info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
They Can't Let Him Back In
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Wilson
Aug 14, 2022, 1:19:20 PM8/14/22
to
The people who really run the United States of America have made it
clear that they can’t, and won’t, if they can help it, allow Donald
Trump to be president again. In fact, they made this clear in 2020, in a
series of public statements. Simply for quoting their words in an essay
for The American Mind, I was mercilessly mocked and attacked. But they
were quite clear. Trump won’t be president at noon, Jan. 20, 2021, even
if we have to use the military to drag him out of there.
Why? They say Jan. 6. But their determination began much earlier.
And just what is so terrible about Trump anyway? I get many of his
critics’ points, I really do. I hear them all the time from my mother.
But even if we were to stipulate them all, do Trump’s faults really
warrant tearing the country apart by shutting out half of it from the
political process?
Love him or hate him, during Trump’s presidency, the economy was strong,
markets were up, inflation was under control, gas prices were low,
illegal border crossings were down, crime was lower, trade deals were
renegotiated, ISIS was defeated, NATO allies were stepping up, and China
was stepping back (a little). Deny all that if you want to. The point
here is that something like 100 million Americans believe it, strongly,
and are bewildered and angered by elite hatred for the man they think
delivered it.
Nor was Trump’s record all that radical—much less so than that of Joe
Biden, who is using school-lunch funding to push gender ideology on poor
kids, to cite but one example. Trump’s core agenda—border protection,
trade balance, foreign restraint—was quite moderate, both intrinsically
and in comparison to past Republican and Democratic precedent. And
that’s before we even get to the fact that Trump neglected much of his
own agenda in favor of the old Chamber of Commerce, fusionist,
Reaganite, Conservatism, Inc., agenda. Corporate tax cuts, deregulation,
and bombing Syria: These are all things Trump’s base doesn’t want, but
the oligarchs desperately do, which Trump gave them. And still they try
to destroy him.
Again, why? I think it’s because, while Trump’s core MAGA agenda is
decidedly not outside the historic bipartisan mainstream, it is well
outside the present regime’s core interests. Our rulers’ wealth and
power rise with open borders, trade giveaways, and endless war. Trump,
at least in principle, and often in practice, threatens all three. The
old America—the one in which Republicans cared about the heartland and
weren’t solely valets to corporate power, Democrats were pro-worker and
anti-war, and Bill Clinton and The New York Times could advocate border
security—is in the process of being replaced, if it hasn’t already been,
by one in which there is only one acceptable opinion on not just these,
but all other issues.
“Our rulers’ wealth and power rise with open borders, trade giveaways,
and endless war.”
Anti-Trump hysteria is in the final analysis not about Trump. The regime
can’t allow Trump to be president not because of who he is (although
that grates), but because of who his followers are. That class—Angelo
Codevilla’s “country class”—must not be allowed representation by
candidates who might implement their preferences, which also, and above
all, must not be allowed. The rubes have no legitimate standing to
affect the outcome of any political process, because of who they are,
but mostly because of what they want.
Complaints about the nature of Trump are just proxies for objections to
the nature of his base. It doesn’t help stabilize our already twitchy
situation that those who bleat the loudest about democracy are also
audibly and visibly determined to deny a real choice to half the
country. “No matter how you vote, you will not get X”—whether X is a
candidate or a policy—is guaranteed to increase discontent with the
present regime.
People I have known for 30 years, many of whom still claim the label
“conservative,” will no longer speak to me—because I supported Trump,
yes, but also because I disagree on trade, war, and the border. They
call not just my positions, but me personally, unadulterated evil. I am
not an isolated case. There are, as they say, “many such cases.” How are
we supposed to have “democracy” when the policies and candidates my side
wants and votes for are anathema and can’t be allowed? How are we
supposed to live together with the constant demonization from one side
against the other blaring 24/7 from the ruling class’s every propaganda
organ? Why would we want to?
