The All-Consuming Mad Hate For President Trump Is Now Signature Significance

Signature significance on Ethics Alarms means a single aspect of an individual’s conduct that all by itself is proof positive of an untrustworthy character because an ethical individual will not behave that way ever, not even once. Trump hatred and the unquenchable desire to punish him for his very existence (and daring to be elected President, thus foiling Hillary Clinton’s dreams) was mostly the result of people living in an echo chamber and trusting a corrupt media: decent ethical people fell victim to Trump Derangement. But the determination to persecute him now cannot be excused. It is the mark of someone who has allowed, as Richard Nixon observed on the way into the helicopter, hate to destroy him. Such people are untrustworthy, and they show us the ugliness of irrational anger and bitterness.

Too many such people have power and influence right now.

A friend sent me this article in the Washington Post, my home-town paper whose unethical bias became so extreme that I switched to the New York Times, which is a bit like choosing a heart attack over brain cancer. It is quite amazing: in it, the art and architecture critic for the paper insists that Donald Trump should be blocked by law from having a Presidential library. Why? Oh, the critic says, Trump incited an “insurrection”! Besides, “even a privately funded and operated Trump presidential library, which would be devoted to whitewashing his record and rewriting history, is a terrible and even dangerous idea…. given Trump’s alleged misuse of charitable funds, including self-dealing, waste and other illegal activities, at his now dissolved New York-based foundation….” And “any intention to start another public entity can only be considered a crime scene waiting to happen.” Plus, “…the danger of Trump using a presidential library to burnish his image is far more serious, with the ex-president and his surrogates still promoting the idea that his electoral loss was somehow fraudulent. That creates an ongoing uncertainty in American public life, which Trump and even more unscrupulous actors will use to further division, inflame tension, exacerbate racism and delegitimize the American democratic system.”

And the Washington Post published this incompetent, prolonged, unhinged rant! Well…

  •  Phillip Kennicott, the art critic, has no business whatsoever writing about law and legislation. His main expertise is classical music; how he got to be an architect critic I don’t know, but he clearly knows zilch about the law and little about politics other than what he hears in the Post’s own echo chamber.
  • President Trump did not “exacerbate racism” though Barack Obama (with his Taj Mahal of Presidential libraries in progress) did; he didn’t delegitimize the system, though his critics have tried awfully hard to do so; and “alleged” misconduct when Trump wasn’t President is irrelevant to a Presidential library.
  • Of course (I say of course because anyone who has the audacity to advocate Congress passing a special law aimed at a single individual should know this) what  Kennicott is advocating is a Bill of Attainder, and unconstitutional per se.
  • Every Presidential library is devoted to “burnishing the image” of the President so-honored, often to a ridiculous extent. The Kennedy Library is, to anyone who knows more about Jack and Bobby than the tune of “Camelot,” is head-exploding, to cite one example that I’ve been forced to endure more than once. Why should only Donald Trump, among all the Presidents, be prevented from telling his story his way, with warts and blemishes removed,  when he was probably more misrepresented to the public during his term than any other?
  • A crime waiting to happen”? Punishing someone for what you think they might do in the future is also unconstitutional, and a bright line violation of human rights. Gee, couldn’t the Post have assigned this column to one of its movie critics? They also know nothing about the law, but at least they probably saw “Minority Report.”

I knew Ann Althouse would be on this story, since she reads the Post routinely. The comments-–there were 130+ last I checked—are unanimously critical of the article, even though Ann’s readership has some anti-Trump zealots. I think my favorite comment, picking up on another commenter’s “They sure are desperate to shut Trump down. They don’t act like people secure in their ‘victory.’ They’re afraid of him, and his supporters,” who added. “They are acting like Trump got about 75 million votes and Biden got about 63 million votes and they had to pause counting in 6 states all at the same time and count some votes after kicking observers out.”

Heh. “Somehow” fraudulent. Why would anyone suspect such a thing?

It is also signature significance for a newspaper to print such uninformed, unsupported, unsupportable garbage by an expert operating sofar out of his lane.

I have long believed that Presidential libraries as they have evolved are ego palaces and a waste of money. I wouldn’t visit the Donald Trump Presidential library (or, for that matter, the Carter, Bush, Clinton or Obama libraries) if they were across the street from my house. But in this matter as in so many others, Donald Trump has managed to cause the bitter elites to show us just how awful they are. It’s useful information; for example, now that I know how susceptible Phillip Kennicott is to bias and unreasoning hate, and how he is willing to assert as fact things that aren’t even defensible opinions, I know that he can’t be trusted as an art critic either.

15 thoughts on “The All-Consuming Mad Hate For President Trump Is Now Signature Significance

  1. What do you expect when the Speaker of the House publically states that the enemies of the state are in the House and are threatening other representatives and no one asks her to provide the facts supporting her allegation.

    • I want names.

      I want someone to require her to name the specific GOP Congressperson who physically threatened her or any other Democratic Congressperson.

      The Speaker of the House calling her political opponents enemies from whom she needs protection is a super-serious charge and I want proof.

