Disrupt J20! Anarchists call For Violent Inauguration Day…
A Group of Anarchists are Calling For Violent Rioting on
Inauguration Day as they plan to use Donald Trump As Their
Perfect Scapegoat to cripple America & bring her to her knees
As Rush will tell you below, the Left does not think it lost the election. Oh, the Electoral College gave the Presidency to Trump alright but Democrats on the Left don’t feel they lost for anything they did, said or believed, they think the election was stolen from them. Liberal Left orthodoxy and ideology is never at fault. It is outside circumstances that dictate whether the Left will be allowed to steer the ship.
That is precisely why they will launch massive resistance; why they will be obstructionists; why they will condone violence in the streets. Since they believe they have the morally superior position and they are entitled, entitled to be in charge, their only course of action is to make life so hard for Trump that he fails and loses his ability to govern and thus becomes a one term President.
The thing that I realize now looking back on it, is while we were laughing at them, there were a lot of people believing their insanity. It turns out to be not nearly as many as we feared prior to the election. I still think that they pose a great, great opportunity with humor to laugh at them, such as Code Pink today and these protesters. They’re just unhinged now. I don’t mind the word “pathetic” as a descriptive, but I would not to relax too much. These people are not going away. The people that you’re talking about still teach your kids in high school and college.
These people that are now out of power at least electorally still run Hollywood. They still assemble, write, and produce most of what you see in prime time entertainment television. They still run the publishing industry. So they’re not going away, and they’re becoming more and more unhinged and deranged as time goes on. Now, I think for a while the more of that, the better. They don’t realize that they are the reason, one of the many reasons why Hillary Clinton lost; they’re one of the many reasons why Donald Trump won. But I’m not gonna stop laughing at them.
They are some of the greatest source of smiles when they lose that you’ll ever come across, but “pathetic”? Yeah, I can understand the use of the word “pathetic.” They do look pathetic. But also keep in mind they’re not going anywhere, and they don’t understand… This is very important. I’m gonna build off something I said yesterday. They don’t understand the concept of defeat, and I don’t mean this in an upbeat way, in a positive way. The way you’re supposed to deal with defeat is as a learning experience. You analyze why, and you double your efforts, and you come back and you try to win the next time.
That’s not them. When I say, “They don’t recognize defeat,” what I mean by that is that they do not think they lost. They do not think that what happened is real. Remember, as I said yesterday in a recent profundity, to understand modern-day liberalism you must understand that they reject reality. To them reality is something that we have constructed to exclude them. To them, life is simply a game of power, and whoever has the power gets to dictate the terms. Well, they lost. It doesn’t mean they were rejected. It doesn’t mean they lost.
They don’t look at it the way you and I would in a circumstance like this. They think they were cheated. They think that or more, worse than that. Look, the foundational thing to understand here is that they reject reality. This is the simplest way I have found to explain liberalism. It’s the simplest way I’ve found to help people understand and educate people about it and to be able to spot it and how to deal with it. And it’s very simple. Everything to them is a construction, a “social construct.”
If you look at… Take any issue you want. Take a look at marriage. Marriage was matter, and it was reality, and it was the result of millennia — thousands of years — of human behavior, normal human behavior that had been time-tested by virtue of culture, and it spanned cultures. Well, the left didn’t look at that. That wasn’t real. That was a social construct that was intended to deny them things, and so that reality had to be changed. There’s any number of examples that fit the bill here. But the reason why they remain, call it, pathetic or dangerous is, they do not think they have lost.
So they never turn inward. They never get introspective. They never ask, “What did we do wrong? What do we need to do to improve?” Because in their minds, they are flawless. In their minds, they are perfect. In their minds, they are what “is.” So in order to explain what happened here, there has to have been something that they got snookered by. And in that they remain dangerous because they are forever attempting to overthrow what I consider the normal. They are always… They are committed to overthrowing and reversing reality. If they don’t fit in it, then it’s got to be distorted, changed, overthrown, or what have you.
Not fit into.
They don’t look at reality as something they have to adjust to, adapt to, and blend. No, no, no, no, no, no. Because reality isn’t real. It is a construction of the powerful to set up circumstances to deny them access to whatever it is; Equality, freedom, you name it. They’re a bunch of sick people, and they’re not going to go away, and they’re gonna continue to be disruptive. This is why I have, over the years, begged people to understand that they are not to be accommodated; they’re to be defeated. They’re the ones that make everything political — and in the process, every battle with them is political, and they need to be defeated.
We don’t need to cross the aisle and work with them. They’re not interested in that. They don’t compromise; they don’t think there’s any need to it, because they’re not wrong. They’re perfect or what have you, even though they’re sick. So we laugh at ’em for our own entertainment. And, by the way, we laugh at ’em as a means of explaining to other people who maybe are not politically oriented who they are. But they’re never going away, and they’re never gonna stop being disruptive, and they’re never going to accept whatever it is that they disagree with. Now, you might say, “Well, we don’t, either.”
Well, we do. It’s called “civility.” We understand when we lose and in many ways — not all ways. But we engage to find out why and fix the problem or correct it. We want our victories to be legitimate based on a genuine majority support for what we believe and what we are. That’s not of any importance to them whatsoever. They’re all about bullying and power and intimidation, which is what political correctness is. So, yeah… I just don’t want people to forget. I don’t want you to think… We’ve made this mistake too many times.