More to the point: How are we supposed to get through the next two and a
half years? The regime would prefer to get its way via the path of least
resistance. The ideal situation, at least for those of a less punitive
cast of mind who would be satisfied seeing Trump gone but not
necessarily in jail, would be for Trump to just walk away. But how
likely is that? He doesn’t, to say the least, seem primed for a graceful
exit in which he passes the baton to Ron DeSantis (or whomever). Even if
he did, how many in his base would convince themselves that the fix was
somehow in? “They threatened his children,” etc. That kind of thinking
leads not to demoralization but to outrage. That might be irrational,
but this isn’t a math competition; it’s politics in a hyper-partisan,
supercharged time.
Since the long goodbye has about as much chance as Kamala Harris
completing a sentence without cackling, Plan A is to use the Jan. 6 show
trials to make it impossible for Trump to run again, or barring that, to
win again. But that isn’t working; at least, not well enough. They may
have dented Trump a little in opinion polling, but not nearly enough to
prevent him from getting the GOP nomination. Perhaps they still can; I
doubt it, but who knows? But more likely, even if they do further
damage, Trump will have plenty of time to get his numbers back up.
And the ruling class will surely help him in that endeavor by being
ever-more radical, hateful, and incompetent. They have shown time and
again that there is no moderation in them. They can’t let up even a
single mile per hour, not even when easing back is in their clear
interest. Whether they are driven by the demands of their base, their
own internal conviction, or some supernatural force, I couldn’t say.
Plan B is for the Jan. 6 committee to lay the groundwork for an
indictment of Trump. The Justice Department is already leaking that
“seditious conspiracy” might be the charge.
Now, I personally believe that such a charge would be ludicrous.
Seditious conspiracy, when it is charged at all, which it rarely was
before Jan. 6, is typically reserved for the likes of Omar “Blind
Sheikh” Abdel-Rahman, who tried to blow up the World Trade Center in
1993. And they are going to try it against a former president, for phone
calls and texts ambiguously connected to a protest in which many walked
through doors held open by Capitol Police, minimal property damage
occurred, the only people who died were unarmed protesters, and which
may have been a setup, or at least egged-on, by the feds.
I am under no illusion that I’m going to convince regime apparatchiks of
any of this. However, if any are reading, I would ask them the
following. I know you think it’s perfectly obvious that “Trump Is
Guilty!” and that anyone who doesn’t agree is not merely insane, but A
Danger to the Republic. But just as I know I can’t convince you, I also
know that you can’t convince 100 million Trump supporters. Do you
realize that, too? Do you consider it a feature, not a bug?
Moreover, if the regime goes forward with this, it’s going to try him in
the District of Columbia’s 77 percent Democratic and 92 percent
virulently anti-Trump jury pool, which lately has been acquitting
obvious Democratic miscreants and convicting Republicans on silly
charges that never used to have been brought in the first place.
It’s just a fact—perhaps, to many, a baleful fact—but nevertheless a
fact that somewhere between a third and half the country is going to
find this totally illegitimate and be outraged by it.
I know what some of our masters are thinking because they are already
saying it: Justice must be done, come what may. We must stand on
principle, consequences be damned. This sounds noble in the abstract.
“What if, somehow, Trump is acquitted or gets his case tossed out?”
Is it? I suspect some of them are thinking: This is win-win for us. If
we convict him, or damage him enough that he can’t run, and there isn’t
a huge backlash, then mission accomplished. Or if there is, well, those
people were already, or soon-to-be, insurrectionists and so we will be
justified in unleashing the security state against them. Indeed, there
are benefits to flushing them out now, before they are fully organized
for the “Second Civil War” we know the insurrectionists are already
plotting.
At any rate, a conviction would all but ensure a Senate vote under
Article I, Section 3, making Trump constitutionally ineligible to run
(at least half the Republicans would sign on).
But what if, somehow, Trump is acquitted or gets his case tossed out?
Then I think you will see the same indignant reaction, but from the
other side. Suddenly it will be Blue America declaring all our
institutions, and especially the courts, illegitimate. You might even
see some attempts at blue secession, e.g., “Calexit.”
