How can we take it back?

[ImaginaryBloke]

WikiLeaks Hints At Huge Upcoming Revelations: "2017 Will Blow You Away"


by Tyler Durden
Jan 3, 2017 9:30 AM

Ahead of Jullian Assange's interview tonight on Fox News with Sean Hannity, in which as we previewed last night the Wikileaks founder will again deny on the record that Russia was the source of hacked Democratic emails, stating that "our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party", Wikileaks decided to engage in some creative marketing and, on Monday afternoon promised that 2017 will be an even bigger year for leaks than 2016, which saw the whistleblowing site publish thousands of documents exposing the dirty laundry of the Clinton campaign, US political secrets, covert trade deals and private communications from global leaders.

[...]

2016 was another game-changing for the whistleblowing site, as it delivered a massive trove of documents over the 12-month period. These included over 50,000 emails from John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair and more than 27,000 emails from the Democratic National Committee, which confirmed the DNC worked against Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, favoring Clinton, and ultimately led to the resignation of then-DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

The emails relating to the US election rocked the Democratic establishment and delivered a blow to the Clinton campaign in the lead-up to the November election; according to many the Podesta revelations tipped the election against Hillary Clinton. The outcry against the the two sets of releases was so profound, it sparked a global diplomatic scandal between the US and Russia, and as a result of Obama administration accusations that the leaks were orchestrated by the Kremlin, the US expelled 35 Russian diplomats and seized two Russian compounds last week. Contrary to expectations, Putin refused to retaliate in tit-for-tat fashion, instead suggesting he is simply waiting for the arrival of the Trump administration to rebuild relations with the US.

Wikileaks also released more US State Department cables, as well as documents which gave an insight into the US arming of Yemen. Text from the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) was also revealed.

[...]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...-upcoming-revelations-2017-will-blow-you-away


This will be a good year. I am looking forward to it.

 

[brightmoon]

First and foremost, WikiLeaks—citizens of the world that they are—never seem able to leak anything damaging to the interests of the Russians. They likewise avoid antagonizing the Chinese or any other autocratic regime that might take umbrage or engage in retaliation. Almost every leak of any consequence is aimed squarely at the United States and its allies, and never as assistance to noble activists anywhere else.

Strange thing isn't it?

http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/09/julian-assange-is-a-russian-front-man-not-a-freedom-fighter/

 

[Skarekrow]

First and foremost, WikiLeaks—citizens of the world that they are—never seem able to leak anything damaging to the interests of the Russians. They likewise avoid antagonizing the Chinese or any other autocratic regime that might take umbrage or engage in retaliation. Almost every leak of any consequence is aimed squarely at the United States and its allies, and never as assistance to noble activists anywhere else.

Strange thing isn't it?

http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/09/julian-assange-is-a-russian-front-man-not-a-freedom-fighter/

It’s kind of like “Anonymous”...fucking hack Wall St. then you posers...hack Sallie Mae and wipe out student loans...hack the Congress and show us who's hands are the dirtiest.
It’s seeming to be more and more all a bunch of BS talk and misdirection.

 

[Skarekrow]

I love how the Republicans chose to make their first order of business after being sworn in - to defund the independent congressional ethics committee.
Even Trump was like - What the fuck guys?
Draining the swamp my ass.
You all got swindled.

 

[Skarekrow]

It’s going to be interesting to see a president whom the majority of the population did not vote for, but instead won via an electoral college chess game.
Who is he going to represent?
Imho, it’s all part of the long-game of dumbing down America...the dumber you are, the easier to control you are.
Just like his appointment to head up Education...wants to privatize it...but most of her charter schools in her state consistently have lower test scores than their public counterparts.
Come on people...where is the push-back?
Still no tax returns...still no blind trust...all the shit he sold the voters on he is going back on - he sold you like a $2 whore.

Trump's approval rating is the lowest of any incoming president in nearly 25 years
http://www.businessinsider.com/trumps-approval-rating-lowest-of-last-3-incoming-presidents-2016-12​

 

[Skarekrow]

 

[Skarekrow]

 

[Skarekrow]

Why is this such a hard concept for people to grasp?
Assclowns.
Instead...let’s fight against raising the minimum wage...
then you bitch and moan about how many people need food stamps to feed themselves and their families, and how we need to cut funding for the most vulnerable - once again.

