Dear America,
After the "No Kings" protests, Trump was on Air Force 1 and held one of his ostensibly impromptu press conferences in the doorway of the presidential cabin and was asked about the demonstrations. He donned his smarmy, condescending smile and said, "I'm not a king. I'm not a king," as if he thought we didn't know that, all the while intending to obfuscate the fact of his invocation of the "unitary executive" theory in everything he does that skirts, or even violates the law or long recognized principles of presidential conduct. It seems to have escaped him that the first two syllables of unitary are "uni-" just as the first syllable of monarch is "mon", both meaning "one" as in, do what I tell you, I am the one...the Donald, as Rhona Barrett dubbed him decades ago, a euphemism for monarchy that he soaked up like a sponge long before he got elected the first time. It seems to be lost on him that the designation of a unitary executive would be tantamount to coronation of a king given the manner in which he deems himself entitled to wield the power of the office. Similarly, it seems lost on him and on the authors of the Heritage Foundation's "Project 2025" that our constitution came to be to ensure that we would never again be subject to the whims and edicts of an authoritarian, a king...especially not a conceited, arrogant self-dealer like the usurper, The Donald.
In that vein, I fail to understand how an entity like the Heritage Foundation can subscribe to a doctrine that would resurrect the equivalent of the British monarchy on our shores given the fealty to the ideas it seems to expound and subscribe to. If they truly believe in our fought-for independence from monarchic rule, why would they roll over and buy into the creation of a new monarchy on our shores. Call it what you will, and define it as you like, subscribing to such a political and philosophical apostasy seems like the conduct of Tories, not American patriots. With that in mind, the Heritage Foundation would rightfully be more aptly called the "Benedict Arnold Society." Presumably, the appropriation of the word "Heritage" in the foundations name is a reference to the American, post-revolutionary heritage, not the British tradition of royalty and rule by a royal family. So I have to wonder if we're not being betrayed by the 2025 Project, and what does it stand for anyway? Apparently, Russell Vought, now Trunp's Director of the Office of Management and Budget was one of the principle propounders of the document denominated Project 2025, and like all conservatives, he also proclaims himself to be a patriot and to stand for American values. But I have to ask, how does pining for the recreation of the British monarchy on our shores fit that bill?
I am not really inclined to get too personal about Vought and his ilk, both inside the Heritage Foundation and elsewhere. But I find myself asking how they reconcile what they are now subscribing to as proper national governance with belief in American democratic virtue. Their cowering before their idol, Donald Trump, seems craven and imbecilic if they want to project some sort of American traditional virtue for us all. And then there is what at least I see as the idiocy of it all. The American chief executive, the President, is assigned to executing the laws of the United States, which the authors and signatories to the constitution endowed congress with the power to enact, and the courts to adjudicate in the case of controversy. And those laws, in that they emanate from congress, are to be "executed" by the president as stated in section 3 of the very Article 2 that Trump and Vought as well as the rest of the unitary executive cabal invoke to justify their lunacy, and to execute only, not to modify, edit or ignore at will. Specifically, section 3 says of the president," he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." It says nothing about, if you'll excuse the expression, "trumping the legislature" when he doesn't like what they have done. In fact, Article 1, section 1 specifically states "All legislative powers herin granted shall be vested in a congress of the United states," never mentioning the power to make our laws being the endowment of any other branch of government.
It seems to me that someone should be pointing all this out to the American people, even to Vought and his cadre. It's all there in black and white, and given how many died in the revolution by which we seized our independence and democratic rights, and the civil war fought to defend those rights, in red as well. There's more in the constitution that defies Trump's usurpations of power, such as the "power of the purse," but I don't want to belabor the subject. Read the constitution, especially if you subscribe to what the Heritage boys have been arguing. You owe it to the actual patriots who arranged for it to protect us from those who, for whatever bizarre reason, are now advocating ceding it to a megalomaniacal martinet.