Plan C, if none of this works, is to have Trump declared ineligible
under the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment. This is riskier
than Plan B. If they couldn’t get a Senate vote in favor (and, absent a
conviction, I don’t think they could), it would come down to a mere
court opinion. If you think Trump’s base will howl over a conviction in
a DC kangaroo court, wait until you see their reaction to some
Democratic-appointed appeals judge saying Trump can’t run. Even if the
regime got the Supreme Court to uphold that 9-0 (and they won’t),
Trump’s base won’t accept it.
Plan D—just beat him at the ballot box—is also risky. The country is in
desperate shape. Biden is enormously unpopular. Harris is spectacularly
unpopular. Getting rid of one of them will be hard. Getting rid of both?
The first black, South-Asian, and female vice president and heir
apparent? Does anyone think the race-and-sex-obsessed Democratic base of
2024 is going to tolerate that?
And then who do they replace them with? Gavin Newsom? A ciswhite male?
Even if they can get past that non-trivial problem, which they can’t,
Newsom has no appeal outside deep-blue America. I’m not saying he would
certainly lose, but it’s dicey as hell, especially with a demoralized
base and the very strong likelihood that the state he governs will be
deep in recession by election time.
Plan E is to cheat. I know what you are thinking. But I’m not talking
about Dominion voting machines. I mean the kind of “pre-cheating” that
the regime boasts about as “election fortification”: change the rules in
advance in ways that favor Democrats and hurt Republicans, especially in
swing states. There is no question that they will do this. Why wouldn’t
they? It worked last time, and the more overt cheating they can avoid,
the better.
They are already using the federal government to thumb the scale in
favor of Democrats. Biden’s Executive Order 14019, “Promoting Access to
Voting,” requires “every federal agency to submit a plan to register
voters and encourage voter participation. It also required agencies to
form strategies to invite nongovernmental third parties to register
voters.” That is to say, a federal takeover of state elections by the
Biden administration. This is a replay, with federal power, of the $400
million in “Zuckerbucks”—money donated by the tech-oligarch founder of
Facebook—that pre-rigged the last election, but this time with taxpayer
dollars, a White House aide (Susan Rice) coordinating, and cabinet
agencies like Housing and Urban Development implementing, in conjunction
with leftwing NGOs. That combination will be hard to beat.
“A supermajority of Republicans doesn’t believe that the election was on
the level.”
But suppose it is. There is always cheating-cheating. If you believed
that Trump presents an unprecedented threat to the republic, would you
really object to a few boxes of extra ballots falling off trucks near
vote-counting headquarters in Las Vegas, Phoenix, Milwaukee, Detroit,
Philadelphia, and Atlanta? When the Survival of Our Democracy Is on the
Line?
One has to tip one’s hat to the rhetorical disadvantage they have
imposed on us. All questioning of any election they win is denounced as
paranoid, unpatriotic, “racist,” and a threat to the integrity of the
process. (Never mind that they always do it when the right wins; see,
for instance, 2000, 2004, and 2016.) The questionable practices such as
late-night ballot dumps that lead to our questions are never explained,
much less ended. They get to engage in shenanigans that make elections
look fishy; we get blamed for saying they look fishy. When we point out
that, hey, something looks off there, the response is invariably: How
dare you sow doubt about the election! You are undermining confidence in
Our Democracy™. Not their shenanigans, but our doubts undermine confidence.
But there is reason to wonder if they can get away with it next time.
Whatever happened in 2020, a supermajority of Republicans doesn’t
believe that the election was on the level. The regime is extremely
worried about this, which is why the propaganda on it is so intense.
They know that to pull off a win in 2024, and have it accepted by the
2020 doubters, the next election is at least going to have to look a lot
cleaner than the last. Making it look cleaner is hard to do without
actually making it cleaner. The downside to that, though, is obvious.
So the choice before them is: Do what(ever) they did last time—and more
so, if necessary—and risk an even bigger reaction, or take their chances
that they can win a fair fight. (The latter assumes that they have
complete control of their minions who run elections at the local level.)