 

[Skarekrow]

 

[Skarekrow]

Most “civilized” nations, and some not so civilized don’t even have 210 shootings in a year.
Go America!!!
USA...USA...USA!!!

 

[Skarekrow]

 

[Skarekrow]

 

[Skarekrow]

 

[the]

I suppose this is true, in as much as it is true for everyone. However I question the truth of that commercial since I think it is unlikely that a teacher could do a second job. Reason being they supposedly do so much work outside of the classroom.

 

[Skarekrow]

I suppose this is true, in as much as it is true for everyone. However I question the truth of that commercial since I think it is unlikely that a teacher could do a second job. Reason being they supposedly do so much work outside of the classroom.

I was married to a HS teacher, and Sensiko used to teach 1st grade in Los Angeles for quite a few years, they do an excessive amount of work off the clock.
And in many cases, supplies were purchased out of pocket with no reimbursement.
If we want a nation of morons then let’s keep crushing the passion of new teachers...at least that statistic has improved from the 2003 big study where half of all new teachers quit in their first 5 years.
It’s like 17% or something now.
But I think that is probably due to the lack of other jobs available to someone who specifically went to college to become a teacher...IMHO they are not quitting because there is nothing to fall back on...the economy is too tentative and job market sucks right now.
Now we have this Trump appointee who wants to turn all schools into a voucher system, i.e. privatizing it for money.
If you look at the statistics in her state where she ran most of her schools, their test scores are consistently lower than their public counterparts.
And here is the thing...they say you can take the voucher to go to “any” school you want your kids to attend.
But many of these voucher magnet schools cost more than the vouchers cover...so we are moving toward a system where we are now going to have to pay tuition for basic Elementary School through HS.
What the fuck are our taxes even being spent on?
War.

This is just the beginning of the grand gouging and rape of the US middle/working class on down as college is unaffordable, jobs are not there for new grads anyhow...and it isn’t because they picked the wrong major.
Heath care is unaffordable.
Education is as well.
It’s not just teachers, but nurses, flight attendants, fast food workers, etc.
We shouldn’t have to have both husband and wife working full-time +, then having to take an extra job just to pay for rent and food.
And let’s not forget our wonderful system of all work and no vacation...no sick days...not even a full month for maternity leave (unpaid in most cases).
Then you gotta pay childcare, which is about the same people pay for rent or their mortgage every month.
And it just keeps getting more and more expensive...everything...Trump isn’t going to fix this...he benefits from the population being gouged.
Take the cost of living increase that Congress gave people on Social Security for 2017...because they didn’t even get one in 2016...so they decided to be generous I suppose and gave a whopping 0.3% raise.
Fuck those assholes...they raise their salaries and get kick-backs constantly.
We’re Serfs.
Welcome to serfdom.

 

[Skarekrow]

Apparently, this site doesn’t like their material copied and shared...but I’m sure you can read through the strike-through lines...or just go to the site itself here :
http://www.mediamatters.org/research/2017/01/20/media-should-report-president-trump-violating-constitution-and-its-impeachable-offense/215063


Media Should Report That President Trump Is Violating The Constitution
And It's An Impeachable Offense
​

According to experts, President Donald Trump’s continued ownership interest in the Trump Organization means that he is in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, which prohibits the president from personally benefiting from actions taken by foreign governments and their agents. Will media hold Trump accountable for this impeachable offense or will they normalize his flagrant violation of the supreme law of the land?

