ChrisWeigant.com

King Was A Radical

[ Posted Monday, January 20th, 2020 – 18:13 UTC ]

Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior was a radical, which is oft forgotten in all the praise we heap upon him on his birthday. The reason it gets overlooked so frequently is that we'll all hear miniature clips of King today which highlight the positive aspects of his agenda and his movement while editing out all the harder edges of what he had to say. He was non-violent, to be true, but radical does not equate to violent. Most people think of the two as interlinked, but they're not. Dr. King preached non-violent radicalism.

King called not just for racial equality, but he also called for economic equality as well. His economic ideas were somewhat to the left of Bernie Sanders, in fact. Andrew Yang likes to remind people that King was for Universal Basic Income, and he's right to do so. King called for a guaranteed job for everyone who could work, which was one portion of the Green New Deal that drew derision and scorn from its detractors.

I'm largely taking today off -- this is in no way a full column, sorry. I would point people to these two very good articles in Salon today which accurately review King's legacy in these regards, if they would like to read more. But as one of them points out, King's Letter From A Birmingham Jail particularly singles out white moderates for their timidity. If King were alive today, he quite likely wouldn't be as supportive of moderate Democrats' calls for incrementalism as some people might think.

King wanted big changes. He was smart enough to know that he wouldn't see all of them achieved during his lifetime, but that didn't stop him from dreaming of a future where such things would not only be possible, but unremarkable. That is his true legacy -- the fact that he created a new kind of radicalism in politics. Non-violent at its core, but none the less radical in its goals and agenda. We'd all do well to remember that today.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

40 Comments on “King Was A Radical”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The thing to do in this day and age, I think, is bring back the lost art of persuasion - change what and how people think and democracy will thrive.

    What's missing today are people who are well versed in the real art of persuasion, like MLK.

  2. [2] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    There are plenty of people well versed in the art of persuasion- unfortunately the vast majority of them seem to be using it to manipulate people into the wrong choices rather than for productive purposes.

    It's awful nice to fondly remember the radicals from yesteryear that are now respected.

    It's a shame that 50 years from now there will be no radicals from our time to remember as people have become too complacent, too stupid or too chicken to allow themselves to even consider and/or discuss the ideas of the radicals of today.

    I guess this is the America our founding fathers envisioned and hoped for as they did not have a radical bone in their bodies.

    They would be so proud of their decendents and how we have finally achieved the dream they envisioned so many years ago.

    And they would be especially proud of CW and how he has stood fast in resisting informing citizens about alternatives to the people that are using their powers of persuasion to manipulate citizens.

    Our founding fathers were united against trying anything new when the status quo wasn't working and would roll over in their graves if people like CW were to inform citizens about possible alternatives such as One Demand.

    To them just the thought of people thinking about it would be unthinkable!

  3. [3] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    what could be more radical than pie?

    Dr. King's dessert of choice was pecan pie, holding him true to those Georgia roots. Many folks celebrate his life by eating this Southern treat on his birthday each year.

    https://www.tasteofhome.com/collection/martin-luther-king-jr-s-favorite-foods/

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Very nice!

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL

    From the previous commentary.

    The president makes appointments and the Senate confirms them.

    Not always..

    Does the name Valerie Jarrett mean anything to you? :D

    Allow me..

    Valerie Jarrett - Wikipedia
    Valerie June Jarrett (née Bowman; born November 14, 1956) is an Iranian-American businesswoman and former government official. She served as the senior advisor to U.S. President Barack Obama and assistant to the president for public engagement and intergovernmental affairs from 2009 to 2017.

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    From the previous commentary..

    No, no he doesn’t!

    Yes, he does.. See "Valerie Jarrett" above..

    The President is an elected official who serves at the pleasure of the American people.

    Yes he does.. And yer just pissy because President Trump is the pleasure of the American people.. :D

    God, you sure love to sound stupid, apparently! Our individual intelligence agencies determine the security level of all information/data that they each possess. Trump can be impeached if he leaks classified national secrets, because even though like you pointed out he technically might not be violating any law by leaking it, he would be violating his oath of office and would be abusing his authority.

    That is not factually accurate... It's an hysterically emotional opinion based on hatred and bigotry...

    The POTUS is the sole arbiter of what is and is not classified... He can choose to reveal ANYTHING he chooses to to whomever he chooses..

