Media and political leaders should engage in a serious gut-check over the language they are using, and the passions they are inflaming. The extreme nature of the comments that have been made concerning President Trump have little precedent, save those directed against Abraham Lincoln following his first election. (No, we are not comparing Trump to Lincoln.)
One does not have to be a Republican or a Trump-supporter to be dismayed at the tenor of the remarks, and the actions of unelected bureaucrats whose actions amount to an attempted dismantling of the 2016 election. Consider just a few of the latest examples:
RealClearPolitics reports that on July 22, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) said the President is a “major criminal” and that his party will “eliminate” his presidency.
ZeroHedge notes that former CIA Director John Brennan advises government officials to refuse the President’s lawful orders, if the White House dismisses special counsel Robert Mueller.
The Washington Free Beacon has found that the U.S. Department of Agriculture is disobeying the President in relation to trade with Iran.
That publication also found that the U.S. State Department’s lawyers are engaging in policies in contradiction to the President’s position on describing ISIS’s treatment of Christians and Yazidis.
As the New York Analysis of Policy and Government has described in several prior articles, various judges of the Ninth Circuit have ignored Constitutional provisions, the United States Code, and legal precedent to impose restrictions on President Trump’s lawful exercise of executive powers regarding travel from nations that present a terrorist threat—nations, incidentally, that were also named by President Obama, with nary a word of complaint from the judiciary.
Numerous publications and media outlets have described the statements by actors such as Johnny Depp and others suggesting that President Trump be assassinated, and in some cases, actually portraying acts of violence, including beheading.
The particulars of any of these policy areas are not the issue. And, of course, anyone is free to express disagreement with the President, and respond by introducing legislation or engaging in appropriate legal action to determine if the law is on their side, or by supporting candidates with differing views in upcoming elections.
Mild ED can be order viagra prescription cured with medicines, while, severe problems may require operating the penis. Kamagra is also helpful in the treatment of cialis sales australia diabetes and other epidemic disorders were quite rare in the westernised / industrialised world. S/he may apply the hypnotism technique on to you and free your mind of undue prescription de viagra canada worries. Kamagra’s use enables one to actively cause erection. viagra 100 mg
But that is not what is happening. How creepy is it that a former CIA director is essentially suggesting federal employees engage in a slow-motion coup? How troubling is it that judges have issued rulings based on their personal, partisan beliefs rather than the Constitution, the US Code, or case law? Does it not rise to the level of threat when a sitting member of Congress vows to “eliminate” a president? Should we not pay attention when public figures openly discuss assassination? Shouldn’t Americans have the right to hear what evidence of laws being broken exist before entire investigatory procedures are carried out?
The important point is that unelected U.S. government officials and former spymasters are using language urging government officials to willfully defy the duly elected head of the federal government, without any legal, constitutional, or precedential justification.
In Washington, on the days leading up to Trump’s inauguration, numerous protestors “demanded” that the president-elect be impeached—even before he was sworn in, a true legal impossibility. Since Trump is not an extreme ideologue pushing any unprecedented positions (enforcing existing immigration rules, or taking steps to preserve middle-class jobs with tariffs or other measures is hardly a new idea, whether one agrees with those positions or not) he seemed to be an unlikely spark for such exceptional outrage.
President Obama pursued concepts that outraged his detractors, who truly howled with fury and urged that those ideas (and his re-election) be defeated. Many harsh comments were made. But responsible figures did not engage in continual threats of assassination, or encourage acts of disobedience by government officials.
The Republican-appointed Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the GOP position on Obamacare, because he believed that’s what the Constitution and the law warranted—a far cry from the ultra-partisan Ninth Circuit judges who ignored the Constitution and the law in their travel ban decision.
President Trump has engaged in the unpardonable offense of defeating an establishment candidate. He fails to pay homage to traditional power brokers, and is not conciliatory (or eloquent) in his rather blunt statements. Therefore, he pays a heavy price. Politics is a rough endeavor, but there are no real precedents for the treatment being meted out to the current occupant of the Oval Office.
Are we entering into a new era, in which the will of the electorate is subject to the approval or veto of government bureaucrats and media moguls? Should we ignore a former CIA director who encourages a coup, or a Congressmen who threatens to “eliminate” an elected administration?
America is reaching a precipice, and the time for pulling back is growing increasingly short.