  2. Oh Jack, come on. The guy’s an architecture critic and a presidential library is ARCHITECTURE! Don’t you get it, silly? I’m surprised he didn’t lambast the gold bathroom fixtures and Corinthian columns, and even the fine Corinthian leather. (“Look what they’ve done to my library!” Thank you Ricardo.) He’s just dying to wax poetic about how tasteful the Obama library, built on public park land, is compared to the gaudy Trump library, even though there aren’t even any plans for it yet. I’m surprised he didn’t mock Trump because he never pretended to even read a book and probably never goes to a library, unlike Obama and Clinton who had “the books I’m reading” articles written (fabricated?) about them regularly.

  3. The difference between resistance and sedition, between protests and insurrections, is who’s in charge.

    The difference between censorship and hate speech, between oppression and social justice, is who’s in charge.

    The difference between racism and anti-racism, is who’s in charge.

    The difference between journalism and activism, is who’s in charge.

    This is not sustainable.

  4. From USlegal.com: The following is a case law defining Insurrection:

    Insurrection means “a violent uprising by a group or movement acting for the specific purpose of overthrowing the constituted government and seizing its powers. An insurrection occurs where a movement acts to overthrow the constituted government and to take possession of its inherent powers.” [Younis Bros. & Co. v. Cigna Worldwide Ins. Co., 899 F. Supp. 1385, 1392-1393 (E.D. Pa. 1995)]

    • OB
      If we use that definition the constituted government on January 6, 2021 had Trump as President and a Republican majority in the Senate. Thus, it could not be said that the nuts wanted to overthrow the constituted government but instead it would be more accurate to say they attempted to prevent or delay the reconstituting of their preferred government. Theoretically, insurrection could only occur after January 20, 2021 and only if it could be proven that they wanted to take possession of the government’s powers. I am not sure if that was the goal. It would be necessary to show a conspiracy to take over which would undermine the claim Trump incited the violence. The two can only be true if Trump was an actively participating co-conspirator to overthrow the government.

      The definition above does more closely fit the actions of those involved on the attack on the White House during the summer.

      Given that many protesters were permitted entry into the public areas of the Capitol by law enforcement –
      videos showed them walking through the roped sections with Capitol police looking on – while others on the other side broke into a restricted area and did violence after one protester was shot to death as she entered through the window, how much of the violence that occurred was a reaction to the initial shooting and what can we attribute to “insurrectionists”. I don’t know but I do know violence begets violence and the guy with the horns and face paint looks more like a moronic college football fanatic than an insurrectionist.

      • Chris, I found the definition interesting. The element that seems to be missing from the riot is any intent to take over the government. They were protesting a government procedure and things got out of hand and they decided to enter the room where the procedure was taking place that they wanted to frustrate. They didn’t want to take over the government and replace it with another one. I just don’t think it was an insurrection under any legal definition.

        • Black’s Law Dictionary 5th edition has a much broader definition which includes any act of rebellion to frustrate the lawful authority of government manifested through violence. Such an overly broad definition would include resisting arrest to raising an army of militiamen to overthrow the government. While I stipulate that law breakers should be rounded up and punished, I still wonder if a big part of the violence stemmed from the crowd reacting to the initial shooting of the woman coming through the broken window. In every other police shooting in which different races are involved we demand answers as to why the officer felt his life was at risk. Would he draw his weapon and begin firing if an angry mob came toward him on the street? I would hope not. Did he not have a duty to retreat as is so often required in many states or is DC a stand your ground jurisdiction?

          I am of the opinion that Democrat strategists, House and Senate leaders are goading the opposition into violence so that they can rush through more limitations on individual liberty. Nothing gives them more confidence in their authoritarianism than a relatively minor event that can be blown out of proportion to create enough fear to justify their acts. Given what they were able to pull off in terms of restricting rights during the pandemic “national emergency” I fully expect that Biden will declare a climate emergency to dictate to households what they can do in terms of heating their homes, travel or even the amount of electricity they may consume. Maryland legislators predominantly (D’s) are currently floating the idea of having ballots mailed out to every person on the voter rolls from here on out. It worked so well in instilling confidence in our elections. Perhaps among Democrats about electoral outcomes.

          The rhetoric coming from Schumer, Pelosi and others does not sound conciliatory; quite the opposite. Pelosi stated that some House Republicans were enemies of the State yesterday and not a peep from the media claiming it was a baseless lie. No one has even questioned why the head of the Capitol police who was unwilling to go to Pelosi and demand adequate forces for January 6 when the FBI had intelligence that some extremist groups were going to create a disturbance – perhaps violent – in the Capitol. Now, after countless allegations that Trump would need to be removed by force, the rush to impeach for inciting the riot and try him after he has gone is designed to rub salt into his supporter’s wounds. It appears that there are no lengths they will go to to provoke, let alone prevent, a violent reaction. The best thing we can do is continually point out their incendiary language before someone puts real meaning into being “triggered”

    • They were pretty incompetent insurrectionists. They didn’t shoot anybody, threw no bombs, & didn’t even have torches. Their “destruction” seemed to be largely confined to a few windows, and their thefts to a laptop. Many looked to be standing around chatting with the guards when they should have been taking hostages and setting fires. They need to up their game if they even want to reach the standard of “mostly peaceful protesters” on the democrat scale.

Leave a Reply to Willem Reese Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.