Professor’s Op-Ed Calls For Unity Against Trump Campaign

By Nikitha B. Reddy, CONTRIBUTING WRITER February 24, 2016

Danielle S. Allen, a Government professor and director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, called on Americans across the political spectrum to organize against businessman Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign in a Sunday op-ed that has generated widespread reaction.

Allen said she found the need to write the op-ed for The Washington Post after Trump’s victory in Saturday’s Republican primary in South Carolina. Describing the primary as a “turning point,” Allen wrote in the piece that voters should recognize that there is not much time left to change the outcome of the Republican presidential nomination contest.

In the op-ed, which now has over 5000 online comments, Allen examined the dangers she perceived in Trump’s rise to political prominence, which she believes is a product of growing divisions in the United States. Instead of choosing not to challenge Trump, Americans must support “coordination across party lines and across divisions within parties,” Allen wrote.

“We, the people, need to find somewhere, buried in the recesses of our fading memories, the capacity to make common cause against this formidable threat to our equally shared liberties,” she wrote. “The time is now.”

Allen said she has received a wide range of opinions in response to her article, from the candidate’s supporters as well as his critics.

She wrote in her piece that Trump’s popularity has allowed her to understand how Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler was able to take control of Germany in the early 1930s. In an interview, Allen said she is not focused on exploring the direct comparison between Hitler and Trump, a point she also made in her op-ed.

“The fact that particular historical moments can teach us things that help us understand different moments doesn’t mean that there is a straight comparison between them,” she said. “The thing that requires comparison is the question of when and how do demagogues acquire power. That’s what is the relevant comparison.”

History professor Charles S. Maier ’60, a specialist in German history and former Crimson editorial chair, said the underlying question in Allen’s op-ed was over whether divisions in the United States today mirror those of the Weimar Republic, the democratic German state that preceded the Nazi regime.

While Maier said he does not believe the comparison is accurate, he said the rhetoric Trump uses is pervasive in Western politics.

“There are candidates who appeal to this sort of populism, anti-foreign impulse of feeling that their governments are too remote and don’t care about them,” he said. “That is a widespread feeling throughout western Europe and the United States, and I think in that sense it produces ugly responses that stigmatize foreigners.”

Danielle S. Allen: Of The Democratic National Committee (DNC)

Allen: The sacrifices of soldiers are important, should not be forgotten, and deserve honor. We don’t even need the lesson of current events to know that. As a society we have well-developed habits and practices for honoring soldiers, firefighters, and police officers. We may not do all we should, but we do expect to build monuments to their heroism and to read their names out one by one.

We are not, however, very good at seeing some mundane sacrifices, and we certainly don’t honor them. Our economic policies ask all kinds of sacrifices of citizens, which we only nervously acknowledge. When the Federal Reserve decided to increase interest rates in the spring of 2000 to slow down an “overheated” economy, its members expected that their actions would, among other things, generate new unemployment. Now, we may all be comfortable with the notion that slowing the economy and generating some unemployment is good for everyone, even for those who will now find themselves unemployed—even the newly unemployed may accept the macroeconomic arguments justifying the policy—but this does not diminish the pain or difficulty that the newly unemployed may experience. That they endure it and persevere in seeking jobs and abiding by the law is also a sacrifice.

Or let me offer an example that’s closer to my own home. In the 1950s and ’60s the administration of the University of Chicago was worried that the increasing poverty of the South Side Chicago neighborhood, which had recently evolved into a primarily African-American area, would scare parents and cut into student enrollments dramatically enough to endanger the future of the university. The administration considered moving the university out of Chicago. Instead, it launched an aggressive policy of urban renewal to secure an upper-income, mixed-race neighborhood for itself in its own immediate vicinity. The project displaced at least 3,500 lower-income families, both black and white.

http://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/014665in.html

By: Diana Schaub, Danielle Allen
July 16, 2015

In the Winter 2014/15 CRB, Diana Schaub reviewed Our Declaration: A Reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality, by Danielle Allen. We’re very pleased to have them discuss here the questions raised by the book and review. Danielle S. Allen, the author of three books prior to Our Declaration, is the UPS Foundation Professor in School of Social Science at the Institute for Advanced Study. Diana Schaub, a frequent contributor to CRB and other journals, is a professor of political science at Loyola University Maryland, and a member of the Hoover Institution’s Jill and Boyd Smith Task Force on the Virtues of a Free Society.

http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/a-crb-discussion-of-self-gov...

 This is not what the Deceleration Of Independence, was about in part, it was in fact a Declaration Of War, against British Taxes against the New Colony Of America.

 Danielle S. Allen- Democratic Party: https://www.google.com/search?q=Danielle+S.+Allen-+Democratic+Party...

