THE RED FLAG ASKS: CAN IT HAPPEN HERE? WHY NOT PART ONE

It Can't Happen Here (1935) originally a novel written by Sinclair Lewis.  The novel deals with the rise and establishment of a fascist dictatorship in the United States.  Doremus Jessup, a liberal Vermont newspaper editor, sees with sorrow and horror the partisanship—not only of many of his friends and neighbors, but even of members of his own family—to the cause of Bezelius Windrip, seen as a veiled portrait of Huey Long.  On election to the presidency in (presumably) 1936, Windrip resections the United States into eight provinces, gains control of both Congress and the Supreme Court by sheer force, and effectively overcomes all resistance by means of the Minute Men, his personal storm troopers.  With members of an underground organization established by Walt Trowbridge, Windrip's opponent in the election, Jessup sets out to overcome the dictator's power.  He is discovered and sent to a concentration camp, but eventually escapes to join Trowbridge in Canada.  By the end of the novel, however, his own family has completely disintegrated.  The novel was dramatized by Sinclair Lewis and John C. Moffit in 1936, for production by the Federal Theater Project.

As fascism spread globally in the 1930s, the U.S. responded with a series of radio programs informing the public about American democracy. Jill Lepore, author of These Truths, talks to Steve Inskeep. http://www.wbur.org/npr/646968847/the-attack-on-democracy-in-the-19...

Bob Woodward: 'People Need To Wake Up' To What's Happening Under Trump

44:44

Author Bob Woodward says of his sources, "There's a lot of conscience and courage in this — people speaking up."

Andrew Harnik/AP

Veteran journalist Bob Woodward has written about every U.S. president since Richard Nixon — nine in total. But in all his years covering politics, he has never encountered a president like President Trump.

Woodward's latest work, Fear: Trump in the White House, paints a portrait of Trump as uninformed and mercurial. The book describes moments when staff members joined together to purposefully block what they believe are the president's most dangerous impulses — sometimes by surreptitiously removing papers from the president's desk.

"There were drafts of a proposal to get out of the Paris climate accord that were removed from the president's desk," Woodward says. "[There were] draft statements about withdrawing from the North American Free Trade Agreement — which would have been a disaster — and [former economic adviser Gary] Cohn just took it off the desk."

Woodward says he was shocked by the lengths to which staff went to circumvent Trump: "I've never heard in any way of staff going around a president this way and taking the paperwork, taking the orders in order to stop the action."


Interview Highlights

On why Trump wanted to pull troops out of the Korean Peninsula

[Trump] is obsessed with the money. At a National Security Council meeting earlier this year, Jan. 19, this whole question comes up about money and the president says ... these are verbatim from a note taker there: "What do we get by maintaining a massive military presence in the North Korean Peninsula? What do we get from protecting Taiwan, say?"

And this is when [Gen.] Mattis finally says, "We're doing this in order to prevent World War III." Then the president says, "We're losing so much money and trade with South Korea and China and others. I think we could be so rich if we weren't stupid. We're being played as suckers, especially NATO."

On Secretary of Defense James Mattis and White House Chief of Staff John Kelly publicly denying having said things they are quoted as saying in Woodward's book.

Look, Mattis has to survive. He's in a difficult position. But, as I've said, nothing's off the record, and in the first days, after parts of the book came out last week, one key person in office now called me up and said, "Everyone knows what you've written is true. It's 1,000 percent correct." Because that's somebody who knows that I worked hard on this and tried to dig in and excavate what the reality was.

Look, they have First Amendment rights also. And they're in a position, and ... they should say whatever they want to say. I have no objection to that, even if it's a kind of politically calculated survival denial. ...

I am convinced that people need to wake up and not kind of pretend this is just politics or this is partisan. What's going on in the Trump administration — and I said this to the president when I called last month — I said, "We are at a pivot point in history."

On why he interviews people for his book on "deep background," as opposed to on or off the record

I knew that people in office in these sensitive positions were not going to talk on the record. ... You let people talk on the record, and you get things that are not true. If you use deep background, you're going to use [the information] but not say where it came from. You then are in that position to verify it with others and get a level of truth that's not available on the record, unfortunately. ...

There's a lot of conscience and courage in this — people speaking up. And, yes, they're protecting themselves but, my God, who doesn't try to protect themselves? But they were willing to help me in this process. And I think it illuminates what's going on, and not in some kind of abstract way.

