Affirming Democracy, Gathering Resistance

In his speech to the top officers of the United States military Donald Trump has crossed the line from reckless right-wing authoritarian politician to aspiring fascist dictator. Here are some crucial excerpts from Amy Wang’s reporting at the Washington Post.

In his speech to top military leaders, President Donald Trump escalated his rhetoric against the “radical left,” repeatedly calling the group “the enemy within” and insisting that he should be able to use military force in American cities.

“I told [Defense Secretary] Pete [Hegseth] we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military National Guard. But military, because we’re going into Chicago,” Trump said Tuesday at Quantico, referring to his efforts to deploy military to blue cities and states “to keep domestic order and peace.”

Though Trump has, in recent months, frequently attacked blue cities and states, it was the first time he directly addressed military leaders and told them they would be “a major part” of fighting a “war from within” in cities such as San Francisco, Chicago, New York and Los Angeles.

“We’ve brought back the fundamental principle that defending the homeland is the military’s first and most important priority. That’s what it is,” Trump said. “Only in recent decades that politicians somehow come to believe that our job is to police the far reaches of Kenya and Somalia, while America is under invasion from within. We’re under invasion from within. No different than a foreign enemy, but more difficult in many ways because they don’t wear uniforms — at least when they’re wearing a uniform, you can take them out. These people don’t have uniforms, but we are under invasion from within, and we’re stopping it very quickly.”

Dangerous cities … enemy within … invasion from within … demonization of the “radical left” … This is not the language of an American president who is committed to democracy, constitution, equal rights, and the rule of law. This is not the language of a president who respects the idea of a non-political military. It is not the language of a president who respects the rights of citizens to assemble, to protest, to express their values and their opposition in a peaceful manner. It is rather the language of a Mussolini in Italy, a Pinochet in Chile, or a Juan Carlos Ongania in Argentina in 1966.

And who is the “radical left” to whom Trump refers? It seems to be any person or group who disagrees with the MAGA agenda, who objects to Trump’s lawlessness, who rejects the racism and cruelty of his anti-immigration crusade — in short, anyone who is not MAGA. Are reporters next? What about critical bloggers and Youtube hosts or podcasters? What about leaders of civil rights organizations who object to the explicit racism of ICE profiling on the streets of Chicago or Los Angeles? And how about Democrat senators and congressmen and women who oppose Trump’s plans? Are these the “radical left” that Trump wants to wage war against? Is James Comey just the first high-profile persecution by Trump’s Department of Justice that we will see? Are we talking detention camps for liberals? Are we thinking of firing professors whose courses mention racism and slavery?

We have a constitution, and it is very clear about our fundamental rights — rights of freedom of speech, conscience, association, and habeas corpus, and yes, citizenship by birthright. The president demonstrates that he has no respect or adherence to the principles and values that are embodied in our constitution and our system of law.

The president’s threats about waging war against “internal enemies” and using the military to conduct such an assault should be the basis for impeachment. These threats demonstrate a fundamental disregard and disloyalty to our most basic principles of freedom and equality. This shouldn’t be a political party issue; it concerns the loyalty of the president to the constitution of the United States, and the oath he took when he assumed office. Articles of impeachment now!

[I sent this as a letter to Congresswoman Dingell as well.]