    Bottom line: I may be the only one who thinks that Republicans in the Senate cannot stand Trump and are thrilled to get him out of office and into an orange jumper ASAP!

    Yes, you are the only one that thinks that..

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL

    From previous commentary

    i think you're engaging in a little wishful thinking there. GOP senators are far more afraid of donald's voting bloc than they are of some amorphous 'future of the party.'

    Yes he is and yes they are...

    good point about the president's right to declassify though. technically the president would be completely within his legal powers to order the CIA to provide him their entire NOC list complete with identities and placements and hand it directly to kim jong un over a beer. but if he did so it would still be treason.

    Not factually accurate..

    Since ya'all like Politi-Fact so much..

    Risch said, "The minute the president speaks about it to someone, he has the ability to declassify anything at any time without any process."

    We found broad agreement that a president, using powers granted by the Constitution, is able to declassify essentially anything. However, experts added that Risch’s comment was not entirely on point for the particular situation involving Trump.

    In this case, it appears Trump didn’t actually use his declassification power before talking to the Russian officials, and just because Trump’s actions were legal doesn’t necessarily mean they were wise. These caveats add nuance to analyses of what Trump did.

    The statement is accurate but needs clarification and additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.
    https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/may/16/james-risch/does-president-have-ability-declassify-anything-an/

    Once again.. Just the facts...

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    The problem with Democrats and Martin Luther King Jr is that Democrats only support the MLK's teachings that suit their agenda..

    Trayvon Martin died to prove that...

    I am also constrained to point out that a direct descendant of MLK (his neice) is a virulent President Trump supporter..

    Talk about inconvenient facts, eh? ;D

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    “There’s this gun rights protest that’s happening down in Richmond, on MLK day," Ocasio-Cortez told moderator Ta-Nehisi Coates. "The image that has stuck with me the most about that – when we go out to march for the dignity and recognition of the lives of people like Freddie Gray and Eric Gardner, the whole place is surrounded by police in riot gear, without a gun in sight – and here are all these people flying confederate flags with semi-automatic weapons, and there’s almost no police officers at that protest."
    -Occasional Cortex

    And WHY do you think that is, OC??

    Why does there have to be a massive police presence whenever Democrats and other assorted riff-raff get together and NOT when real patriotic Americans get together..

    Think about it. Engage those 2 brain cells of yours..

    It'll come to you...

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting to note..

    Martin Luther King Jr was a BIG TIME gun owner and a virulent supporter of the 2nd Amendment..

    Once again.. Inconvenient FACTS... :D

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pro-gun rally by thousands in Virginia ends peacefully
    https://apnews.com/2c997c92fa7acd394f7cbb89882d9b5b

    I bet Democrats are soooo bummed today....

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Tens of thousands of gun-rights activists from around the country rallied peacefully at the Virginia Capitol on Monday to protest plans by the state’s Democratic leadership to pass gun-control legislation — a move that has become a key flash point in the national debate over gun violence.

    The size of the crowd and the expected participation of white supremacists and fringe militia groups raised fears that the state could see a repeat of the violence that exploded in 2017 in Charlottesville. But the rally concluded uneventfully around noon, and the mood was largely festive, with rally-goers chanting “USA!” and waving signs denouncing Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam.

    Many protesters chose not to enter the designated rally zone, where Northam had imposed a temporary weapons ban, and instead packed surrounding streets, many dressed in tactical gear and camouflage and carrying military-style rifles as they cheered on the speakers.

    “I love this. This is like the Super Bowl for the Second Amendment right here,” said P.J. Hudson, a truck driver from Richmond who carried an AR-15 rifle just outside Capitol Square. He was one of the few African American rally-goers in a crowd that was overwhelmingly white and male, and was frequently stopped and asked to pose for pictures wearing his “Black Guns Matter” sweatshirt.

    An estimated 22,000 people attended, according to authorities, who said one woman was arrested on felony charge of wearing a mask in public.

    The protesters came out despite the frigid temperature to send a message to legislators, they said.

    “The government doesn’t run us, we run the government,” said Kem Regik, a 20-year-old private security officer from northern Virginia who brought a white flag with a picture of a rifle captioned, “Come and take it.”