In 1994, Republicans won the House first time in 40 years and they made the mistake of thinking that the country had finally gone our way, and so Newt and the boys start implementing their agenda and they didn’t explain why. They didn’t keep teaching. Don’t make that mistake now. The Trump people have got to keep explaining and teaching and explain why they’re doing what they’re doing. Remember, all that’s happened so far is that we’ve won an election. Trump hasn’t even been immaculated yet. That has to happen on January 20th, and then the real work begins. That’s why I’m glad you called. I appreciate it.
I mean, the fact that liberals are the good people, I’ve characterized them as such many times over the many years. “We’re good people, we’re better people, we care, we have compassion, tolerance,” all that stuff. Not only is that an apt description, but the feeling is so deep that they believe it empowers them to engage in any behavior because people who are not them are evil and therefore defeating evil, so important that there are no rules limiting what you do. So, yeah, that’s clearly an aspect of their existence, who they think they are, I have so stated my own self many times.
Just in case you were wondering whether the owners of the Washington Post learned anything from the last election and their failure to stop America from voting for Donald Trump, fear not. They haven’t. If there was any sort of change coming to the editorial board, they probably wouldn’t have given a green light to Richard Cohen’s column this week which carries the not very ambiguous title of, “How to remove Trump from office.”
Let’s leave aside for a moment the somewhat inconvenient fact that Donald Trump isn’t even in the office yet. What was the thinking going on inside the hallowed halls of the WaPo when they approved an editorial like this? And just to be clear, this isn’t some provocative guest piece submitted by a troublemaker to spur a national conversation. Cohen has been writing for the Post literally since Richard Nixon’s first term in office. He was doing regular opinion pieces for them in the Metro section since Jimmy Carter was elected and has been a permanent fixture in the op-eds since Reagan’s first term. To claim that he’s not representative of the voice and vision of the newspaper is nonsense. And what is his opinion of the incoming President of the United States? The first paragraph says it all. (Emphasis added)
Donald Trump is a one-man basket of deplorables. He is a braggart and a liar. He is a bully and a demagogue. He is an ignoramus and a deadbeat, a chiseler and either a sincere racist or an insincere one, and his love for himself is matched only by my loathing of him. He is about to be president of the United States. A constitutional coup may be in the offing.
I suppose all of that blathering about respecting the office even if you don’t respect the man only counts if the man is a Democrat, huh? But enough about Cohen’s history and built in biases. Since he’s taken time out of his busy day to suggest that Trump needs to be evicted from the Oval Office, how does he propose to go about doing it? Getting him on any High Crimes and Misdemeanors is a tall order, as Cohen himself concedes. So is there another path? According to the author there is indeed, and it’s found in the 25th Amendment.
Under the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, the vice president, together with a “majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide” can remove the president for being “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” No doubt the mere mention of incapacitation would summon a horde of lawyers to Washington to contest it or the meaning of every term.
But it is plain that the 25th Amendment does give a role to Cabinet members that is not generally considered when they are up for confirmation. This time, however, they should all be asked whether they are aware of the 25th Amendment and, if need be, whether they would be willing to implement it.
If you want an example of early onset Trump Derangement Syndrome, this is one case which almost demands that medical authorities be rushed to Cohen’s home immediately to save him from himself. There’s something seriously disturbing going on inside this man’s mind. How else to explain a person who has been covering government affairs longer than many readers today have been alive going so far off the beam on one of the more fundamental premises in the Constitution and its amendments?
The 25th is in place for a very clear reason, covering a small number of specific scenarios, and it has almost nothing to do with forcibly ejecting a president you don’t care for and who hasn’t done anything illegal which might merit impeachment. (We’ll get to the one exception to that in a moment.) The first two clauses of the 25th Amendment deal with a President who either dies or is removed from office via impeachment or resignation and they are well documented. The third clause covers when a President voluntarily transfers the powers of his office to the Vice President temporarily. This has happened three times in American history, once by Reagan and twice by George W. Bush.
The fourth and final clause is the one Cohen is talking about. Its primary purpose was obviously intended to cover a case where the President suddenly experiences some problem – most likely a severe medical emergency – rendering him unable to serve. The Vice President, along with a majority of cabinet members, can meet and vote to declare him unable to serve. They then send a letter to the President pro tempore of the Senate declaring their decision and the Veep takes over the duties. But as soon as the President feels he is ready to resume his service, he can transmit a corresponding letter and take the office back without asking anyone’s permission.
The sole exception provided in the fourth clause is the hypothetical case where the Vice President disagrees that the President is capable of dispatching his duties and – again, along with a majority of the cabinet – sends a contradicting letter stating his objection. Congress then has to vote on the matter to decide.
What Cohen doesn’t take into account is the fact that the cabinet can’t do it on their own even if they wanted to. The action has to be initiated by the Vice President. Does he really think Mike Pence would go along with this sort of intentionally inflicted constitutional crisis even under the worst imaginable circumstances? And as a final note, Cohen fails to point out that none of this actually “removes the president from office.” Trump would still be the President of the United States under such a scenario, with Pence only serving as the Acting President of the United States.
But now that we’ve covered all of that nonsense, let’s close with a callback to the original question I posed. Exactly how unhinged are the senior members of the Washington Post staff in terms of Trump Derangement Syndrome? I’m guessing that this will be widely reflected in their newsroom coverage over the next four years. I’d be thrilled to be proven wrong, but you probably shouldn’t bet too heavily against me.