My wife brought this video to my attention.
Keith Olberman (who was fired by MSNBC and ESPN twice, for coming unhinged) went on this rant on his GQ Youtube channel, explaining in great detail how to use the Constitution to get rid of the Trump Administration.
His thesis is: abuse the language of the 25th Amendment and the Presidential Succession Act to declare Trump unable to “discharge the powers and duties of the office” and have him replaced by the Vice President. What qualifies as being unable to “discharge the powers and duties of the office”is not a medical crisis, such as a stroke or assassination attempt, but because of Trump’s temperament based on what he said in his Twitter account.
Lets ignore for a moment that Trump selected his cabinet and they are unlikely to do this.
The very idea of what Olberman is suggesting would be the zenith of legal fuckery. The 25 Amendment provides as way for America to be protected in case of a health crisis of the Head of State. It is not a step by step guide to having a bloodless coup of the US Presidency. That idea is an an absolute perversion of law.
But lets ignore that for a moment too.
The big question that I have to Olberman, and one my wife was unable to answer too, what happens if on January 21, 2017 a physically and mentally fit Donald Trump were to be forced out of office by a handful of DC insiders? What happens when the 25th Amendment is used to effectively overturn an election? Are 60 million American voters supposed to just accept that a dozen people unseated a president?
I wasn’t a fan of Trump’s rhetoric, but until he actually signs Executive Order 9066 Rev 2 and has the government start building internment camps for the Mexicans or gays or Muslims or whomever the Left is paranoid he we start rounding up, he’d done nothing.
In Olberman’s fantasy, he can get away with this. When the voters of Middle America who elected Trump as a “fuck you” to the establishment have their President force out of office by a handful of the establishment with some legalese, the word I would use to describe what they do is probably less riot and more revolution.
But in the mind of Olberman, piss on Middle America’s desires, the Liberal elite knows better.
This asshole here showing exactly why Trump won.
The next article was one that I found: New York should seize Trump Tower. According to the WaPo, since New Yorkers don’t like Trump, they should be able to steal his stuff using eminent domain.
With this the WaPo showed its true colors. I am reminded of when the Communist leaders seized the homes of estates of wealthy Russians, nobles, and anybody else that was declared an enemy of the proletariat during the Russian Revolution. Seizure of the property of people out of favor with the party was a tactic repeated in Maoist China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and Venezuela. Maybe NYC should seize all of Trumps gold and art and hide it in banks in Switzerland too. If that doesn’t send enough of a message about how much they don’t like Trump, they could try making a lamp out of one of his kids.
Once we adopt the principle that we can seize the property of people we disagree with politically, where does it end. Brendan Eich was forced to step down as CEO of Mozilla after it was discovered he donated money to Prop 8 against gay marriage in California. Political donations by high profile people have a way of becoming public. Will liberals turn their sights to Trump donors? Donate money to Trump and de Blasio will take your Condo in Manhattan and use it as a homeless shelter ? That will teach you a lesson to not give money to the person with the R behind their name.
These radical Leftist have no idea with the size of the fire they are playing with. They want it their way and are willing to shred the Constitution to get it. They think since what they plan is legal on paper, they can do it. They don’t see the bigger consequences of their actions down the road.
Progressives rarely see the long view in their actions. Almost all their legislation is rushed and in response to something they deem an “issue”. During the 8 years of Obama, the progressives granted the government an ever-expanding list of duties and powers. Now, those powers are in the hands of someone they don’t like. They didn’t see beyond Obama, or they thought it would just be an instance of dynastic succession and another Democrat would take power.
If they choose to abuse the 25th Amendment to remove a sitting President, what’s to say the conservatives won’t pervert other legal machinations to start removing progressive politicians? What if we truly perverted the Second and chose to remove anyone with a (D) after their name from office by force, just because we deemed all Democrats to be tyrants? Simply because the progressives set the precedent of going to extremes with a law?
But hey, if the progressives want to play rough, I think we’re more than well-equipped to do so. Bongs and dildos and protests versus a determined armed population. OK progressives, you want to radically twist the law to violate individual rights and the precepts of a constitutional republic? Bring it.
On a more mundane level, look at gun control. Often, it’s so rushed, they have to skid out and revise the law after it’s passed. New York’s SAFE Act is a great example. In a rush to capitalize on the death of the kids in Sandy Hook, lawmakers rammed through the Act in less than 30 days. They forgot to make an exemption for cops. So for about a week, most cops in New York State were carrying illegal firearms.
