Donald J. Trump: President or Something Else?

Today the President of the United States openly threatened NBC, one of the oldest broadcasters in the United States with a revocation of its license because they published a story he deemed to be “fake-news”.

Regardless of the merits of the story or the overall treatment of the President by the media, the idea that our President, a man who swore to uphold the constitution of the united states, would so brazenly threaten the first amendment rights of our fellow citizens is a sad testament to how far we have sunk as a country.

The sorts of statements put out by the President are unequivocally the stuff of third world strongmen and dictators, same as the threats that have come out of the mouths of people like Nicholas Maduro.

This is something that should go beyond politics for all patriotic Americans, we cannot accept the creation of a status quo where political representatives, especially the President, can simply threaten people openly because they publish things not to their liking.

I am no fan of the mainstream media and I acknowledge that they have never given the President a fair shake, yet he is either unable or unwilling to control his impulses and emotions, to be the strong, steady leader we need as a country in these chaotic times.

The one thing we should demand of a President, beyond any particular policy goals or personal wishes for the future of the country, is a sincere defense of our fundamental liberties.

If a President cannot be counted on that most fundamental of tasks, then he sets himself up against not just those of the opposing party, but the whole of the citizenry as well, at least those who value liberty above partisan politics.

Yes, past Presidents have abused or disregarded our rights, often doing what they wanted or thought necessary instead of what the constitution demanded, yet this is the first time in my life that I have heard a President threaten a specific organization so obviously to shut them up.


Thankfully our system is still robust enough to protect us from the predations of a person who clearly does not want to live up to the ideals of the office he holds, but if we stay silent now, especially Republicans, then we risk a future where we or our children might not have a choice to speak up at all.  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Gun Control Can’t Pass

Image
After yet another tragic shooting, proponents of gun control have once again rolled out the usual talking points and policy proposals. From banning so called “assault rifles” to “high capacity magazines”, progressives and their allies think that the solution to radicalized killers and murderous sociopaths is to further restrict firearms for law abiding citizens. Those who favor greater gun control tend to parse the argument in terms of what citizens really “need” and say that their intention is only to get rid of those arms which are of a military nature and not to “take away people’s guns” in general. They then argue that most Americans do in fact support measures such as expanded background checks and restricting purchases of firearms for those that are on terrorist watch lists. The polls show this to be true, but despite dramatic sit-ins and filibusters by Democrats, neither the Senate nor the House seems to actually be willing or able to pass any gun regulation legislation
Read more

Part 3: How standing armies can corrupt republics.

With the preceding thoughts from parts 1 and 2, we arrive at just why a professional army is such a problem. While any permanent public service can be problematic to a republic, for the reasons just mentioned, a professional military is extremely dangerous because its purpose is war itself. Due to its extreme nature, war necessarily subordinates everything to the goal of victory, failing to do so results in defeat and ruin. In a situation where the survival of the people is at stake, it even makes sense to restrict the very freedoms of a republic in order to divert as many resources as efficiently as possible towards the defeat of the enemy. This is only justified though in the case of a purely defensive war or a war that directly serves the interest of the all the people in the republic. Leaving the issue of the morality of offensive war itself, we can say for now that the principles of a republic would not be opposed to the idea if the people as a whole would benefit from it s
Read more

A well regulated militia...

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".   Few words written in the constitution have caused such controversy and bitter disagreement as the text of the second amendment. The controversy has grown more contentious in light of the growth in firearms related violence which has gripped the country over the past half century, especially when we consider such violence punctuated by barbarous acts of madmen looking to gain infamy and release themselves from their pain through the destruction of the innocent.   Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, these places can no longer be mentioned without the images of lost hope and lost lives burning indelibly within our minds. They speak to us of a humanity cast asunder in the gratification of pure evil within the souls of paranoid, forgotten men. Yet it is not so much the internal constitution of those villainous animals that concer
Read more