 Is there a conspiracy to mislead the true foundation of the Declaration Of Independence ?  Was there a conspiracy to debunk the Preambles of the Declaration Of Independence, because of what John Adams stated against King Of England ?

 It all started here, with our investigations.

Unique Copy of Declaration of Independence Turns Up In London

The Sussex Declaration of Independence Update

Sussex: Declaration of Independence Of The United States of America

The Unanimous Declaration Of The Thirteen United States Of America:...

Professor Danielle Allen Emily Sneff of The West Sussex Record Offi...

Harvard University Unsullied by Falsehood: The Signing Of The Decla...

"The Unanimous Declaration Of The Thirteen States Of America July 4, 1776 " by William Floyd  a official Preamble of our Founding Fathers.

Views: 66

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Burn it !!!

Allen said she found the need to write the op-ed for The Washington Post...

This by itself puts her in the class of counterfeit.

She twists truth every way to Sunday to sucker people just like counterfeit money.

Her words my sound pleasant enough but inside she is blacker than coal.

This is demonic garbage.

Be wise and do not get fooled by her type.

Hi Gregory,

 Thats what I have been trying to say, she debunked Preambles to the Declaration Of Independence, and as well as the Declaration Of Independence.

 Kind of weird hu ?????

Not weird---pure evil.

Danielle S. Allen is misguided as being delusional. All DEMs are. Trump's rise was not because of the identity divisions created by Barack Obama and the devious DEMs. Trump got elected to reverse the course that Mao Marxist (Obama) put this country on - against their will of the people.

With that, to Ms. Allen I ask, who really cares what you think. You are in the minority.

I recommend for you to simply accept the results as we did for eight miserable years. ....or go just away. America has more than enough misguided malcontents and there isn't a need for any more.

LOVE that sign.

I'm stealing it!!!

Hi,

 Everything is ok, a large group of people took serous interest in what we exposed, a basic way to undo these issues.

 A posting will be shared here, what you all decided to do with the information, will be up to you. I know most do not understand yet, but, this is all I can say for now.

LOL Tif

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

ALERT ALERT

Newt Says What The Rest Of Us Are Thinking:
It’s Time To Throw Peter Strzok In Jail

Disgraced FBI special agent Peter Strzok, a senior member of the bureau who gained notoriety in recent months over his anti-Trump text messages to a colleague, was grilled for nearly 10 hours during a joint congressional committee hearing on Thursday.

At issue was Strzok’s anti-Trump texts to former FBI lawyer and lover Lisa Page that coincided with his leading of the investigations into both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal and the alleged Trump/Russia 2016 election collusion, as well as his involvement in the subsequent Robert Mueller special counsel probe.

The hearing proved to be a heated battle, as Strzok displayed an arrogant smugness in defiance of pointed questions from Republicans that he largely danced around, while Democrats sought to upend and undermine the entire hearing with a plethora of interruptions, parliamentary maneuvers and outright praise for the man who helped let Clinton off the hook while ferociously targeting Trump.

Former House speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was less than impressed with Strzok’s performance and cooperation in the hearing and suggested during an appearance on Fox Business that the FBI agent should be held in contempt of Congress.

“I think they have to move to hold him in contempt and throw him in jail,” Gingrich said of Congress and Strzok.

“This is a person who is willfully standing up and refusing to appear as a congressional witness and he was a government employee at the time,” he continued.

“He has every obligation to inform the legislative branch, and I don’t think they have any choice except to move a motion of contempt because he is fundamentally — and so is his girlfriend (Page) — they’re both fundamentally in violation of the entire constitutional process,” he added.

Page had been subpoenaed to appear before Congress on Wednesday but refused to appear, saying she’d been unable to review relevant documents prior to the scheduled hearing, a closed-door hearing that has since been rescheduled for Friday.

Gingrich was not the only one who thought Strzok deserved to be held in contempt of Congress, as House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte informed Strzok that he remained at risk of such during the hearing, according to The Daily Caller.

That warning from Goodlatte came after Strzok had refused to answer a straightforward question posed by House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, regarding how many people Strzok had personally interviewed between a specific set of dates in relation to the Clinton email investigation.

“Mr. Strzok, please be advised that you can either comply with the committee’s direction to answer the question or refuse to do so,” Goodlatte stated. “The latter of which will place you in risk of a contempt citation and potential criminal liability. Do you understand that? The question is directed to the witness.”

Strzok still refused to answer, citing instructions received from his counsel and the FBI to not answer certain questions on certain topics.

Goodlatte replied, “Mr. Strzok, in a moment we will continue with the hearing, but based on your refusal to answer the question, at the conclusion of the day we will be recessing the hearing and you will be subject to recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation.”