But to repeat a point: Perhaps they consider the reaction a feature, not
a bug?
Which leaves Plan F, which they have already sketched in broad outlines.
I don’t know exactly what form it will take, but they have made clear
that “under no circumstance” can Trump be allowed to take office again.
Among the “circumstances” covered by the word “no” would seem to be an
Electoral College majority, or a tie followed by a House vote in Trump’s
favor.
What happens then? Well, in the words of the “Transition Integrity
Project,” a Soros-network-linked collection of regime hacks who in 2020
gamed out their strategy for preventing a Trump second term, the contest
would become “a street fight, not a legal battle.” Again, their words,
not mine. But allow me to translate: The 2020 summer riots, but orders
of magnitude larger, not to be called off until their people are secure
in the White House.
On Sept. 20, 1911, the RMS Olympic—sistership of the ill-fated
Titanic—collided with the Royal Navy cruiser HMS Hawke, despite both
vessels traveling at low speeds, in visual contact with one another for
80 minutes. “It was,” writes maritime historian John Maxtone-Graham,
“one of those incredible convergences, in full daylight on a calm sea
within sight of land, where two normally operated vessels steamed
blithely to a point of impact as though mesmerized.”
Our sea isn’t calm, nor are our vessels normally operated. But we do
seem headed for a point of impact, with the field of vision before us as
clear as it was on that day. And the regime isn’t changing course. It
must want this—or else is so high on its own supply that it can’t see
what it is doing.
Rest assured, if what I fear might happen, happens, we will be blamed
for it. And the fire next time will make their reaction to Jan. 6 look
like a marshmallow roast. I don’t know which possibility is scarier:
that they haven’t thought any of this through, or that they have.
Michael Anton, a former National Security Council staffer in the Trump
White House, is a lecturer in politics at Hillsdale College’s
Washington, DC, campus.
clear that they can’t, and won’t, if they can help it, allow Donald
Trump to be president again. In fact, they made this clear in 2020, in a
series of public statements. Simply for quoting their words in an essay
for The American Mind, I was mercilessly mocked and attacked. But they
were quite clear. Trump won’t be president at noon, Jan. 20, 2021, even
if we have to use the military to drag him out of there.
Why? They say Jan. 6. But their determination began much earlier.
And just what is so terrible about Trump anyway? I get many of his
critics’ points, I really do. I hear them all the time from my mother.
But even if we were to stipulate them all, do Trump’s faults really
warrant tearing the country apart by shutting out half of it from the
political process?
Love him or hate him, during Trump’s presidency, the economy was strong,
markets were up, inflation was under control, gas prices were low,
illegal border crossings were down, crime was lower, trade deals were
renegotiated, ISIS was defeated, NATO allies were stepping up, and China
was stepping back (a little). Deny all that if you want to. The point
here is that something like 100 million Americans believe it, strongly,
and are bewildered and angered by elite hatred for the man they think
delivered it.
Nor was Trump’s record all that radical—much less so than that of Joe
Biden, who is using school-lunch funding to push gender ideology on poor
kids, to cite but one example. Trump’s core agenda—border protection,
trade balance, foreign restraint—was quite moderate, both intrinsically
and in comparison to past Republican and Democratic precedent. And
that’s before we even get to the fact that Trump neglected much of his
own agenda in favor of the old Chamber of Commerce, fusionist,
Reaganite, Conservatism, Inc., agenda. Corporate tax cuts, deregulation,
and bombing Syria: These are all things Trump’s base doesn’t want, but
the oligarchs desperately do, which Trump gave them. And still they try
to destroy him.
Again, why? I think it’s because, while Trump’s core MAGA agenda is
decidedly not outside the historic bipartisan mainstream, it is well
outside the present regime’s core interests. Our rulers’ wealth and
power rise with open borders, trade giveaways, and endless war. Trump,
at least in principle, and often in practice, threatens all three. The
old America—the one in which Republicans cared about the heartland and
weren’t solely valets to corporate power, Democrats were pro-worker and
anti-war, and Bill Clinton and The New York Times could advocate border
security—is in the process of being replaced, if it hasn’t already been,
by one in which there is only one acceptable opinion on not just these,
but all other issues.