    Yep.. Democrats are surely down in the dumps today...

    All they have is to rally behind a black-face racist....

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    The president makes appointments and the Senate confirms them.

    For the record, Obama had at LEAST 28 high level advisers that were not confirmed by the US Senate..

    The President has the authority to send anyone he wants to anywhere he wants to represent the US/President's interests..

    Obama had all these powers to..

    It's just that ya'all didn't care because Obama had a -D after his name..

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ

    From previous commentary..

    >>>>>*HOW* do ya'all think this will end???
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Is there ANYONE here who HONESTLY believes that >>>>>President Trump will be removed from office???

    I think it is going to end with a near unanimous vote to remove Trump from office. I think the GOP is fed up with the non-stop shitshow that is Trump’s presidency and recognize that this is the safest way to rid themselves of him.

    You HONESTLY believe that??

    WOW.. You are more far gone than even *I* thought..

    And THAT really says something because I thought you were as far gone as can possibly be...

    Pure unadulterated wish-casting...

    Not a FACT to be found that would support such an outcome...

    But hay.. By all means.. Continue to spew those lofty wishful spewings...

    The higher ya reach, the greater you have to fall...

    Yer gonna be totally devastated not only when President Trump is completely and utterly vindicated and exonerated by the Senate....

    But also when President Trump wins re-election in a near landslide vote...

    Hell, yer gonna fall so far and so fast, I am likely to take pity on ya and not rub it in...

    Much... :D

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Best description to date on the bogus and BS Articles Of Impeachment Democrats are trying to pass off as legitimate..

    "Abuse Of Power" and "Obstruction Of Congress" are not criminal violations but rather focus-grouped catchy phrases that Democrats are using to create the illusion of wrong-doing.."

    That says it all...

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in the EVER HAVE ONE OF THOSE DAYS department??

    http://sjfm.us/pics/OneOfThoseDays.jpg

    :D

  17. [17] 
    dsws wrote:

    The Constitution grants all powers to Congress, or jointly to Congress and the president, except for pardons and the power to "require the opinion in writing of the heads of the executive departments on any subject relating to their duties" (quoted from memory, so it's probably not exact).

    The executive-branch supremacy we now have is a crock. And yes, I said much the same when Obama had too much power.

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    The executive-branch supremacy we now have is a crock. And yes, I said much the same when Obama had too much power.

    While I don't recall any specific instances, I don't doubt your word that you did.. It would be in keeping with your nature..

    What's ironic is that it WAS Obama who pushed the envelope of Executive Power to it's almost absolute..

    With Democrats cheering him on.

    I also, at the time, pointed out that Democrats, both in the real world and here in Weigantia, would come to regret Obama's actions..

    Once again, I called it dead on ballz accurate...

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    dsws,

    Since you are in the neighborhood, care to enthrall us with your take on the impeachment???

    I am DYING to know... :D

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    I seem to remember saying, back when House Dems had the impeachment that they would regret their bias and lack of due process...

    This isn't a trial - it's a COVER-UP!' Chuck Schumer rages against Mitch McConnell's rules for Donald Trump's impeachment trial as a 'national disgrace'

    Republicans' plan for Senate trial of Donald Trump are revealed hours before it begins at 1pm Tuesday

    Mitch McConnell wants each side given 24 hours spread over two days to make their case - the Democrats for impeaching and removing, Trump for acquittal

    If he gets his way, Democrats could start spelling out why they want Trump removed at 1pm on Wednesday

    Planned schedule could put 'docket rocket' trial on track to end before Trump delivers the State of the Union address

    Nobody will be allowed to subpoena witnesses or documents until after each side has made their case and 16 hours of questions have been asked

    Minority leader Chuck Schumer took aim at the moves calling it a national disgrace and said it was not following the precedent in Bill Clinton's trial

    Plans offer apparent victory for Donald Trump - but will not explicitly allow him to demand instant dismissal of the two articles of impeachment
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7909819/This-isnt-trial-COVER-Chuck-Schumer-rages-against-impeachment-trial-rules.html

    ANd here we are.. :D

    Apparently, Democrats do not understand the concept that the Senate is in complete control of impeachment now...