• The U.S. Constitution’s Emoluments Clause Prohibits The President From Financially Benefiting From Actions Taken By Foreign Governments
• Experts Say Trump Must Fully Divest From His Business Interests To Avoid Violating The Emoluments Clause
• Experts Say The Business Plan Trump Announced Places Him In Violation Of The Emoluments Clause The Moment He Is Sworn Into Office
• The Media “Might Just Be Our Last, Best Hope To Stop The President From Becoming The World’s Most Popular Business Partner” And Running “Roughshod Over The Constitution”

1/19/17]

Merriam Webster Definition Of Emolument: “The Returns Arising From Office Or Employment Usually In The Form Of Compensation Or Perquisites.” [Merriam Webster, accessed 1/19/17]

Legal Ethics Experts: “The Best Reading Of The Clause Covers Even Ordinary, Fair Market Value Transactions That Result In Any Economic Profit Or Benefit To The Federal Officeholder.” The clause does not just cover “sweetheart deal” because “emoluments are properly defined as including ‘profit’ from any employment, as well as ‘salary,” meaning “it is clear that even remuneration fairly earned in commerce can qualify,” according to an analysis published by the Brookings Institute. It was authored by legal ethics experts Norman Eisen, a former Obama administration ethics attorney and current chair of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington; Richard Painter, a former Bush administration ethics attorney and current vice chair of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington; and Laurence Tribe, a leading expert on constitutional law and professor at Harvard University Law School. [Brookings Institute, 12/16/16]

Violating The Emoluments Clause Is An Impeachable Offense. During the 1788 Virginia Ratifying Convention, Virginia Gov. Edmund Jennings Randolph, who later served as the United States’ first attorney general, said of a president who violates the clause, “If discovered he may be impeached”:

Virginia Governor Edmund Jennings Randolph addressed the issue directly during a Constitutional debate in June 1788, noting that a violation of the provision by the President would be grounds for impeachment. (Randolph was also a delegate to the Constitutional Convention.)

There is another provision against the danger mentioned by the honorable member, of the president receiving emoluments from foreign powers. If discovered he may be impeached. If he be not impeached he may be displaced at the end of the four years. By the ninth section, of the first article, “No person holding an office of profit or trust, shall accept of any present or emolument whatever, from any foreign power, without the consent of the representatives of the people” … I consider, therefore, that he is restrained from receiving any present or emoluments whatever. It is impossible to guard better against corruption.” [ThinkProgress, 11/25/16]

The Framers Even Considered A Constitutional Amendment Mandating Loss Of Citizenship For Violators Of The Clause. Eisen, Painter, and Tribe explained in their Brookings report that “the Clause was seen as so important that the Eleventh Congress considered, as a proposed Thirteenth Amendment, a provision stating that a person would lose his or her citizenship by accepting an office or emolument from a foreign power” (citations removed):

More than any other constitutional provision, the Emoluments Clause reflects the Framers’ determined effort to ensure that no federal officeholder in the United States ever could be influenced by gifts of any kind from a foreign government. Indeed, the Clause was seen as so important that the Eleventh Congress considered, as a proposed Thirteenth Amendment, a provision stating that a person would lose his or her citizenship by accepting an office or emolument from a foreign power. The proposed amendment was, in a modified form, accepted by both Houses, and subsequently obtained the approval of all but one of the requisite number of States. The leading explanation for why this proposed amendment failed is that it was seen as unnecessary, given existing protections. [Brookings Institute, 12/16/16]

The Clause Doesn’t Just Prohibit Direct Payments From Foreign Governments, But Also Prohibits Receiving Emoluments From A Government’s Agents And Instrumentalities. Citing memoranda issued by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), the federal office that “provides authoritative legal advice to the President and all the Executive Branch agencies,” the Brookings report concludes that “it is settled that the Emoluments Clause reaches not only ‘foreign State,’ but also their agents and instrumentalities,” including “corporations owned or controlled by a foreign government”:

A final question concerns the meaning of “King, Prince, or foreign State.” There is a substantial body of OLC precedent addressing this question, which usefully catalogues the factors relevant to determining whether an actor qualifies as a “foreign State”:

[T]he factors we have considered in conducting such an assessment include whether a foreign government has an active role in the management of the decisionmaking entity; whether a foreign government, as opposed to a private intermediary, makes the ultimate decision regarding the gift or emolument; and whether a foreign government is a substantial source of funding for the entity. No one of these factors has been dispositive. We have looked to them in combination to assess the status of the decisionmaking entity for purposes of the Clause, keeping in mind the underlying purpose that the Clause serves.

[...]