“Our rulers’ wealth and power rise with open borders, trade giveaways,
and endless war.”
Anti-Trump hysteria is in the final analysis not about Trump. The regime
can’t allow Trump to be president not because of who he is (although
that grates), but because of who his followers are. That class—Angelo
Codevilla’s “country class”—must not be allowed representation by
candidates who might implement their preferences, which also, and above
all, must not be allowed. The rubes have no legitimate standing to
affect the outcome of any political process, because of who they are,
but mostly because of what they want.
Complaints about the nature of Trump are just proxies for objections to
the nature of his base. It doesn’t help stabilize our already twitchy
situation that those who bleat the loudest about democracy are also
audibly and visibly determined to deny a real choice to half the
country. “No matter how you vote, you will not get X”—whether X is a
candidate or a policy—is guaranteed to increase discontent with the
present regime.
People I have known for 30 years, many of whom still claim the label
“conservative,” will no longer speak to me—because I supported Trump,
yes, but also because I disagree on trade, war, and the border. They
call not just my positions, but me personally, unadulterated evil. I am
not an isolated case. There are, as they say, “many such cases.” How are
we supposed to have “democracy” when the policies and candidates my side
wants and votes for are anathema and can’t be allowed? How are we
supposed to live together with the constant demonization from one side
against the other blaring 24/7 from the ruling class’s every propaganda
organ? Why would we want to?
More to the point: How are we supposed to get through the next two and a
half years? The regime would prefer to get its way via the path of least
resistance. The ideal situation, at least for those of a less punitive
cast of mind who would be satisfied seeing Trump gone but not
necessarily in jail, would be for Trump to just walk away. But how
likely is that? He doesn’t, to say the least, seem primed for a graceful
exit in which he passes the baton to Ron DeSantis (or whomever). Even if
he did, how many in his base would convince themselves that the fix was
somehow in? “They threatened his children,” etc. That kind of thinking
leads not to demoralization but to outrage. That might be irrational,
but this isn’t a math competition; it’s politics in a hyper-partisan,
supercharged time.
Since the long goodbye has about as much chance as Kamala Harris
completing a sentence without cackling, Plan A is to use the Jan. 6 show
trials to make it impossible for Trump to run again, or barring that, to
win again. But that isn’t working; at least, not well enough. They may
have dented Trump a little in opinion polling, but not nearly enough to
prevent him from getting the GOP nomination. Perhaps they still can; I
doubt it, but who knows? But more likely, even if they do further
damage, Trump will have plenty of time to get his numbers back up.
And the ruling class will surely help him in that endeavor by being
ever-more radical, hateful, and incompetent. They have shown time and
again that there is no moderation in them. They can’t let up even a
single mile per hour, not even when easing back is in their clear
interest. Whether they are driven by the demands of their base, their
own internal conviction, or some supernatural force, I couldn’t say.
Plan B is for the Jan. 6 committee to lay the groundwork for an
indictment of Trump. The Justice Department is already leaking that
“seditious conspiracy” might be the charge.
Now, I personally believe that such a charge would be ludicrous.
Seditious conspiracy, when it is charged at all, which it rarely was
before Jan. 6, is typically reserved for the likes of Omar “Blind
Sheikh” Abdel-Rahman, who tried to blow up the World Trade Center in
1993. And they are going to try it against a former president, for phone
calls and texts ambiguously connected to a protest in which many walked
through doors held open by Capitol Police, minimal property damage
occurred, the only people who died were unarmed protesters, and which
may have been a setup, or at least egged-on, by the feds.