On how the Russia investigation has affected President Trump

The day after [special counsel Robert] Mueller was appointed, so it would be May 18 of last year, the president was in the Oval Office and normally he would sit at the Resolute Desk. But he was on his feet and then running to the television in the dining room, watching all the cable news shows, TiVo-ing them so he could go back and look, and was beside himself. ...

Rob Porter, the staff secretary, said this was almost Nixonian. It entered the paranoid zone — Nixon, in his final days, pounding the carpet, talking to the pictures on the wall. And Trump just would not come down from that moment, and announced [to anyone listening] that he was the president of the United States: He could fire anyone. He could do anything. And it was very disconcerting to people who witnessed this.

He realized then — he was right — that once you have a special counsel with this unlimited authority, essentially unlimited time, going after you, they're going to look under every rock. And that's exactly what Mueller has done and indicted Paul Manafort, indicted people at all kinds of levels, or got guilty pleas and so forth. It is what, in the FBI, they call the "full field." ... People are kidding themselves if they think it hasn't taken a dramatic emotional toll on the president.

Sam Briger and Mooj Zadie produced and edited the audio of this interview. Bridget Bentz, Seth Kelley and Carol Ritchie adapted it for the Web.  https://www.npr.org/2018/09/11/646315485/bob-woodward-people-need-t...

I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration

I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

The Times is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process here. [Update: Our answers to some of those questions are published here.]

President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.

It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.

The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

I would know. I am one of them.

To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.

But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.

Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.

But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.

From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.

Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.

“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.

The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.

The result is a two-track presidency.

Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.

Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.

On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.

This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.

Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.

The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.

Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.

Reactions to this op-ed
--Trump Lashes Out After Reports of ‘Quiet Resistance’ by Staff
Sept. 5, 2018
--Anonymous Op-Ed in New York Times Causes a Stir Online and in the White House
Sept. 5, 2018
--It Wasn’t Me: Pence, Pompeo and a Parade of Administration Officials Deny Writing Op-Ed
Sept. 6, 2018
--Opinion: ‘Anonymous’ vs. Trump: Resistance From Within
Sept. 6, 2018
--How the Anonymous Op-Ed Came to Be
Sept. 8, 2018
--Opinion: A Top Republican Fires Back at ‘Anonymous’
Sept. 7, 2018

We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.

There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.

The writer is a senior official in the Trump administration.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion).

Listen to “The Daily”
The story behind the unsigned Op-Ed.
The Anonymous Senior Administration Official
Sept. 6, 2018 

'The Resistance Inside The Trump Administration': A Constitutional Crisis?



President Trump walks along the Rose Garden colonnade after he and first lady Melania Trump returned to the White House on July 18, 2018 in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
President Trump walks along the Rose Garden colonnade after he and first lady Melania Trump returned to the White House on July 18, 2018 in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

With Meghna Chakrabarti

The New York Times published an anonymous op-ed Wednesday afternoon from a senior official in the Trump administration who claims to be working with others to thwart the president's agenda. We dig in.

On Point

17:06Sep 10, 2018

Guests

Kristen Welker, NBC News White House correspondent. (@kwelkernbc)

Eliana Johnson, White House reporter for Politico. (@elianayjohnson)

Heather Cox Richardson, professor of history at Boston College. (@HC_Richardson)

Brian C. Kalt, professor of law and the Harold Norris Faculty Scholar at Michigan State University's College of Law. (@ProfBrianKalt)

Interview Highlights

On why this op-ed is different from all of the other op-eds in the New York Times of the same sentiment

Kristen Welker: "Why is it so significant in addition to the fact that it comes in the form of an op-ed? Because it's coming on the heels of that remarkable blockbuster book, the excerpts of which we saw this week — by Bob Woodward, 'Fear,' of course, veteran journalist of Watergate fame, and it echoes something that Bob Woodward really honed in on which is that there are some administrations officials here who are, for example, swiping papers off of the president's desk. He cites Gary Cohn, former top aide Rob Porter as having engaged in that type of activity to prevent the president from signing onto some policies that they deemed dangerous. So it sort of echoes that broader picture that we saw come to life in Bob Woodward's book. And remember the president has talked about this 'deep state,' his concerns about that. Well look the author takes that on head-on, he says 'this isn't a deep state,' but again really tried to put the focus on, we're trying to protect the country from a president who he describes as unpredictable and at times a threat to the very country that he's governing."