In all circumstances, however, it is settled that the Emoluments Clause reaches not only “foreign State,” but also their agents and instrumentalities. Accordingly, and as is most relevant here, OLC has determined that “corporations owned or controlled by a foreign government are presumptively foreign states under the Emoluments Clause.” [Brookings Institute, 12/16/16, Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel, accessed 1/19/17]

12/16/16]

NY Times: According To Eisen And Painter, “Every President In The Past Four Decades … Has Taken Personal Holdings He Had Before Being Elected And Put Them Into A Blind Trust In Which The Assets Were Controlled By An Independent Party.” [The New York Times, 11/30/16]

1/11/17; CNN Money, 1/11/17; The New York Times, 1/12/17]

Government Ethics Expert Kathleen Clark: Under Plan, Trump “Will Receive Money From Foreign Governments, That Is What’s Prohibited.” In an interview with Media Matters, Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University School of Law, and legal ethics expert, raised the Emoluments Clause in criticizing Trump’s business plan as “prohibited”:

Kathleen Clark, a Washington University School of Law professor and government ethics expert, said Trump needs to “remove not just his management activities, but remove himself from having a financial interest in the firm. He’s retaining a financial interest in the company -- that hasn’t changed.

“He’ll still be financially benefiting from them. I didn’t see any indication that he is giving up an ownership interest at all.”

She added: “There is the conflict of interest concern, an ethical concern even though the Congress has exempted the president from the conflict. But he will be in a position where he can use government office to enrich The Trump Organization and enrich himself.”

She also cited the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution that bars federal officeholders from profiting from foreign governments or their agents: “The problem is that The Trump Organization and Donald Trump will receive and he will receive money from foreign governments, that is what’s prohibited. He says he will donate the profits, the Emoluments Clause is concerned with payments, not just profits. Who gets to define what the profits are?” [Media Matters, 1/11/17; Washington University School of Law, accessed 1/18/17]

Eisen To NY Times: Trump’s Plan Is Not “Sufficient To Cure His Emoluments Problem.” Addressing the claim at Trump’s press conference that foreign government profits his hotel receives will be donated to the Department of Treasury, Eisen told The New York Times, “It is not my view, nor the view of any of the bipartisan experts that have spoken out today, that the announced Trump plan is sufficient to cure his emoluments problem”:

“It is not my view, nor the view of any of the bipartisan experts that have spoken out today, that the announced Trump plan is sufficient to cure his emoluments problem. Even if it were possible to peal out the profits only from the hotel, the emoluments clause is not written to say that all emoluments are permitted except for Trump hotel profits.” [The New York Times, 1/12/17]

Painter To NY Times: “These Emoluments, These Payments From Foreign Governments, Have To Be Out Of The Trump Business Empire On Jan. 20 Or He Will Be In Violation Of The Law.” Painter indicated that Trump’s plan as a whole will violate the Emoluments Clause unless it is modified before Trump takes office:

“The plan we heard today does not comply with the law. He is not in violation of the law as of today, but he has nine days to fix it. And these emoluments, these payments from foreign governments, have to be out of the Trump business empire on Jan. 20 or he will be in violation of the law. It is not an obscure provision of the Constitution. It was intended to preserve the independence of the United States from foreign powers meddling in our system.” [The New York Times, 1/12/17]

Tribe To LawNewz: “The Whole Phony Setup Would Make President Trump A Living, Walking, Talking, Tweeting Violation Of The Emoluments Clause.” Tribe told LawNewz that Trump’s plan would violate the Emoluments Clause because foreign governments would still have myriad ways to enrich the Trump Organization, and Trump is retaining an ownership interest in the organization:

Prof. Tribe called the Trump “scheme” simply a “deceptive web of mumbo-jumbo rather than a serious way to comply with his constitutional oath.”