    And the GOP is in complete control of the Senate.. :D

    Karma's a bitch, ain't she? :D

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Minority leader Chuck Schumer took aim at the moves calling it a national disgrace and said it was not following the precedent in Bill Clinton's trial

    "It seems we have lost the ability to forcefully advocate for our position without trying to criminalize or at least dishonor our adversaries — often over matters having nothing to do with the public trust. And it is hurting the country; it is marginalizing and polarizing the Congress.
    -Charles Schumer, 1999

    One has to wonder if Chucky wants some cheeze to go with his Sour Grape Whine.. :D

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    OBAMA: "IRAN"
    PRESIDENT TRUMP: "IDIDN'T"

    :D

  23. [23] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Not factually accurate..
    Since ya'all like Politi-Fact so much..
    Risch said, "The minute the president speaks about it to someone, he has the ability to declassify anything at any time without any process."

    i did not dispute that fact. re-read what i wrote. unless you're saying that handing over the NOC list to a hostile foreign power wouldn't be treason. but i don't think that's what you're saying. i just posed that as a hypothetical, to demonstrate that a president could be guilty of betraying the country without violating any laws. that's why impeachment is an open-ended process.

  24. [24] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale Your [8]

    I don't know much about MLK's family, relatives etc, but you might want to re-think you choice of adjectives in the neice reference. I think you're trying to say the woman is an 'enthusiastic' Trump supporter, but your use of "virulent" has strong negative implications, like maybe her support is'poisonous', or 'venomous'.

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jl,

    I AM saying it would not be treason. I could postulate several possible scenarios where a US President would release a NOC list to a hostile power.

    The classifying declassiving of intelligence is within the purview of the POTUS...

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now if her saying "treasonous" instead of Treason, then you might be more accurate. It''s an opinion, but a defensible one..

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    Perhaps 'virulent' wasn't the best choice of word.

    Maybe 'devoted' or 'passionate'..

    The point being, if MLK''s kin supports President Trump, how bad can he be??

    Yes, jt''s appeal to authority, but still relevant.

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    Some would say that a POTUS giving hundreds of billions of dollars to the number 1 state sponsor of terrorism would be 'treason'...

    But it's not

  29. [29] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    fine, not an absurd enough example. it's also within the president's purview to decide new york and san francisco are bad and fire nuclear missiles at our own cities, wiping out their entire populations.

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    fine, not an absurd enough example. it's also within the president's purview to decide new york and san francisco are bad and fire nuclear missiles at our own cities, wiping out their entire populations.

    Actually, no..

    As it would deprive Americans their pursuit of life, liberty and happy-ness... :D

    I know what you are trying to say... You are talking good/bad and I am talking legal/illegal...

    But if we were to confine our arguments to....

    To be honest, I don't remember how we got to classified/de-classified from Foreign Policy...

    Generally speaking (moreso Russ than you) Presidents in general have more power than ya'all think they do..

    And, as I pointed out to DSWS, you can thank Obama for that because it was Obama who really pushed the envelope hard to expand Executive Power...

    What occurred between President Trump and President Zelensky was strictly and completely within the confines of Foreign Policy...

    And, sans the couple of exceptions cited, Foreign Policy is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY within the purview of the President Of The United States..

    So, no matter *WHAT* President Trump did or did not do vis a vis Zelensky and Ukraine...

    Democrats can't do dick about it..

    And it CERTAINLY is not impeachable..

    All Democrats can do is address the concerns at the ballot box..

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Some would say that a POTUS giving hundreds of billions of dollars to the number 1 state sponsor of terrorism would be 'treason'...

    But it's not

    It's treasonous, to be sure..

    But it's NOT Treason... At least it's not treason in the legal/prosecutable/impeachable sense..

    That's why the GOP didn't impeach Obama.. Because they were not consumed by HHODS...

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    House impeachment will be a 'permanent stain' on Dems' legacy

    The contrast could not have been starker. One picture showed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi smiling as she signed (with numerous pens) two articles of impeachment against President Trump. She passed out the pens like souvenirs to fellow Democrats. They were embossed in gold with her signature and rested on silver trays.

    The other picture was of President Trump signing phase one of a new trade deal with China.

    Which picture depicted events of greater long-term benefit to Americans? Unless you are a rank partisan out to remove President Trump from office by whatever means, the obvious answer is the China trade deal.
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/20/house-impeachment-will-be-a-permanent-stain-on-dem/

    Democrats have REALLY scroo'ed da pooch here..