Your friend,
Mike
After the "No Kings" protests, Trump was on Air Force 1 and held one of his ostensibly impromptu press conferences in the doorway of the presidential cabin and was asked about the demonstrations. He donned his smarmy, condescending smile and said, "I'm not a king. I'm not a king," as if he thought we didn't know that, all the while intending to obfuscate the fact of his invocation of the "unitary executive" theory in everything he does that skirts, or even violates the law or long recognized principles of presidential conduct. It seems to have escaped him that the first two syllables of unitary are "uni-" just as the first syllable of monarch is "mon", both meaning "one" as in, do what I tell you, I am the one...the Donald, as Rhona Barrett dubbed him decades ago, a euphemism for monarchy that he soaked up like a sponge long before he got elected the first time. It seems to be lost on him that the designation of a unitary executive would be tantamount to coronation of a king given the manner in which he deems himself entitled to wield the power of the office. Similarly, it seems lost on him and on the authors of the Heritage Foundation's "Project 2025" that our constitution came to be to ensure that we would never again be subject to the whims and edicts of an authoritarian, a king...especially not a conceited, arrogant self-dealer like the usurper, The Donald.
In that vein, I fail to understand how an entity like the Heritage Foundation can subscribe to a doctrine that would resurrect the equivalent of the British monarchy on our shores given the fealty to the ideas it seems to expound and subscribe to. If they truly believe in our fought-for independence from monarchic rule, why would they roll over and buy into the creation of a new monarchy on our shores. Call it what you will, and define it as you like, subscribing to such a political and philosophical apostasy seems like the conduct of Tories, not American patriots. With that in mind, the Heritage Foundation would rightfully be more aptly called the "Benedict Arnold Society." Presumably, the appropriation of the word "Heritage" in the foundations name is a reference to the American, post-revolutionary heritage, not the British tradition of royalty and rule by a royal family. So I have to wonder if we're not being betrayed by the 2025 Project, and what does it stand for anyway? Apparently, Russell Vought, now Trunp's Director of the Office of Management and Budget was one of the principle propounders of the document denominated Project 2025, and like all conservatives, he also proclaims himself to be a patriot and to stand for American values. But I have to ask, how does pining for the recreation of the British monarchy on our shores fit that bill?
I am not really inclined to get too personal about Vought and his ilk, both inside the Heritage Foundation and elsewhere. But I find myself asking how they reconcile what they are now subscribing to as proper national governance with belief in American democratic virtue. Their cowering before their idol, Donald Trump, seems craven and imbecilic if they want to project some sort of American traditional virtue for us all. And then there is what at least I see as the idiocy of it all. The American chief executive, the President, is assigned to executing the laws of the United States, which the authors and signatories to the constitution endowed congress with the power to enact, and the courts to adjudicate in the case of controversy. And those laws, in that they emanate from congress, are to be "executed" by the president as stated in section 3 of the very Article 2 that Trump and Vought as well as the rest of the unitary executive cabal invoke to justify their lunacy, and to execute only, not to modify, edit or ignore at will. Specifically, section 3 says of the president," he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." It says nothing about, if you'll excuse the expression, "trumping the legislature" when he doesn't like what they have done. In fact, Article 1, section 1 specifically states "All legislative powers herin granted shall be vested in a congress of the United states," never mentioning the power to make our laws being the endowment of any other branch of government.
It seems to me that someone should be pointing all this out to the American people, even to Vought and his cadre. It's all there in black and white, and given how many died in the revolution by which we seized our independence and democratic rights, and the civil war fought to defend those rights, in red as well. There's more in the constitution that defies Trump's usurpations of power, such as the "power of the purse," but I don't want to belabor the subject. Read the constitution, especially if you subscribe to what the Heritage boys have been arguing. You owe it to the actual patriots who arranged for it to protect us from those who, for whatever bizarre reason, are now advocating ceding it to a megalomaniacal martinet.
Your friend,
Mike
