their civic duty, they should be stuck with the consequences. Maybe the new revenue from pot can pay for these raises…
…but what I’m missing is what specifically you would like the legislature to pass in resistance – Trust Act maybe? There may be other answers, but in general I guess I wasn’t looking to the state legislature to be where the action is on this one.
A Burkean conservative would also recognize when a change has been codified by the majority and is now precedent to be followed. You may not like direct democracy on these issues, I’m uncomfortable with it too, but the law is the law. And they are selectively enforcing it in violation of the will of the voters-something Burke would oppose. It’s why he endorsed our revolution while opposing the more directly democratic (and ultimately anarchic) French revolution.
As for the state, maybe declaring MA a sanctuary state, and saying the state police won’t be used for Posse Commitatus to enforce unconstitutional executive orders? Right wing legislatures did a ton of this symbolic crap under Obama about secession or not enforcing the laws he passes, and it signaled to their voters they were serious about opposing his agenda and put red state and purple state Governors on the spot.
Immediate agenda is to pass something that allows MA to get out of enforcing federal immigration laws and this refugee ban, let’s defy Trump and welcome refugees, and ensure there are laws on the books protecting LGBT rights and womens rights in case of federal changes.
Second is on the ACA, to make sure our law survives and can actually be expanded despite the changes to the federal law.
Doing these things are no brainers to me, and is a great way for Democrats to link Baker to the Trump agenda and force him on the defensive against his right flank. Will he sign these laws in defiance of his base, or sign them and risk losing the suburban soccer moms that elected him?
Great move for Washington State and something Maura Healey should do.
If I’m a local or state official, or even non-political federal civil service, if SCOTUS says something is unconstitutional I would consider myself released from any obligation to follow an unlawful directive issued by POTUS.
But they have to say it, instead of you intuiting it.
…that this order is in direct violation of a 1965 law expressly forbidding the banning of persons coming in on the basis of national origin among other things. These folks are themselves sworn to uphold the law so if they are aware of it I would argue they are on firm ground to defy the unlawful order even if SCOTUS has not yet weighed in.
(Also, I would be curious as to the nature of petr’s objection to my above comment as evidenced by the downrate.)
CITIZENS of certain countries are banned from entering. North Korea and until recently Cuba come to mind. Koreans and Cubans who are not CITIZENS of those nations are not banned. The act was to eliminate things like the exclusion of Chinese regardless of citizenship. But a Hindu from Yemen is affected and a Muslim from France is not.
These people had visas that were already approved and valid and because they one way or another come from certain countries they are being discriminated against for no reason other than religious bigotry. Yes, that means the Hindu from Yemen too. The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin and this order does exactly that. (Don’t know why Korean and Cuban citizens are barred entry; seems we should be welcoming those fleeing tyranny with open arms.)
11 dead. I don’t recall synagogues getting burned in the US under FDR, they were destroyed in Germany under somebody else.
n/t
Yes in Canada.
And my initial information was incorrect. One attack with 6 dead, several more injured.
n/t
and I will continue to mock and attack him until he is impeached or forced to resign in disgrace.
And if I choose to address this imposter as Twitler, Dumbpf, or pathological liar ? That is my birth right as a free citizen.
Finally, how despicable that he should ban refugees from 7 countries that were not involved in the 9/11 attack on the US. All the more ironic to do it on Holocaust Remembrance Day.
We need to remember that the reason we changed our policy to accept refugees after WWII, in part, stemmed from our shameful refusal to accept 900 Jews into the US in 1939. They were turned away in Miami and sent back to their death in Germany.
By refusing now to accept refugees from the Syrian civil war we are condemning thousands of innocent men, women and children to a certain death.
NOT IN OUR NAME. WE MUST NEVER FORGET !
” There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.” ELIE WIESEL
Fred Rich LaRiccia
It is your right. My point was about fueling the opposition, but I should leave it at that. Carry on.
the point, in particular ‘fueling the opposition’?
I’m serious. I’d like to understand your understanding of the dynamic.
…Fred, the point is that on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, and in the days that follow, we remember victims, not the victimizers and certainly not potential victimizer-wannabes. We recall the precious treasure taken away from us, not the monsters who took it. That’s how I feel anyways.
I understand, and respect, and to a good deal agree with, your desire to forestall future horrors. But it is, I think, possible to hate the victimizer, and the victimizer-wannabe, to such extent that we lose sight of the victims.
I believe this was a deliberate slap at Jews orchestrated by Holocaust denier Steve Bannon.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
n/t
Here.
That’s not really what Fred said though.
The implication that Bannon did it for anti-Semitic reasons is speculation that probably won’t be proven. Not a stretch given his background and influence in everything in the WH, though.
is playing the #AllLivesMatter thing, but at the Holocaust. This was the Rince Preibus’ quote yesterday:
I mean, everyone’s suffering in the Holocaust including obviously, all of the Jewish people affected and the miserable genocide that occurred—it’s something that we consider to be extraordinarily sad. If we could wipe it off of the history books, we would. But we can’t.
I’m not sure how that kind of statement can be considered as anything other than ominous in the extreme.
Atrios summarized it well; see my comment below.
on Meet the Press said he had ” no regrets leaving out Jews” in Trump’s Holocaust Remembrance statement.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
It’s exactly what Trump would and has done to his opponents. Otherwise I agree this is an act of holocaust denial and appreciate you brought it to our attention.
this is hardball, not beanbag, James. And if you haven’t got the stomach for this fight then step aside and stay out of my way.
The gloves are off. This is a life and death struggle for the future of our democracy and the civilized world and I’m not fighting by the Marquis of Queensbury rules anymore.
” Strong and wrong always beats right and weak.” PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Which is why I think childish names should be reserved for childish games. This isn’t a game-this is our country and the lives of real people on the line and I think that seriousness of purpose is conveyed by serious language.
It is exactly because this is so important that we should avoid name-calling. The name-calling signals to pretty much any serious audience that whatever follows is nothing more than a flame. Did the references to Ms. Warren as “Pocahontas” make Mr. Brown’s attacks more or less effective?
At Dulles airport this weekend, and apparently repeated in other cities, customs police “detained” people for hours in direct contempt of a duly-issued federal order. At Dulles, this also included stonewalling four elected federal representatives. This is serious business — we are talking about armed police ignoring a court order.
I enthusiastically agree that the gloves should be off. That’s why such taunts are counter-productive.
on Meet the Press this morning.
P.S. That is what I said.
Fred Rich LsRiccia
check out his record.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Here.
Bannon and his anti-Semitic, white supremacist, bigots.
Atrios got it right.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
I don’t believe in reincarnation, but I do believe in helping bring good posts into the light.