I believe Trump to be the single greatest domestic threat this nation has ever faced. Why? Because as bad as the Civil War was, Bobby Lee did not have the power to eradicate human life on earth. Trump literally has the power to end civilization. And it is not at all out of the realm of possibility that he could do it because he is not a normal person. He is crazy and unstable and a liar even to himself. And he has demoted the Chair of the Joint Chiefs and the Director of National Intelligence and placed a racist, conspiratorial kook who has said he has “no doubt” we will be at war with nuclear colossus China–one-fifth of the world’s population–in a couple of years. More than that, his seduction of Christians is a grave peril to eternal souls and to the peace of the Church.
Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts directs our attention to a superb post in reference to the anti-Trump hysteria that has possessed the left:
Or Deus Vult for you sticklers out there. To read some anti-Trump Catholics, you’d think opposition to Trump is all one needs for salvation. Embrace evil, teach heresy, endorse blasphemy, it matters not. Just go on crusade against Trump and you are in the good graces of, well, people who think a lot about their political opinions.
Thank goodness there are saner minds out there, like that of Michael Flynn. No, not that Michael Flynn. This Michael Flynn, who looked at the Big Ban controversy and discovered there really is a problem in our current state of affairs. And it isn’t always ‘them’.
Read on, and you’ll discover a crack in the foundation that is growing, and growing, and growing. Trump will last four years or less. But the threats to our nation’s future that are rising in the current melee – courtesy of both sides – will last.
Go here to comment. Since Dave posts at Patheos, that home of the unhinged left, the left wing comments are often a hoot. Go here to read the TOF post: The Rule of Law:
A slow-motion Contitutional crisis is brewing. The Permanent Bureaucracy is in revolt.
While many federal workers have begun to consider avenues of dissent only since the inauguration, others had been preparing for weeks. In the last days of Obama’s tenure, several departments catalogued data and reports and got them into the hands of allies outside the government.
That ought to seem dangerous to anyone who loves democracy. But then, the Enlightened regard the American people as irredeemably stoopid.
the federal employees have been “in regular consultation with recently departed Obama-era political appointees about what they can do to push back against the new president’s initiatives. Some federal employees have set up social media accounts to anonymously leak word of changes that Trump appointees are trying to make.”
IOW to strategize ways to undermine Trump they are setting up sites like alt-DOJ or alt-EPA and so on. This is not entirely new, only more extreme. Former Bush administration official Hans von Spakovsky told Independent Journal Review that
“I saw this same kind of behavior amongst career lawyers inside the Justice Department during the George W. Bush administration; although, they were not quite as blatant about it as these federal employees.”
Jerry Pournelle writes:
Apparently I am nearly alone in seeing this judicial revolt as a true constitutional crisis, fully deserving impeachments by the House even though Senate convictions are unlikely. I am not arguing the wisdom of Mr. Trump’s immigration executive orders, other than to say they are hardly unexpected given his campaign; but their legality is manifest. Even those disliking them say so. The Constitution gives Federal authorities control over immigration; not states. That’s the Congress and the President; there might be room for judicial mediation if these two branches were in serious dispute on this, but they have not been asked.Black letter law gives the President authority to suspend or delay admitting any class of immigrant he sees fit if he declares it a matter of national security. That law has been in effect for a long time. Mr. Obama used it in reverse to admit migrants and refugees; he did not see them as a threat to national security. That was his prerogative as President, whether we agree or not. A judge could not have ruled that he was wrong. Congress could impeach him, or strip him of the power (although he could veto that legislation; a simple majority ruling would not be sufficient). Neither was done and his rulings stood. The same is true now with Trump: he has black letter law on his side.Mr. Trump does. This decision might be questioned by Congress, but even Congress has no authority to stop his actions without considerable more procedure than we have seen, and as a matter of fact it will not do so. So the President takes an action that his predecessor says is wrong, and the Courts suspend the order, because they do not find that this is a national security issue. That is not for them to find. That is a matter for the President and Congress.This is a grave constitutional crisis, and it does not look like ending well.
All of this is independent of whether one likes Mr. Trump or approves of his EO. TOF does neither. The EO is no more likely to make America safer than Dodd-Frank is to duck the next Juglar Cycle. It amounts, as did so many past laws and orders, to “virtue signalling.” Just a different set of virtues signaled to a different set of people. This is invisible to the Usual Suspects because they don’t talk to Those People. But all of the rioting and protests and near-treasonous activities within the Permanent Bureaucracy will do far more to solidify the coalition that elected Trump than it can do to undermine him, for every such action taken will be seen as further proof that he was right.
His opponents are so over-the-top that routine events, like criticism of judges, is treated not only as beyond the pale but as unprecedented, simply because Mr. Trump has done so. What was applauded in one administration causes attacks of the vapors and fits of pearl-clutching in another. There is so much noise on the channel regarding trivia that no one is conducting triage on Trump actions or hearing the signal.
“Foolish though the recently elected president may be, the precedent of having unelected officials within the government try to destroy or route around a chief executive they don’t like is terrible. No matter how incompetent or misguided our president may be, it’s deeply worrying to move towards a system in which the government’s powerful bureaucracies take on and try to get rid of elected officials they don’t like. We as voters have no way to either replace those bureaucracies nor to redirect them. Our system of government relies upon them following the orders of the executive and the legislature. If they begin to see themselves as above that, we risk a tyranny of ‘the experts’ which would probably do none of us (in the long term, not even the experts) any good.”— Darwin Catholic