The Prof. also addressed the Emoluments Clause criticisms directly, saying that it is important to “stress that the ‘ethics officer’ [Trump] proposes to install wouldn’t have true independence, and anyway it’s not only that particular transactions would be unethical; it’s that the whole phony setup would make President Trump a living, walking, talking, tweeting violation of the Emoluments Clause each time banks or funds linked to foreign sovereigns are allowed to take steps that Trump will necessarily know are enriching the total value of his family’s mega-business.” [LawNewz, 1/11/17]

Attorney Joshua Matz: Trump’s Plan Means He “Will Remain In Violation Of The Emoluments Clause.” Matz, a former U.S. Supreme Court clerk and current appellate litigator, explained in The Guardian that Trump’s “continued ownership interest in the Trump Organization” and that fact that Trump “generally will know exactly what assets the company holds and how they will be helped or hindered by his actions” means that foreign powers “will act with awareness (or at least suspicion) that benefits conferred on Trump enterprises – if not in the form of deals, then in a thousand other forms – may elicit favor or wrath from President Trump.” According to Matz, “[f]or these and other reasons, Trump will remain in violation of the emoluments clause even if he adheres to this plan”:

But Trump’s new plan falls woefully short. His continued ownership interest in the Trump Organization will keep his financial welfare tied to the business. And nobody seriously believes that the affairs of the company will truly become mysterious to Trump.

To the contrary, he generally will know exactly what assets the company holds and how they will be helped or hindered by his actions. Foreign powers, too, will act with awareness (or at least suspicion) that benefits conferred on Trump enterprises – if not in the form of deals, then in a thousand other forms – may elicit favor or wrath from President Trump.

Notably, the Trump Organization simply cannot turn over to the US treasury all profit from interactions with foreign powers. For example, consider the significant benefit conferred by a foreign state that decides to host a series of widely advertised functions at a local Trump hotel, greatly increasing the property’s cultural cachet and thus markedly boosting its profit margins and those of other properties branded “Trump”.

For these and other reasons, Trump will remain in violation of the emoluments clause even if he adheres to this plan. While his lawyer denied that the clause applies to “fair value exchanges” – presumably as distinguished from sweetheart deals – that conclusion defies common sense. [The Guardian, 1/12/17]

Eisen, Painter, Tribe, And Matz: Post-Press Conference Memo Issued By Trump’s Lawyers Does Not Rectify His Violation Of The Emoluments Clause. In an Atlantic article, Eisen, Painter, Tribe, and Matz analyze the three-page memo released by Trump’s law firm after the press conference, finding that its argument is based on the “proposition that the president may engage in arms-length, fair-market-value exchanges with foreign powers--on the theory that the phrase ‘emolument’ covers only ‘payment or other benefit received as a consequence of discharging the duties of an office,’” ” which they say is “wrong on its merits” and doesn’t account for other ways he will violate the clause:

Several hours later, the law firm Morgan Lewis issued a memo entitled “Conflicts of Interest and the President.” In three short pages, this memo outlined why Trump’s plan purportedly complies with the Foreign Emoluments Clause.

First, it’s worth noting a critical concession in the memo. While some commentators have taken the extreme view that the emoluments clause doesn’t apply to the president—a claim that doesn’t withstand scrutiny—Trump’s lawyers did not rely on that position. In fact, they squarely rejected it, stating that the president’s “obligations under the Constitution” include “the obligations created by the … Foreign Emoluments Clause.”

From this promising start, however, the memo goes badly awry. It bases its defense of Trump exclusively on the proposition that the president may engage in arms-length, fair-market-value exchanges with foreign powers—on the theory that the phrase “emolument” covers only “payment or other benefit received as a consequence of discharging the duties of an office.”

There are two specific problems with this defense: First, it utterly fails to account for the many other ways in which Trump will still violate the foreign emoluments clause; and second, it is wrong on its merits. [The Atlantic, 1/18/17]

Law Professor Steven Schooner: Trump Plan Doesn’t Address “The Concern Of The Drafters Of The Constitution.” George Washington University Law School professor Steven Schooner told Media Mattersreporter Joe Strupp in an interview that “so long as foreign states, lobbyists and special interest groups have reason to believe that spending money at Trump properties curries favor with the president, then the concern of the drafters of the Constitution and the underlying justification for the government’s conflict of interest prohibitions remains”:

The only thing that we’ve heard is that he is planning on turning over his business operations to his sons. He has not addressed ownership, which is the key conflict. Whether or not the hotel makes a profit based on a foreign guest is not the issue. The concern is whether foreign governments, lobbyists, and special interest groups are willing to lavishly spend their money and pay premium prices for events, food, drink and possibly stays at Trump hotels because the president appreciates their patronage. So long as foreign states, lobbyists and special interest groups have reason to believe that spending money at Trump properties curries favor with the president, then the concern of the drafters of the Constitution and the underlying justification for the government’s conflict of interest prohibitions remains. [Comments to Media Matters, 1/19/17]

Law Professor Jay Wexler: Trump Plan “Doesn’t Solve The Problem At All.” Boston University School of Law professor Jay Wexler told Media Matters’ Strupp that “the question is whether [Trump] might be influenced in his actions as president by the fact that some foreign country might do something that would economically benefit him.” He added that “if he stands to financially benefit in anyway from the arrangement, then he is always at risk that foreign governments take some action to favor his business in order to influence his policy decisions to benefit a foreign nation. That is the whole point of the Emoluments Clause. This doesn’t solve the problem at all.” [Comments to Media Matters, 1/19/17]

Emoluments Clause Expert Zephyr Teachout: “Every President Has Gone Out Of His Way To Not Even Come Close To The Emoluments Clause. This Is A Pretty Direct Violation.” Zephyr Teachout, an associate law professor at Fordham University and author of Corruption in America: From Benjamin Franklin's Snuff Box to Citizens United, told Media Matters that Trump’s plan is “a pretty direct violation” of the clause:

The basic issue is he still owns the company, the emoluments clause says you can’t take payments from foreign countries. An emolument is a payment. … The reason is pretty clear because the framers were pretty worried about foreign governments using gifts and payments to influence foreign policy. ...Every president has gone out of his way to not even come close to the emoluments clause, this is a pretty direct violation. [Comments to Media Matters, 1/19/17]

1/15/17]
The Media “Might Just Be Our Last, Best Hope To Stop The President From Becoming The World’s Most Popular Business Partner” And Running “Roughshod Over The Constitution”
Huff Post.: The Press “Might Just Be Our Last, Best Hope To Stop The President From Becoming The World’s Most Popular Business Partner.” In an article previewing Trump’s Emoluments Clause violations and other instances of conflicts of interest, Huffington Post media writer Jason Linkins and White House reporter Christina Wilkie described how media scrutiny contributed to the cancelation of two deals where Trump could have profited from a foreign government. But they warned, “But if reporters are the last, best hope, we’ve got to do a much better job than we’ve been doing these past few weeks. Case in point: Given the opportunity to probe the president-elect and his attorney on foreign business dealings at this week’s press conference, only one reporter opted to do so, weakly inquiring, ‘What is your response to your critics who say not only you, but also your Cabinet is filled with conflicts of interest?’”:

Despite what you’ve just read, all is not lost. There is one more avenue of influence that could be exerted over the incoming president and his future foreign business partners: Public pressure from public exposure. That’s right, folks, the crooked media with its fake news and its rude questions might just be our last, best hope to stop the president from becoming the world’s most popular business partner.

Indeed, two such projects have already fallen victim to the hot glare of investigative reporting: The first was a Trump-branded resort on the Black Sea in Batumi, Georgia. The second was a Trump-branded office tower in Buenos Aires. Both of these developments were briefly revived in the weeks after the election — but have since been canceled.

In all likelihood, the media attention on strained U.S. relations with the countries where these deals were situated likely played a role in killing them.

But if reporters are the last, best hope, we’ve got to do a much better job than we’ve been doing these past few weeks. Case in point: Given the opportunity to probe the president-elect and his attorney on foreign business dealings at this week’s press conference, only one reporter opted to do so, weakly inquiring, “What is your response to your critics who say not only you, but also your Cabinet is filled with conflicts of interest?”

If that’s the best the media can do, then Trump and his family are poised to make billions of dollars by running roughshod over the Constitution. [The Huffington Post, 1/15/17]

 

[Skarekrow]

 

[Skarekrow]

Dan Rather
January 20 at 9:27am ·

And so it begins.​

Of the nearly 20 inaugurations I can remember, there has never been one that felt like today.
Not even close.