On why this is unprecedented

Eliana Johnson: "There's a history of presidential aides sort of protecting presidents from their worst instincts — it happened in the Nixon administration, and it happened in other administrations. But that occurred to me with Bob Woodward talking about former economic advisor Gary Cohn swiping papers off the President's desk. These are people, as Kristen mentioned and as Sarah Huckabee Sanders mentioned, who were not elected trying to thwart the actions of the president who was duly elected. And it occurred to me that if the president wants to do his will and the aides around him believe otherwise, it seems to me that the president should be able to behave in the way he wants to behave and the solution for some disastrous result of that constitutionally would be impeachment."

On whether or not this spells constitutional crisis

Heather Cox Richardson: "Well, we are in a constitutional crisis for sure, and one of the things that astonishes me about the discussions we're having now is the fact that the people who are in positions of power are ignoring their primary oath, which is to the Constitution. Our Constitution is our body of laws on which our entire society is supposed to operate. And there are mechanisms in place for getting rid of any kind of a leader who is not able to refer his or her duties.

"I'm with the people who think that quiet resistance by unconstitutional means constitutes a soft coup. That, in fact, if they believe the president is not able to fulfill his duties they should be invoking the 25th amendment, which is a mechanism that Eisenhower first came up with, although it's passed later to get rid of a president who is incapacitated and doesn't realize he or she is. They could either invoke that, or the other great part of our current constitutional crisis is that Congress is refusing to do its duty, which is that it's supposed to impeach somebody who can't do the job that he or she is supposed to be doing. And both of those things are not happening, which is deeply problematic. And I'd also like to add another piece here, that we haven't discussed, and that's that while this is going on — this profound crisis, this unprecedented crisis in American history — we also have the fact that the Senate is pushing forward with the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court justice for Brett Kavanaugh. And that strikes me as part of a package and one that we should be looking at as a whole, as opposed to simply looking at the crisis in the moment in the White House. I think we're looking at a crisis of democracy."

On why invoking the 25th Amendment is not the proper course of action

Brian Kalt: "I think, as the op-ed writer said, it wouldn't work. It would make things worse. The 25th Amendment, section four in particular, it was designed to make sure that if the president was incapacitated there was someone who could pick up the reins immediately. And they wanted to make sure it wasn't used for presidents who were unfit or who were inept or any of those other things. We already have a process to get rid of presidents who are doing a bad job. This was supposed to not supplant that, so they designed it so that if you tried to use it for that, it wouldn't work."

From The Reading List

New York Times: "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration" — "President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.

"It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.

"The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

"I would know. I am one of them."

The Atlantic: "This Is a Constitutional Crisis" — "Impeachment is a constitutional mechanism. The Twenty-Fifth Amendment is a constitutional mechanism. Mass resignations followed by voluntary testimony to congressional committees are a constitutional mechanism. Overt defiance of presidential authority by the president’s own appointees—now that’s a constitutional crisis.

"If the president’s closest advisers believe that he is morally and intellectually unfit for his high office, they have a duty to do their utmost to remove him from it, by the lawful means at hand. That duty may be risky to their careers in government or afterward. But on their first day at work, they swore an oath to defend the Constitution—and there were no 'riskiness' exemptions in the text of that oath."

The Weekly Standard: "The Four Men Most Likely to be Behind the New York Times Op-ed" — "It’s only been online for a few hours, but the anonymous New York Times op-ed penned by a 'senior official in the Trump administration' has set off a frenzy of guessing about who is claiming to be one of the people 'working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.'

"The White House was out with a response Wednesday afternoon. 'We are disappointed, but not surprised, that the paper chose to publish this pathetic, reckless, and selfish op-ed,' reads the statement from press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. 'The individual behind this piece has chosen to deceive, rather than support, the duly elected President of the United States. He is not putting country first, but putting himself and his ego ahead of the will of the American people. This coward should do the right thing and resign.'

"There are some clues within the 965-word essay of who the 'coward' (or courageous truth-teller, depending on your perspective) really is. There are indications the writer is a movement conservative, including a line that castigates Trump for not sharing conservatives’ affinity for “free minds, free markets, and free people.” There is a noticeable lack of discussion of any issues of constitutionalism, the law, or immigration. The writing is straightforward, unpretentious, and familiar with the conventions of op-eds."

