In a recent interview with Rachel Maddow on the MSNBC network, Sen. Charles Schumer,
who is the Minority Leader in the U.S. Senate, recently hinted darkly
that the federal intelligence agencies could decide to harm Donald Trump. He
told an approving Maddow:
Let me tell you, you take on the
intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday to get back at you, So,
even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he is being really
dumb to do this.
The article continues:
Schumer said he didn’t know what agents
would or could do to Trump. “But from what I am told, they are very upset
with how he has treated them and talked about them,” he said.
The Left often likes to speak of “dog
whistles” put out by Republicans when they speak, leftists claiming what is
said seems to have one meaning, but actually, is said in order to “signal”
other groups covertly about what the politician really believes about a
certain subject. For example, if a Republican politician says he believes in
“states’ rights,” or a federal system of government in which individual states
have delegated powers not given to the federal government, the Left claims he
actually is letting white supremacists know that he supports oppression of
black people and wants whites to lynch blacks. It doesn’t matter that a federal
system which gives state governmental bodies the opportunity to resist federal
policies is a bulwark against tyranny. To oppose the federal government is to
endorse racist violence, period, according to the Left.
Except when Democrats look to resisting the
federal government. Interestingly, the Left is silent now that California and
other Democratic-run states are looking to resist federal policies, California
having gone as far as to hiring former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to
lead the state’s legal resistance. The irony of Democrats now appealing to
“states’ rights” is thick, to say the least.
(I would add that neither party actually
looks to “states’ rights” out of principle, but rather appeals to the doctrine
as a way of holding onto their own power. For example, Republicans seem eager
to enforce the federal prohibition of marijuana against states where pot is
legal, clearly ignoring any principles of federalism.)
The Left claims that an appeal to “states’
rights” is a “dog whistle,” something that only certain people can hear and
understand the actual meaning of the statement. However, it seems that
Democrats now are putting out “dog whistles” of their own. As I see it, Schumer
put out a “dog whistle” with his statements to Maddow, calling for the CIA at
least to politically harm Donald Trump, if not to assassinate him.
First, and most important, Schumer was
endorsing the intelligence agencies like the CIA and the NSA as “shadow
governments” of this country. If he did not approve of such “shadow government”
activities, it seems he would have stated his opposition emphatically. Notice
that he did NOT say: “Trump has decided to take on the intelligence agencies
and, in turn, they are going to try to undermine him. While I do not support
Trump, nonetheless, I believe the intelligence agencies are under the authority
of the President and Congress and I will not stand for those agencies to
subvert our constitutional system of government.”
Instead, his comments – and the look on his
face when he makes them – demonstrate that he approves of whatever the
CIA and NSA might do to Trump. He is not signaling alarm at the behavior of
agencies that supposedly are under authority; instead, he seems to relish the
prospects of the secret police doing away with the Democrats’ political
opposition.
Second – and I believe this to be
significant – not one prominent Democrat from President Obama on
down to members of Congress (and the media) has condemned Schumer’s remarks. We
are speaking of the same Democratic Party whose member Sen. Frank Church led
hearings in the mid-1970s into misconduct by U.S. intelligence agencies during
the Cold War. Forty years ago, Democrats wanted to limit the lawlessness of the
spy agencies; today, they wish to unleash them against an incoming president.
It is not hyperbole to say we are entering
dangerous times, and Schumer’s statements to an approving journalist are only
part of the peril. Not only do we have the government’s highest-ranking
Democrat “dog whistling” the CIA to kill the incoming president, but a number of protest groups that are tied to the
Democratic Party have sworn to violently shut down Trump’s scheduled
inauguration January 20.
There is no doubt that as these groups
attack the various security checkpoints (as they say they will be doing) that
they will come into contact with Trump supporters, and one has no doubt they
will do what they can to spring a reaction from people who actually are present
to attend the inauguration itself. If they can start fights and if even just
one of the Trump supporters fights back, then the activists will film the
confrontation and the media will cover the whole thing under the narrative of
“Violent Trump supporters attack peaceful demonstrators.”
Then there is the recent call by prominent Hollywood Democrat Rosie O’Donnell for President Obama to
impose martial law in order to prevent Trump’s inauguration.
Granted, there are plenty of us who think that O’Donnell doesn’t always play
with a full deck, but it still is significant because she does have an audience
and a lot of supporters in the Democratic Party. Again, I have read nothing in
opposition to her demands from any other Democrats, prominent or otherwise.
With Democrats like John Lewis openly
claiming that Trump was elected illegitimately and with the Democratic Party endorsing what clearly seems to be a
bogus report on Donald Trump’s supposed sexcapades in Moscow, we are
moving into new territory. Now, there is nothing wrong with political
resistance, and one wishes there were more of it in Washington, at least when
it comes to one party resisting harmful legislative and policy initiatives from
the other. However, what we are seeing is something different; the Democrats
are out of power and they are seeking help from the spy agencies to regain it,
not to mention openly endorsing violent demonstrations against someone duly elected
to office.
Even a month ago, I would not have believed
what I am about to write: The Democrats are looking to the CIA and NSA either
to kill Trump outright or to use their surveillance powers as well as their
abilities to create false stories in order to destroy the Trump presidency. For
that matter, the Democrat in office, Barack Obama, greatly expanded the
power of the spy agencies to engage in illegal espionage at home and abroad,
yet Democrats claimed that anyone that opposed unlawful spying was a racist,
since Obama is black. Democrats are endorsing violence to shut down the
presidential inauguration, and at least some want Obama to impose martial law,
which would mean they want a Democrat president to be an outright dictator.
Yes, that puts me into uncharted territory well beyond any of my intellectual
comfort zones.
Yet, it is not necessarily an
overly-suspicious mind that put me there, but rather unnerving statements from
elected Democrats, as well as their lack of opposition to Schumer’s outrageous
statements. Sen. Bob Casey from Pennsylvania recently declared that
supporting due process for people accused on college campuses of sexual assault
is a “radical view,” and Rep. Jared Polis of Colorado declared at a
Congressional hearing in 2015 – to enthusiastic applause – that any male
accused of sexual assault on a college campus should immediately be expelled
from that institution.
Granted, we are talking about due process
on college campuses, but it would not take long for the Democrats to find ways
to do away with due process standards (or at least seriously weaken them) in
criminal cases involving something as politically-charged as sexual assault. It
is clear to me that Democrats no longer support rule of law in at least some
circumstances, and since the party seems to be “jumping the shark” in other
things as well, I don’t think we are going to see Democrats turn back anytime
soon.
Whether or not one politically supports
Donald Trump, once the opposition party openly supports violent removal of him,
the game pretty much is over. The same political party that sought to limit the
powers of the spy agencies now openly calls for a government to be dominated by
what has become the secret police. Draw your own conclusions about where this
will lead.
William L. Anderson, Ph.D. [send him mail],
teaches economics at Frostburg State University in Maryland, and is an
associated scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He also is a
consultant with American Economic Services. Visit
his blog.