I am under no illusion that I’m going to convince regime apparatchiks of
any of this. However, if any are reading, I would ask them the
following. I know you think it’s perfectly obvious that “Trump Is
Guilty!” and that anyone who doesn’t agree is not merely insane, but A
Danger to the Republic. But just as I know I can’t convince you, I also
know that you can’t convince 100 million Trump supporters. Do you
realize that, too? Do you consider it a feature, not a bug?
Moreover, if the regime goes forward with this, it’s going to try him in
the District of Columbia’s 77 percent Democratic and 92 percent
virulently anti-Trump jury pool, which lately has been acquitting
obvious Democratic miscreants and convicting Republicans on silly
charges that never used to have been brought in the first place.
It’s just a fact—perhaps, to many, a baleful fact—but nevertheless a
fact that somewhere between a third and half the country is going to
find this totally illegitimate and be outraged by it.
I know what some of our masters are thinking because they are already
saying it: Justice must be done, come what may. We must stand on
principle, consequences be damned. This sounds noble in the abstract.
“What if, somehow, Trump is acquitted or gets his case tossed out?”
Is it? I suspect some of them are thinking: This is win-win for us. If
we convict him, or damage him enough that he can’t run, and there isn’t
a huge backlash, then mission accomplished. Or if there is, well, those
people were already, or soon-to-be, insurrectionists and so we will be
justified in unleashing the security state against them. Indeed, there
are benefits to flushing them out now, before they are fully organized
for the “Second Civil War” we know the insurrectionists are already
plotting.
At any rate, a conviction would all but ensure a Senate vote under
Article I, Section 3, making Trump constitutionally ineligible to run
(at least half the Republicans would sign on).
But what if, somehow, Trump is acquitted or gets his case tossed out?
Then I think you will see the same indignant reaction, but from the
other side. Suddenly it will be Blue America declaring all our
institutions, and especially the courts, illegitimate. You might even
see some attempts at blue secession, e.g., “Calexit.”
Plan C, if none of this works, is to have Trump declared ineligible
under the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment. This is riskier
than Plan B. If they couldn’t get a Senate vote in favor (and, absent a
conviction, I don’t think they could), it would come down to a mere
court opinion. If you think Trump’s base will howl over a conviction in
a DC kangaroo court, wait until you see their reaction to some
Democratic-appointed appeals judge saying Trump can’t run. Even if the
regime got the Supreme Court to uphold that 9-0 (and they won’t),
Trump’s base won’t accept it.
Plan D—just beat him at the ballot box—is also risky. The country is in
desperate shape. Biden is enormously unpopular. Harris is spectacularly
unpopular. Getting rid of one of them will be hard. Getting rid of both?
The first black, South-Asian, and female vice president and heir
apparent? Does anyone think the race-and-sex-obsessed Democratic base of
2024 is going to tolerate that?
And then who do they replace them with? Gavin Newsom? A ciswhite male?
Even if they can get past that non-trivial problem, which they can’t,
Newsom has no appeal outside deep-blue America. I’m not saying he would
certainly lose, but it’s dicey as hell, especially with a demoralized
base and the very strong likelihood that the state he governs will be
deep in recession by election time.
Plan E is to cheat. I know what you are thinking. But I’m not talking
about Dominion voting machines. I mean the kind of “pre-cheating” that
the regime boasts about as “election fortification”: change the rules in
advance in ways that favor Democrats and hurt Republicans, especially in
swing states. There is no question that they will do this. Why wouldn’t
they? It worked last time, and the more overt cheating they can avoid,
the better.
They are already using the federal government to thumb the scale in
favor of Democrats. Biden’s Executive Order 14019, “Promoting Access to
Voting,” requires “every federal agency to submit a plan to register
voters and encourage voter participation. It also required agencies to
form strategies to invite nongovernmental third parties to register
voters.” That is to say, a federal takeover of state elections by the
Biden administration. This is a replay, with federal power, of the $400
million in “Zuckerbucks”—money donated by the tech-oligarch founder of
Facebook—that pre-rigged the last election, but this time with taxpayer
dollars, a White House aide (Susan Rice) coordinating, and cabinet
agencies like Housing and Urban Development implementing, in conjunction
with leftwing NGOs. That combination will be hard to beat.