It is unclear if Goodlatte and the committee ultimately did consider a contempt citation for Strzok following the contentious hearing, nor is it clear if Page will be held in contempt for blowing off her subpoenaed appearance on Wednesday.

Hopefully Congress will follow through on the threats of contempt followed by actual jail time against Strzok and Page in response to their uncooperative behavior and failure to appear when subpoenaed, if only to ensure that future witnesses called before Congress for sensitive or contentious hearings don’t think they can get away with the same sort of behavior.

TEA PARTY TARGET

Cops Sent To Seize Veteran’s Guns Without A Warrant, He Refused To Turn Them Over

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” says Leonard Cottrell, after successfully staving off law enforcement and the courts from confiscating his firearms. Cottrell, an Iraq War veteran, was at work when he received a phone call from his wife. The cops were there, busting in to take his guns away. It all started after a casual conversation his son had at school.

Ammoland reports:

Police said their visit was sparked by a conversation that Leonard Cottrell Jr.’s 13-year-old son had had with another student at the school. Cottrell said he was told his son and the other student were discussing security being lax and what they would have to do to escape a school shooting at Millstone Middle School.

The conversation was overheard by another student, who went home and told his parents, and his mother panicked. The mom then contacted the school, which contacted the State Police, according to Cottrell.

The visit from the troopers came around 10 p.m. on June 14, 2018, Cottrell said, a day after Gov. Phil Murphy signed several gun enforcement bills into law.

After several hours, Cottrell said police agreed not to take the guns but to allow him to move them to another location while the investigation continued.

“They had admitted several times that my son made no threat to himself or other students or the school or anything like that,” he said.

Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was “not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing.”

The troopers searched his son’s room and found nothing, Cottrell said.

“To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” he said. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

“In the Garden State, the usual approach is to confiscate first and ask questions later, and victims of this approach often don’t know their rights. ‎In this case, the victim pushed back and confiscation was avoided — but the circumstances surrounding the incident are outrageous. A student expressing concern over lack of security is not a reason to send police to the student’s home — but it might be a reason to send police to the school to keep students and teachers safe” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA board of directors.

NJ.com adds:

Cottrell, a disabled U.S. Army veteran who served three tours during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” owns a shotgun and a pistol. He has all the correct permits to own the firearms, he said, and predominately uses the shotgun to hunt.

He said his wife allowed the officers to enter the home, and with her permission, they searched his son’s room — but they did not find any weapons, he said. The officers, he said, didn’t have a warrant but still wanted to take his guns. Cottrell wouldn’t let them.

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” he said Thursday.

He said the attempted seizure resulted because of a new law Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law that makes it easier for police to confiscate guns when someone in the state poses a threat to themselves or others. The law is part of a broader statewide effort to make New Jersey’s gun laws even tougher amid the national outcry for more gun control in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Cottrell said the officers “danced around the issue” when he confronted them about the new law.

A New Jersey State Police spokesman declined to answer questions about whether this incident had anything to do with the new gun laws.

In an email, Sgt. First Class Jeff Flynn said, “Troopers responded to Mr. Cottrell’s residence in reference to the report of a possible school threat. Based on their investigation, it was determined that Mr. Cottrell’s weapons did not need to be seized.”

David Codrea, writing for Ammoland, further added:

To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” New Jersey gun owner and Army veteran Leonard Cottrell Jr. told New Jersey 101.5 after a June 14 visit from State Police,. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

Cottrell was recalling state troopers showing up at his door to confiscate firearms after his 13-year-old son was overheard discussing lax school safety with a friend.

Indoctrinated by a pervasive snitch culture — one that never seems to deter the blatantly obvious demonic nutjobs — the eavesdropping student told his parents, who told school administrators, who in turn called the cops. (Note “If you see something, say something” carries risks of its own – if you report the wrong person, you could end up smeared as a “hater.”)

“Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was ‘not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing,’” the report continued. Despite that, his home is now a “gun free zone” and that has been publicized by the media. He has, in fact, willingly ceded those rights, and by his own words in order to make authorities “happy.”

Before judging him for that, consider the environment that is New Jersey. Then consider the overwhelming force the state can bring to bear, and its predisposition to using it, especially if it’s to enforce citizen disarmament. It’s easy to anonymously declare “Molon Labe” on the internet. In meatspace, resistance is more effective when the aggressor doesn’t get to dictate the time and place, especially if that place is your home and you have family inside.

Appeasing gun-grabbers, generally couched as “compromise,” is impossible. It’s like throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and expecting them to be sated and leave you alone — instead of sensing opportunity and fear, and moving in closer.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service