CNN: "13 people who might be the author of The New York Times op-ed" — "On Wednesday afternoon, The New York Times posted an anonymous op-ed titled: 'I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration.'

"The piece is remarkable. Identified only as a "senior official in the Trump administration," the piece lays out how the author — as well as other colleagues within the administration — are waging a semi-open campaign to keep the President from doing too much damage to the nation.

"'Many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations,' the author writes."

Poynter: "'Anonymous' NYT byline quite rare, often given for reasons of safety" — "On Wednesday, the newspaper's startling 'anonymous' op-ed — which it verified as coming from a senior Trump White House official — caused a firestorm and backed up accounts in Bob Woodward's upcoming book, 'Fear,' about underlings going to extremes to protect America from an impulsive, unbalanced president. The op-ed talked about Trump's ineffective leadership and moves to prevent his 'half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions.' "

Wall Street Journal: "The 25th Amendment? Forget It" — "Interest in Section 4 of the 25th Amendment is peaking. Multiple amateur constitutional scholars have advocated its use to remove President Trump from office, as an alternative to impeachment. But Section 4 is a tool for a different job. Its use under today’s circumstances has the potential to tear the country apart.

"Section 4 is not a suitable substitute for impeachment. To be sure, impeachment sets a high bar: a majority in the House, then two-thirds in the Senate to convict and remove an official. Section 4 sounds easier: If the vice president and a majority of the cabinet declare the president 'unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,' the vice president becomes acting president."

This program aired on September 6, 2018.  http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2018/09/06/trump-official-new-york-time...

END OF PART ONE

Views: 77

Comment by mary gravitt on September 12, 2018 at 12:31pm

Sinclair Lewis, the first American to receive a Nobel Prize for Literature, has gone out of fashion.  Yet he is in fashion.  We had better go back to this great American satirist if we are to reclaim our democracy, or shall I say, our Republic for which it stands.  Lewis saw this coming down the road, and now we can look back at our own cultural history to prove, IT CAN HAPPEN HERE!

Comment by moki ikom on September 12, 2018 at 3:15pm

Our 21st Century fascUSts say it's not Fascism anywhere until Jews are being arrested and concentrated inside barbed wire enclosures in order that Jews be more efficiently exterminated from society. As if it is impossible that fascists should go to war against each other, American fascUSts insist they cannot possibly be vessels for fascist ideology because "America fought and defeated fascists in ww2."  The fact is that America has predominantly exhibited fascist behavior and acted in line with fascist principles since its inception long before such principles were incorporated into the modern terms, Fascism or Naziism.

Comment by koshersalaami on September 12, 2018 at 8:56pm

Who exactly is claiming that General Franco wasn’t a fascist? There were no Jews in Spain, at least not openly. Mussolini took power in 1925 and didn’t start legislating against Jews until 1938. And yet somehow you claim that Jews are to blame for completely altering the definition of fascism? What exactly don’t you blame Jews for?

Comment by moki ikom on September 12, 2018 at 11:04pm

Kosher, when exactly do you not find that Jews are being blamed for something when a non-Jew uses the word "Jew" ?  In what I wrote to which you reacted, where do I blame Jews for something?  I blame our 21st Century fascUSts for denying they are fascist and i gave one example of how I have seen they do so.  You may believe otherwise but i believe today's fascUSts are by far predominately non-Jew and they use the Nazi exterminations as a marker for what to them our fascUSts, defines Fascism, and, since in their mindset they do not overtly conduct such exterminations as did the Nazi they conveniently deem themselves to not be fascist.  The only history of Fascism today's fascUSts (that's not what they call themselves) recognize and want every one else to recognize is the Nazi exterminations variety of fascism.  

Comment by koshersalaami on September 13, 2018 at 4:49am

Which 21st century fascists? Where we’re seeing the heaviest movement toward fascism right now is in Europe, places like Hungary. (Those fascists happen to be antisemitic, but that’s almost coincidental.) For them to say “We’re not Nazis” is accurate; they’re not. But “we’re not fascists”? That’s different. 

The U.S. runs some risk of becoming fascist, though very little of becoming Nazi. Trump would love a cult of personality but he is viewed as fundamentally incompetent by too much of the population to pull it off. Also, at this point the U.S. can still be theoretically saved by the vote. Right now what the public wants gets ignored by government and what the wealthy want becomes policy, so to this extent we’re not democratic now, but those public officials who ignore the will of the public can still in theory be replaced and we’ve seen some evidence in primaries that money is losing control of a lot of election results. 