“A supermajority of Republicans doesn’t believe that the election was on
the level.”
But suppose it is. There is always cheating-cheating. If you believed
that Trump presents an unprecedented threat to the republic, would you
really object to a few boxes of extra ballots falling off trucks near
vote-counting headquarters in Las Vegas, Phoenix, Milwaukee, Detroit,
Philadelphia, and Atlanta? When the Survival of Our Democracy Is on the
Line?
One has to tip one’s hat to the rhetorical disadvantage they have
imposed on us. All questioning of any election they win is denounced as
paranoid, unpatriotic, “racist,” and a threat to the integrity of the
process. (Never mind that they always do it when the right wins; see,
for instance, 2000, 2004, and 2016.) The questionable practices such as
late-night ballot dumps that lead to our questions are never explained,
much less ended. They get to engage in shenanigans that make elections
look fishy; we get blamed for saying they look fishy. When we point out
that, hey, something looks off there, the response is invariably: How
dare you sow doubt about the election! You are undermining confidence in
Our Democracy™. Not their shenanigans, but our doubts undermine confidence.
But there is reason to wonder if they can get away with it next time.
Whatever happened in 2020, a supermajority of Republicans doesn’t
believe that the election was on the level. The regime is extremely
worried about this, which is why the propaganda on it is so intense.
They know that to pull off a win in 2024, and have it accepted by the
2020 doubters, the next election is at least going to have to look a lot
cleaner than the last. Making it look cleaner is hard to do without
actually making it cleaner. The downside to that, though, is obvious.
So the choice before them is: Do what(ever) they did last time—and more
so, if necessary—and risk an even bigger reaction, or take their chances
that they can win a fair fight. (The latter assumes that they have
complete control of their minions who run elections at the local level.)
But to repeat a point: Perhaps they consider the reaction a feature, not
a bug?
Which leaves Plan F, which they have already sketched in broad outlines.
I don’t know exactly what form it will take, but they have made clear
that “under no circumstance” can Trump be allowed to take office again.
Among the “circumstances” covered by the word “no” would seem to be an
Electoral College majority, or a tie followed by a House vote in Trump’s
favor.
What happens then? Well, in the words of the “Transition Integrity
Project,” a Soros-network-linked collection of regime hacks who in 2020
gamed out their strategy for preventing a Trump second term, the contest
would become “a street fight, not a legal battle.” Again, their words,
not mine. But allow me to translate: The 2020 summer riots, but orders
of magnitude larger, not to be called off until their people are secure
in the White House.
On Sept. 20, 1911, the RMS Olympic—sistership of the ill-fated
Titanic—collided with the Royal Navy cruiser HMS Hawke, despite both
vessels traveling at low speeds, in visual contact with one another for
80 minutes. “It was,” writes maritime historian John Maxtone-Graham,
“one of those incredible convergences, in full daylight on a calm sea
within sight of land, where two normally operated vessels steamed
blithely to a point of impact as though mesmerized.”
Our sea isn’t calm, nor are our vessels normally operated. But we do
seem headed for a point of impact, with the field of vision before us as
clear as it was on that day. And the regime isn’t changing course. It
must want this—or else is so high on its own supply that it can’t see
what it is doing.
Rest assured, if what I fear might happen, happens, we will be blamed
for it. And the fire next time will make their reaction to Jan. 6 look
like a marshmallow roast. I don’t know which possibility is scarier:
that they haven’t thought any of this through, or that they have.
Michael Anton, a former National Security Council staffer in the Trump
White House, is a lecturer in politics at Hillsdale College’s
Washington, DC, campus.
Noah Sombrero
Aug 14, 2022, 1:53:10 PM8/14/22
to
On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 13:19:17 -0400, Wilson <Wil...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>The people who really run the United States of America have made it
>clear that they can’t, and won’t, if they can help it, allow Donald
>Trump to be president again. In fact, they made this clear in 2020, in a
>series of public statements. Simply for quoting their words in an essay
>for The American Mind, I was mercilessly mocked and attacked. But they
>were quite clear. Trump won’t be president at noon, Jan. 20, 2021, even
>if we have to use the military to drag him out of there.