Never mind the question of the small size of the crowds, or the boycott by dozens of lawmakers, or even the protest marches slated for tomorrow across the country.

Those are plays upon the stage.
What is truly unprecedented in my mind is the sheer magnitude of quickening heartbeats in millions of Americans, a majority of our country if the polls are to be believed, that face today buffeted within and without by the simmering ache of dread.

I have never seen my country on an inauguration day so divided, so anxious, so fearful, so uncertain of its course.
I have never seen a transition so divisive with cabinet picks so encumbered by serious questions of qualifications and ethics.

I have never seen the specter of a foreign foe cast such a dark shadow over the workings of our democracy.
I have never seen an incoming president so preoccupied with responding to the understandable vagaries of dissent and seemingly unwilling to contend with the full weight and responsibilities of the most powerful job in the world.

I have never seen such a tangled web of conflicting interests.

Despite the pageantry of unity on display at the Capitol today, there is a piercing sense that we are entering a chapter in our nation's evolving story unlike one ever yet written.

To be sure, there are millions of Donald Trump supporters who are euphoric with their candidate's rise.
Other Trump voters have expressed reservations, having preferred his bluster to his rival's perceived shortcomings in the last election, but admitting more and more that they are not sure what kind of man they bestowed the keys to the presidency.

The rest of America - the majority of voters - would not be - and indeed is not - hesitant in sharing its conclusions on the character and fitness of Donald Trump for the office he now holds.

The hope one hears from even some of Donald Trump's critics is that this moment might change him.
Perhaps, as he stood there on a grey, drab, January day, reciting the solemn oath of office demanded by our Constitution, as he looked out across what Charles Dickens once called the "city of magnificent intentions", he would somehow grasp the importance of what he was undertaking.

Perhaps he would understand that he must be the president of all the United States, in action as well as in word.
Perhaps, but there has already been so much past that is prologue.

There is usually much fanfare around inaugural addresses.
They are also usually forgotten - with some notable exceptions.

I think today will be remembered, not so much for the rhetoric or the turns of phrase but for the man who delivered them and the era they usher us forth.

Mr. Trump's delivery was staccato and there was very little eye contact as he seemed to be reading carefully from a teleprompter.
His words and tone were angry and defiant.

He is still in campaign mode and nary a whiff of a unifying spirit.
There was little or nothing of uplift - the rhetoric of Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy, or Reagan.

We heard a cavalcade of slogans and one liners, of huge promises to "bring back" an America - whatever that really means to many who look at our history and see progress in our current society.

The speech started with a message of an establishment in Washington earning riches on the back of struggling families across the country.
It was an odd note, considering the background of many of his cabinet picks.

President Trump painted a very dark picture of the current state of our nation, beset by gangs and drugs and violence, regardless of what the data shows. His words swelled with his economic populism and the nationalism of "America first.”

The applause was sparse, and I imagine many more being turned off, even sickened, rather than inspired by what our new President had to say.

President Obama looked on with an opaque poker face.
One could only imagine what he was thinking.

It bears remembering that one never can predict the arc of a presidency.
It is an office that is far too often shaped by circumstance well beyond its occupant's control.

Those challenges, wherever and however they may rise, now will fall on the desk of President Trump.
We can only see what will happen.

We hope, for the security and sanctity of our Republic, that Mr. Trump will respond to the challenges with circumspection and wisdom.
Today's rhetoric was not reassuring.

Our democracy demands debate and dissent - fierce, sustained, and unflinching when necessary.
I sense that tide is rising amongst an opposition eager to toss aside passivity for action.

We are already seeing a more emboldened Democratic party than I have witnessed in ages.
It is being fueled by a fervent energy bubbling from the grassroots up, rather than the top down.

These are the swirling currents about our ship of state.
We now have a new and untested captain.

His power is immense, but it is not bestowed from a divinity on high.
It is derived, as the saying goes, from the consent of the governed.

That means President Trump now works for us - all of us.
And if he forgets that, it will be our duty to remind him.

 

[Skarekrow]

When exactly is this pipe dream going to happen?

 

[Skarekrow]