Israel is a different case. It’s becoming less tolerant but is still a parliamentary democracy - with two regions under military occupation. The problem there is coalitions. 

Once the European fascists reached office, it was no longer feasible in fairly short order to vote their leaders out. 

This is the danger with guys like Kavanaugh who want to increase the power of the President to the point where he’s damned near invulnerable to the general population and the other branches of government, which could land us in fascism by allowing Trump to do what he wanted without public recourse. 

But the American fascism conversation is not mainly about Jews. 

Comment by mary gravitt on September 14, 2018 at 1:03pm

As Americans we are taught to hate history and that our American Exceptionalism will protect US from fascism and fascistic ideology.  We ignore the fact that Nazism is Fascism by another name.  And since we are so ignorant, we do not realized that WWI never ended and every war to follow is just an update of WWI.  This is why the books by Barbara Tuchman are so important.  Sinclair Lewis is now neglected because we in the main are not self-critical because our school system became the first victim of neoliberalism and the corporations paid to have history rewritten and supported by Reaganomics.

It is happening here.  We have been taken over since the 1970s.  We live on credit debt and need cheap Chinese goods to make a 1970 paycheck pay for 2018 bills.  Trump teaches US to believe that it is China's fault, no the corporations chasing cheap labor.  We watch as Trump sings a tune to the law and order chumps that he has made into his own gestapo.  Remember it was Law and Order that disposed of Nixon's presidency.

We were lucky with Nixon.  He was not insane, just stupid.  Donald J. Trump will be the death of our Republic, just as Wilhelm I was the death of the German Empire.  The mention of Hitler lulls too many Americans into Passivity thinking "it can't happen here.

Comment by moki ikom on September 17, 2018 at 12:32am

Unlike you Mary, i am more averse to the continuation of "our Republic" than its demise.  Why are you so afraid?  With  the demise of "our Republic" , aka the dissolution of the United States, do you expect we will lose the civil rights we currently experience?  I am leaning toward believing that it is only by dissolving the United States of America as we know it that we, that Humanity will survive.

Comment by mary gravitt on Wednesday

It is not that I am afraid of the Dissolution of the United States it is just that after seeing the confusion that WWI and WWII, Syria, Libya, and Iraq, I don't think I want to go through that.  Iowa City is important in State Department and CIA circles.  Every year the State Department brings international writer to the University of Iowa for the International Writers' Workshop, and this is not for the entertainment of the locals, they seldom come to their talks.  You can get them online.  My point is that at one point before the invasion of Iraq a convention was held here and the majority of the Iraqi quislings were for the war because they were of the elite and believed Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz that the war would be "short & just."  It proved neither.

I am in my consciousness a Democratic Socialist, and I believe that the US will pull out of this slump that we have allowed Trumpism and the Neocons to drag us into.  Trump is sewer sludge and like sludge he and his administration will land in the dustbin of history.  But I will not allow this neo-nazi to drag two-thirds of the United States with him, if I can help it.  This is why I write the warning that the writers who lived our history have written about the men who thought they could determine history and outrun Karma.

Karma is a bitch, and she will bite you in the ass.

Comment by J.P. Hart on Wednesday

I believe in you, dear Mary Gravitt...be active, be very active

Comment by J.P. Hart on Wednesday

O

...new friend was with her sister --- nine years old --- in LA And they met RFK

the day before

what if 'aye?

in the rain, no?

no. Blue umbrellas

Comment

You need to be a member of Our Salon to add comments!

Join Our Salon

NEW BLOG POSTS

The Year Of

Posted by Doc Vega on September 23, 2018 at 1:30pm 1 Comment

Live Long and Procreate

Posted by Robert Young on September 23, 2018 at 11:48am 3 Comments

Isn't It Impressive ...

Posted by Maui Surfer on September 23, 2018 at 10:05am 2 Comments

1st Day of Filmic Fall

Posted by J.P. Hart on September 23, 2018 at 9:30am 2 Comments

Pulp Free Orange Juice Issues

Posted by Johnny Robish on September 21, 2018 at 8:34pm 1 Comment

© 2018   Created by lorianne.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service