Use the military to drag him out of there. This simply will not
>The people who really run the United States of America have made it
>clear that they can’t, and won’t, if they can help it, allow Donald
>Trump to be president again. In fact, they made this clear in 2020, in a
>series of public statements. Simply for quoting their words in an essay
>for The American Mind, I was mercilessly mocked and attacked. But they
>were quite clear. Trump won’t be president at noon, Jan. 20, 2021, even
>if we have to use the military to drag him out of there.
happen. Any more than last time. That is the problem with
entertaining fantasies. They become so entertaining that the take
over.
>
>Why? They say Jan. 6. But their determination began much earlier.
>
>And just what is so terrible about Trump anyway? I get many of his
>critics’ points, I really do. I hear them all the time from my mother.
>But even if we were to stipulate them all, do Trump’s faults really
>warrant tearing the country apart by shutting out half of it from the
>political process?
>Love him or hate him, during Trump’s presidency, the economy was strong,
>markets were up, inflation was under control, gas prices were low,
>illegal border crossings were down, crime was lower, trade deals were
>renegotiated, ISIS was defeated, NATO allies were stepping up, and China
>was stepping back (a little). Deny all that if you want to. The point
>here is that something like 100 million Americans believe it, strongly,
>and are bewildered and angered by elite hatred for the man they think
>delivered it.
for the good times, and blamed for the bad. Whether that specific
pres had anything to do with making them happen or not.
>Nor was Trump’s record all that radical—much less so than that of Joe
>Biden
Now watch the fantasy flow. But step back, you don't want to get any
on you.
Noah Sombrero
Noah Sombrero
Aug 14, 2022, 2:08:32 PM8/14/22
to
On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 13:53:06 -0400, Noah Sombrero <fed...@fea.st>
wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 13:19:17 -0400, Wilson <Wil...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>>The people who really run the United States of America have made it
>>clear that they can’t, and won’t, if they can help it, allow Donald
>>Trump to be president again. In fact, they made this clear in 2020, in a
>>series of public statements. Simply for quoting their words in an essay
>>for The American Mind, I was mercilessly mocked and attacked. But they
>>were quite clear. Trump won’t be president at noon, Jan. 20, 2021, even
>>if we have to use the military to drag him out of there.
>
>Use the military to drag him out of there. This simply will not
>happen. Any more than last time. That is the problem with
>entertaining fantasies. They become so entertaining that the take
>over.
The closest the us could come to that, is if himbo happened to be
convicted of some crime and the penalty were that he was ineligible to
be pres again. Like that classified document thing.
If that were to happen and the r's chose him as their candidate anyway
in national convention, right there is where the confrontation would
be undertaken. Not with soldiers dragging him out of the white house.
Regardless, the implications of that possible confrontation are nation
busting.
wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 13:19:17 -0400, Wilson <Wil...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>>The people who really run the United States of America have made it
>>clear that they can’t, and won’t, if they can help it, allow Donald
>>Trump to be president again. In fact, they made this clear in 2020, in a
>>series of public statements. Simply for quoting their words in an essay
>>for The American Mind, I was mercilessly mocked and attacked. But they
>>were quite clear. Trump won’t be president at noon, Jan. 20, 2021, even
>>if we have to use the military to drag him out of there.
>
>Use the military to drag him out of there. This simply will not
>happen. Any more than last time. That is the problem with
>entertaining fantasies. They become so entertaining that the take
>over.
convicted of some crime and the penalty were that he was ineligible to
be pres again. Like that classified document thing.
If that were to happen and the r's chose him as their candidate anyway
in national convention, right there is where the confrontation would
be undertaken. Not with soldiers dragging him out of the white house.
Regardless, the implications of that possible confrontation are nation
busting.
0 new messages