I know a couple of liberals who were gleeful at Obama’s use of executive actions/orders. I reminded them at the time, “Don’t be happy about this sort of thing, he’s setting a precedent that will be used in the future, likely by someone you didn’t vote for.” You’re spot on about them not seeing past Obama, or just assuming Hillary was going to win and carry on for 8 more years.
It was an assumption HRC, or another Democrat, was going to win. Everyone likes a winner and Obama had it in spades for a hot minute. Obamacare, being POTUS when the SEALs punched Osama’s ticket, hanging out with hip-hop and pop artists, etc…Barry was a smooth operator.
So, they thought the good times (sarcasm) would keep coming – that Barry would line up a proper successor, and there’d be at least 4 to 8 more years of Democratic rule. Nevermind the Republicans essentially phoned it in during the 2012 election, being able to only prop up Romney.
And yes, the EOs … they all cheered when Barry got angry and put his foot down, especially if it meant shaming those crusty old Republicans. “Ooooh Barry’s gonna finally shut down Gitmo…” “Oooh Barry’s gonna take the rednecks’ guns away…” As long as the gravy train of ever expanding free stuff kept coming, along with the usual round of late-night talk show appearances, the progressives unanimously supported Obama.
Then 2016 came along. Barry was still riding high, and no “worthy” Democrat had presented themselves as a successor, so early on it was decided that it was HRC’s turn. Follow up the first (half) black president with a woman president? Oh my god, the USA is so progressive! Sure, Bernie was a force to be reckoned with, but he wasn’t part of the machine, so tough luck. HRC was a bitter pill to swallow. Her husband’s reputation preceded him, and things like the email scandal, Benghazi, and the trove of info in the Wikileaks dumps soured people’s opinions on her. Barry jumped on AF1 (at our expense) and campaigned for his successor, much more than any other sitting President in recent memory. HRC was going to be “Obama’s Third Term” – and we were supposed to like it.
Critical factors sabotaged HRC. Email scandal. Wikileaks. “Deplorables”, and health. No one wanted an unhealthy, untrustworthy, and disdainful President, regardless of qualifications or sex.
The Dems went and sabotaged their own game in their hubris.
Honestly surprised, J, that you went with the Communist comparison. Didn’t Hitler fund the beginnings of his 3rd Reich largely through gold stolen from Jewish homes?
The very early beginnings? They robbed pretty much anybody.
Stage 1- Mostly the same way every street gang supports itself, pre-drugs: extortion, outright theft, ‘interested supporters’ including wives and girlfriends (remember, Horst Wessel was a pimp). There’s some evidence that some of the Brownshirts and the early NSDAP’s money actually came from Joe Stalin and Co.
Stage 2- (Political party with brass knucks)- Donations, more extortion, membership fees, and some actual industry/business types who want to see them succeed.
Stage 3 (Chancellor/Fuehrer and after)- even though they’re running the country, still basically a criminal enterprise. Confiscations, ‘special taxes’, more membership fees, non-voluntary bond buys, ‘voluntary donations’ (mostly from the same business/industry types- only this time with a gun to their heads), charity collections- I have a seriously creepy pic around here somewhere of Sepp Dietrich collecting for the Third Reich’s equivalent of the Widows and Orphans Fund, and an actual confidence game/pyramid scheme in the Volkswagen subscription scheme.
Final Stage (Continentwide Smash and Grab)- All of the above, plus some fairly incompetent looting of conquered countries. The Nazis sucked at exploitation.
It is useful to note that at no time did the Reich actually run in the black- which figures. my personal bet is that, if the invasion of France hadn’t happened (and, considering Comrade Suvurov, assuming Stalin didn’t invade Germany about six months after Hitler actually DID invade the USSR), the Third Reich would have gone bankrupt. The myth of superior Nazi organization was just that- a myth.
More irony: if the entity they were protesting were ACTUALLY fascist then their actions against it would be grounds for them being rounded up and executed.
So considering the actions they’re taking I have to believe that either A) they know there’s nothing fascist going on here and are just being intellectually dishonest, or B) they really have no idea what fascism is.
Both. They’re completely aware they’re I’m no danger, but still think they’re fighting fascism.
Remember, these are people who use Stalin as the center of their political spectrum.
Liberals (and far too many Americans) do not realize that the Nazis were socialists, with anti-semitism thrown in. They were just as bad as the communists. They just had a tiny bit lighter touch with controlling industry, the economy, and the people.
Everything the Left stands for is unAmerican, yet they are so blind they cannot see it.