    Ya'all remember how insufferable President Trump (not to mention yours truly) was when President Trump was exonerated over Russia Collusion and Obstruction...

    He (and me) are going to be ten times insufferable when President Trump is totally and utterly exonerated and vindicated in this faux impeachment coup... :D

    And President Trump will ride that huge wave all the way to a resounding landslide re-election in Nov.. :D

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    But!! BUT!!! BUT!!! ya'all say..

    The GOA!!! Said Trump broke the law!!!

    Yea, funny thing about that. The "law" ostensibly broken was a CIVIL law... So, even if President Trump did break that law (which, due to Foreign Policy being exclusively the purview of the POTUS, so he didn't) there are only civil penalties and remedies.. Nothing NO WHERE near Impeachment appropriate..

    Even FUNNIER thing about the GOA's claim..

    The GOA *ALSO* claimed that Obama broke the law when he released 5 HVT terrorists for one deserting army scumbag....

    Funny.. I don't recall anyone here clamoring for Odumbo's impeachment...

    Why is that???

    Ahhhh That's right.. The '-D' after Obama's name...

    Funny that it ALWAYS comes down to that.. :D

  34. [34] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    From previous:

    JL

    i think you're engaging in a little wishful thinking there. GOP senators are far more afraid of donald's voting bloc than they are of some amorphous 'future of the party.'

    I completely agree with you that they fear Trump’s hold over his cultists and becoming the focus of his desire for revenge for even the smallest slight; which is why I think that they may act if they believe that there is safety in numbers! If one, two, or five of them vote to impeach Trump, but he isn’t removed from office, those who put country before loyalty to Trump know that they are going to have a target on their back during the man-baby’s tantrums. That is why I think the Senate might shock us and vote unanimously to remove Trump from office. I feel fairly certain that the Senate Intelligence Committee has been briefed on the counterintelligence investigation into Trump by now, and the intelligence community might have made it clear that Trump must be removed from office and quickly.

    A unanimous vote would force Trump’s minions to look at their wizard once the curtain has been pulled away! Trump will be indicted once he is removed from office, something that I fear even Trump realizes is going to occur. If one Republican stands up to Trump, they are turned to chum by his supporters. If the entire Senate stands united, it’s much harder for Trump supporters to accept his lies if no one else is.

    And face it, there are few, if any, Senate Republicans that actually like Trump and how he governs. They know that Trump doesn’t respect them or their roles in government, and most are sick of having to publicly defend this idiot destroying their party.

    Robert Reich wrote an article around two years ago — before the Mueller investigation was complete — that discussed whether or not Impeachment was worth attempting if Mueller uncovered evidence of impeachable offenses seeing how the Senate was ruled by the GOP. Reich said that he was surprised when one Republican Senator that he’d been friends with for years answered something to the effect, “OH HELL YEAH they best impeach Trump if they get the chance!” Reich’s friend said that there is no love between Trump and the Senate Republicans and that a few of them would jump at the opportunity to be rid of Trump for good!

    There is no way to know whether Reich’s article would prove to be true or false until Trump was impeached and the Senate votes on the charges in the AOI. But look at Trump’s biggest suck up in the Senate...Linsey Graham. If you never read the New Yorkers’ expose on Graham, it is worth a read. Graham could not hide his hatred for Trump, and honestly it did not seem like he tried to hide it. Graham admitted that he changed his position regarding Trump after his polling numbers back home were tanking anytime he was critical of Trump. He said he was simply doing whatever it took to stay in office and hopefully help Trump avoid screwing up and killing us all.

    When Trump had Soleimani executed and it looked like we might go to war with Iran, Graham rushed to push for a Senate vote “to acquit Trump” immediately. That seemed like a strange reaction from a staunch Trump supporter who was confident in Trump’s innocence. It sounded much more like the reaction you would expect from someone scared to death that he had to act to get the idiot away from the launch codes before he blew us up.

    As I said previously, since Trump’s impeachment inquiry started, the Senate Republicans who have clashed with Trump in the past seemed to be making a lot of statements professing their loyalty to Trump in ways that make it appear that they are only to keep Trump from panicking that he is in danger of being removed from office. When they knowingly make statements that cause them look corrupted but calm Trump’s fears that they won’t do everything they can to save him, then you have to wonder what motivated them to make such a comment.

    I think they know that Trump has to be removed from office as quick and with as little prior notice as possible to prevent him from doing serious damage to our country and the world. Michale claims that I do not realize how much authority the Constitution grants the president, but - as is typical when it comes to Michale - he is wrong! I am well aware of the broad powers the president is granted, and I recognize that a vengeful man-Baby could seriously harm our institutions and nation if he chose to... and we could do nothing to prevent him from doing it.

    Impeachment allows for the immediate and complete removal from power of a president. The only other way for this to occur is through assassination, as Ben Franklin pointed out.

    Trump admitted to the charges against him, and his defense team doesn’t bother to deny that fact. The vast majority of Americans favor impeachment and removal from office for Trump. I think the Republicans know he needs to be removed, and this is their chance to do it as quickly and painlessly as possible.

  35. [35] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    The president makes appointments and the Senate confirms them.

    Not always..

    Does the name Valerie Jarrett mean anything to you? :D

    What does Valerie Jarrett have to do with your claim that Trump is the one person who gets to decide who is and who isn’t part of our government?

    She was an advisor to Obama a role that is not a political appointment that requires Senate confirmation. But that doesn’t mean Trump can say that Giuliani was working for the State Department and it is true! Nor can he fire people that he doesn’t like who weren’t appointed by him. Trump cannot fire a judge. Trump cannot fire a DEA agent on a whim. He does NOT have that power. So, no, he does not decide who is and is not part of our government for 99% of the government positions.

    Michale [175] from prev.

    The President decides who is and who is not part of our government..

  36. [36] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Interesting to note..

    Martin Luther King Jr was a BIG TIME gun owner and a virulent supporter of the 2nd Amendment..

    Once again.. Inconvenient FACTS... :D

    MLK Jr’s gun ownership made him 4.5 times more likely than non-gun owners to be killed by a gun.

    Once again.. Inconvenient FACTS... :D

  37. [37] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CW,

    MLK, Jr. was definitely a radical... but that is not surprising when you realize he was also devoted to the teachings of the most radical liberal to ever walk the Earth — Jesus! If you ever want to really watch evangelicals squirm uncomfortably, point out how radical and extremely liberal Jesus Christ’s teachings are. Their heads explode at the thought that they claim to worship a liberal.

    There is a great musical called the Cotton Patch Gospel (music and lyrics by Harry Chaplin) that is set in the US South and asks the questions “What if Jesus came back today? How would we receive Him?”, and the answer is not pretty..., but the songs are catchy!

  38. [38] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale [20]

    I seem to remember saying, back when House Dems had the impeachment that they would regret their bias and lack of due process...

    Remind everyone, based on your 25 years of claiming dishonestly of having a history in law enforcement, how EXACTLY the Democrats were supposed to provide Trump with “Due Process” during the investigative impeachment inquiry?

    The House didn’t hold a trial, but you still are screaming how unfair it is that the Democrats denied Trump’s right to due process!

    This just shows how desperate Trump supporters are to convince themselves of Trump’s innocence.

    And since you keep claiming everything Trump did regarding his talks with the Ukraine was completely legal, then why won’t he provide the full transcript of the call? Why is he refusing to allow the people who work for him that are involved in this to testify? These people could put this whole ordeal to rest when they testify how everything that Trump did was legal...it just makes no sense that Trump is risking being removed from office when their testimony would clear his name!

  39. [39] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @russ,

    i know of two such recent works off the top of my head:

    1. ken siegmann's poem "the second coming"

    2. hugh blumenfeld's song "long haired radical socialist jew"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY3HUDhe7jk

  40. [40] 
    dsws wrote:

    Pretty much every president has pushed for more presidential power. Obama no more so than most. FDR was the one who really expanded it from what it was before him. Mostly, it's been Congress's fault for delegating everything to the executive branch. The phrase "unitary executive", meanwhile, seems to me to have been primarily a Republican piece of rhetoric.

    Impeachment was a bad idea from the beginning. There was no way it could ever have gone except as some sort of bogus exoneration. That much, I was right about. However, it's looking as though I may turn out to have been wrong about the trial of Joe Biden.

Comments for this article are closed.